• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Is it time to water down Sarbanes-Oxley?

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Before posting a reply, please note that if all you're going to do is complain about evil CEOs wanting to get away with murder like in the good ol' days, click out of the thread. This is a discussion of whether this particular piece of legislation goes too far.

That said, let's see the article.

U.S. may lose financial lead, politicians warn
WASHINGTON - The Big Apple could soon lose some of its shine and the United States may see its prominence fade as the centre of the world's financial markets if Congress does not move quickly to water down onerous new accounting rules, two top New York politicians warned yesterday.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and federal Senator Charles Schumer from New York said the city's and the country's financial status is at risk because of post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley corporate-governance rules being imposed on companies trading on U.S. markets.

"We can no longer take our pre-eminence in the financial services industry for granted," the two said with the release of a report based on interviews with 50 chief executive officers and a survey, conducted by McKinsey & Co., of 305 other executives in the financial-services industry.

Sarbanes-Oxley, brought in 2002 after the spectacular collapses of Enron Corp. and Worldcom Inc. because of fraudulent accounting, is increasingly coming under fire for going too far in trying to rein in the seemingly unbridled frauds among some of the country's major corporations.

In recent months, Henry Paulson, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, John Thain, chief executive of the NYSE Group Inc. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have also called for changes to Sarbanes-Oxley, named after Paul Sarbanes, a Democratic senator from Maryland and Michael Oxley, a Republican House representative from Ohio. Both have since left office.

To avoid additional accounting costs of at least USUS$10 million faced under Sarbanes-Oxley, some publicly traded companies on U.S. exchanges are moving to bourses in Europe and elsewhere.

"We are beginning our fight on a legislative level and on an administrative level to keep New York No. 1," said Mr. Schumer. "We already are seeing the signs, early signs, of weakening of our job base and so much else that matters in New York."

There are already signs companies trading in the United States are fleeing to other jurisdictions to issue shares. The United States represented about 20% of all initial public offerings last year, down from 35% in 2001, according to the Financial Services Forum, which represents the country's largest banks and insurers.

In addition, a survey by the Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve showed that London extended its lead over New York as the world's leading market for currency trading last year, with a six-month average daily trading of US$1.06-trillion, compared with US$534-billion in New York.

Companies trading in the U.S. spent US$6-billion this year complying with the rules, according to a study by Boston-based AMR Research released in March.

Much of the concern focuses around smaller capitalized companies that have complained to Congress and U.S. regulators that the new rules -- they call for detailed accounting to eliminate fraud--cost too much.

The U.S. Securities Regulatory Commission has moved in recent weeks to ease some of the regulations, but both Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican and likely presidential candidate, and Mr. Schumer, a Democrat, said small companies should be permitted to "opt out" of certain provisions of the law as long as they disclose it to shareholders.

The SEC would not comment on the report's recommendations, except to say "We look forward to reviewing the report and its recommendations."

Not all agree the Sarbanes-Oxley law should be watered down.

The report "starts from a mistaken premise and reaches an erroneous conclusion," said Barbara Roper, director of investment programs for the Consumer Federation of America in Washington. "Investors come to our markets because we protect capital better than any other market in the world. If you start eroding those protections, you erode our best basis for competing."
Okay, so those of you in the fiscal sector, what do you think of Sarbanes-Oxley? Does it go too far? Should smaller companies be permitted to "opt out" of certain provisions, as long as shareholders are clearly notified? It's an interesting little development, and quite cross-party in nature. You'll note that Mayor Bloomberg (R) and Senator Schumer (D) are both on board with this.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
We definitely need to keep Sarbanes-Oxley. There are some parts that we could certainly modify.
And what is reported has been going on for some years. As the U.S. has become mature economy and U.S. dollars are flying out of the country, other markets have flourished. However, as the story accurately reports it is the very nature of our stringent accounting rules that cause the best and most stable companies to be in US markets.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
While I'm far from a conspiracy guy...

Sarbox is a joke meant only to fatten the wallets of accounting firms that had faced their own self created scandal.

So let's see....the auditing companies got shook up for their incorrect procedures and accountability. I know! Let's pass legislation that mandates business for the auditing companies!

It's a big, bad, joke.

IMHO, sarbox is nothing but guaranteed business for the big 4. Nothing more and nothing less.

-edit-
grammar.

-edit2-
A good friend of mine said it best....."sarbox is great! It guarantees me 250 an hour every hour of the year just to say 'you aren't compliant'."
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
I'm sure it will happen eventually, just look at the number of companies going private or compare the numbers of IPOs on US and European exchanges.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Yes, we do. The Economist had a great article about this about a month ago.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,786
6,345
126
I heard/read recently some analyst suggesting that London had already become the Financial World Leader, rather vague as that is. Interestingly and coincidently, in 2006 the Euro surpassed the $US for the first time in the amount issued. That might be just a one time thing, but if it's a trend the Euro will eventually replace the $US as the Global Currency, most likely.
 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
I work for a small division of a large corporation. We've had outside auditors in-house for the better part of 18-24 months. We even have an entire section of the office just for them. It has to be costing a fortune to keep 15-30 (varies from time to time) auditors working full time for 2 years just to make sure we comply with whatever rules are made up for the year.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Avg cost of compliance for the fortune 100 is 3.8 million from an article I read a month ago.

 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Avg cost of compliance for the fortune 100 is 3.8 million from an article I read a month ago.

Seems low IMHO.

Wanna join my conspiracy? 100 companies * 3.8M per year....

Well, you do the math.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Compare it to the losses from fraudulent activity before it was passed ?

If corporate slime have a new home in UK or EU, good riddance.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
My understanding is that Sarbanes-Oxley is not THE cause of lost US influence. It's merely a contributing factor and arguably not the most substantial one . . . just one more reason to go to London, Singapore, etc.

What I find far more compelling is the whole issue of big companies needing armies of auditors to 'fix' the books. The truth is that American corporate culture had basically become a playground where the field was covered with cash (domestic and foreign) that literally grew on trees. Accordingly, no one cared if the numbers were 'right' . . . just so long as the numbers delivered the 'right message'.

Sarbanes-Oxley is onerous in part b/c corporate America created a great big mess.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Seems to me it would draw more not less investors capital to US markets due to increased safeguards..
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Genx87
Avg cost of compliance for the fortune 100 is 3.8 million from an article I read a month ago.
Seems low IMHO.

Wanna join my conspiracy? 100 companies * 3.8M per year....

Well, you do the math.
Assuming average revenues of $10 billion, it represents an expense of 0.038%, i.e., one cent out of every $2,631.58. Less than a drop in the bucket. Companies dislike SOX because it is a pain in the butt and makes management personally accountable for their actions, not because it has a major financial impact.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Assuming average revenues of $10 billion, it represents an expense of 0.038%, i.e., one cent out of every $2,631.58. Less than a drop in the bucket. Companies dislike SOX because it is a pain in the butt and makes management personally accountable for their actions, not because it has a major financial impact.
[/quote]

Just where is that 3.8 million per company going?

That's my point. The auditing companies legistlated themselves guaranteed business. Don't you remember the big shake up of auditing companies and all the layoffs? They were sinking and needed something to generate revenue.

Hello sarbox.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Genx87
Avg cost of compliance for the fortune 100 is 3.8 million from an article I read a month ago.

Seems low IMHO.

Wanna join my conspiracy? 100 companies * 3.8M per year....

Well, you do the math.

I think your conspiracy does hold some merit.
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
I didn't even read the article, and according to your title, I think it needs to stay. There are nothing wrong with holding company and the people that are responsible for its financial well being responsible and report FACTUAL earnings.

So by reporting factual earnings, and in the process "losing financial glow", so be it. Internal fraud has so be accounted for, and that's not something that can be ignored. If they comply, the money that they can potentially save from exposing these fraud cases are more than enough to pay for the process. Why in the world would anyone want a shiny shell with no substance?

Yes, compliancy to Sarbox is a bit stiff, but once they find a repeatable solution, the figure is almost only the initial cost. With all fortune 100 (I'll even give you global 2000), 3.8 mil is what they spend a year on toilet papers (give or take a few). Please don't give me that "hardship" argument crap.

Edit: Oh, and for those of you that don't know, Sarbox applies to ALL global companies that are publicly traded on the NYSE. So, doesn't really matter where they're HQ or their Execs move to.

Edit 2: Basically, "politicians" want other EnRons, where they can get paid and their buddies not jailed. If anything, the financial market will gain stability and new investors with confidence.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Edit: Oh, and for those of you that don't know, Sarbox applies to ALL global companies that are publicly traded on the NYSE. So, doesn't really matter where they're HQ or their Execs move to.

Isnt that kind of the point of the article? Companies are not trading themselves on the NYSE anymore and moving overseas.

 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
Originally posted by: Genx87
Edit: Oh, and for those of you that don't know, Sarbox applies to ALL global companies that are publicly traded on the NYSE. So, doesn't really matter where they're HQ or their Execs move to.

Isnt that kind of the point of the article? Companies are not trading themselves on the NYSE anymore and moving overseas.

Out of curiosity, I clicked on the so-called article, and it's worthless.

Just so you know, other nations are adapting their own versions of Sarbox, so that means it doesn't matter where they go, there will be accountability and responsibility. In China, it could mean a mobile execution van to the exec that's found guilty of fraud.

Be glad that we started the whole thing. In the long run, Sarbox will be good for the financial markets. No more darts throwing, no more speculating, and absolutely no more embezzling.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Assuming average revenues of $10 billion, it represents an expense of 0.038%, i.e., one cent out of every $2,631.58. Less than a drop in the bucket. Companies dislike SOX because it is a pain in the butt and makes management personally accountable for their actions, not because it has a major financial impact.
Just where is that 3.8 million per company going?
It goes to a mix of internal systems & compliance resources and external auditors.


That's my point. The auditing companies legistlated themselves guaranteed business. Don't you remember the big shake up of auditing companies and all the layoffs? They were sinking and needed something to generate revenue.

Hello sarbox.
While I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy, I prefer at least some evidence to support it. Correlation does not prove causation.

It's certainly possible the big accounting firms had influence on some of the specifics of SOX. It wouldn't surprise me, but I've seen nothing supporting your suggestion they were a significant driver. If you suspect otherwise, do some digging, find out more about their lobbying and contributions, put some substance behind your innuendo.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I think we should have tiered reporting standards. Companies can pick the standard they want to report with, then investors can decide if they trust their money to a company that is reporting using a lower tier standard or Sarbox compliant top tier. For example, pension funds may demand the highest standard and only buy compliant stocks, but speculators may be OK with a simplified lower tier standard.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Now, who audits the accounting firms for their compliance? Are they not public , with stockholders?
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Now, who audits the accounting firms for their compliance? Are they not public , with stockholders?

They use the same tools for compliancy as they would on corporations, without the astronomical bill :p. The conspiracy of they (the auditing companies) lobby for this regulation is flat out false. Here's your disprove: no one own the audit market or has monopoly of it.

The big auditors such as PWC, Kroll, D&T, etc... all compete for the same customers, and there is billion dollars market in this space. Quick, go start your own company.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
I think we should have tiered reporting standards. Companies can pick the standard they want to report with, then investors can decide if they trust their money to a company that is reporting using a lower tier standard or Sarbox compliant top tier. For example, pension funds may demand the highest standard and only buy compliant stocks, but speculators may be OK with a simplified lower tier standard.


Here's a better idea. Print up special money for speculators, make it pink like Monopoly money, then keep their money out of the normal people's economy.

 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: SSSnail
I didn't even read the article, and according to your title, I think it needs to stay. There are nothing wrong with holding company and the people that are responsible for its financial well being responsible and report FACTUAL earnings.

So by reporting factual earnings, and in the process "losing financial glow", so be it. Internal fraud has so be accounted for, and that's not something that can be ignored. If they comply, the money that they can potentially save from exposing these fraud cases are more than enough to pay for the process. Why in the world would anyone want a shiny shell with no substance?

Yes, compliancy to Sarbox is a bit stiff, but once they find a repeatable solution, the figure is almost only the initial cost. With all fortune 100 (I'll even give you global 2000), 3.8 mil is what they spend a year on toilet papers (give or take a few). Please don't give me that "hardship" argument crap.

Edit: Oh, and for those of you that don't know, Sarbox applies to ALL global companies that are publicly traded on the NYSE. So, doesn't really matter where they're HQ or their Execs move to.

Edit 2: Basically, "politicians" want other EnRons, where they can get paid and their buddies not jailed. If anything, the financial market will gain stability and new investors with confidence.

Go through what I go through on a monthly basis and your opinion may change. There are other ways of holding the company responsible other than nitpicking every single transaction (slight exaggeration, but it's the worst part of my job).