The Implementation Of The Sarbanes Oxley Act Accounting Essay

Teriahn Cooper


We will write a custom essay sample on
The Implementation Of The Sarbanes Oxley Act Accounting Essay
or any similar topic only for you
Order now

Dr. Kimberly Byrd


Ever since President George W. Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 into being seven old ages, it feels like it has been a irritant in the side of Corporate America for eons. While the United States lawgivers who created it had really good purposes, the costs for corporations to implement, keep, and execute to the rigorous criterions has been astronomical. The fiscal load SOX has caused so many companies has many experts inquiring if the benefits outweigh the heavy monetary value tickets associated with it.

The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 is the merchandise of co-sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland and Representative Michael G. Oxley of Ohio. The Sarbanes Oxley Act, besides known in the Senate as the “ Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act ” and in the House as the “ Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act ” is besides normally called Sarbanes-Oxley, Sarbox or SOX. It is a United States federal jurisprudence that was enacted on July 30, 2002, which set new or enhanced criterions for all U.S. public company boards, direction and public accounting houses.

The measure was enacted as a reaction to a figure of major corporate and accounting dirts including those impacting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. “ A assortment of complex factors created the conditions and civilization in which a series of big corporate frauds occurred between 2000 and 2002. The dramatic, highly-publicized frauds at Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco exposed important jobs with struggles of involvement and incentive compensation patterns. The analysis of their complex and combative root causes contributed to the transition of SOX in 2002 ” ( Farrell, 2005 ) .

Corporate dirts cost investors one million millions of dollars when the portion monetary values of affected companies collapsed, agitate public assurance in the state ‘s securities markets. “ The Enron dirt profoundly influenced the development of new ordinances to better the dependability of fiscal coverage, and increased public consciousness about the importance of holding accounting criterions that show the fiscal world of companies and the objectiveness and independency of scrutinizing houses ” ( Ayala, & A ; Giancarlo, 2006 ) . “ One effect of these events was the transition of Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, as a consequence of the first admittances of deceitful behaviour made by Enron. The act significantly raises condemnable punishments for securities fraud, for destroying,

neutering, or manufacturing records in federal probes or any strategy or effort to victimize stockholders ” ( Cohen, Dey, & A ; Lys, 2005, p. 5 ) . The Sarbanes Oxley Act contains 11 different subdivisions called “ rubrics ” runing from extra corporate board responsibilities to criminal punishments, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) to implement opinions on demands to follow with the new jurisprudence. The 11 rubrics are: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ( PCAOB ) ; Auditor Independence ; Corporate Responsibility ; Enhanced Financial Disclosures ; Analyst Conflicts of Interest ; Commission Resources and Authority ; Surveies and Reports ; Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability ; White Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement ; Corporate Tax Returns ; and Corporate Fraud Accountability.

Some of the sensed jobs unearthed by the Senate Banking Committee taking to the transition of SOX included: unequal inadvertence of comptrollers, deficiency of hearer independency, weak corporate administration processs, stock analysts ‘ struggle of involvements, unequal revelation commissariats, and grossly unequal support of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Prior to SOX, scrutinizing houses, the primary fiscal “ watchdogs ” for investors, were self-regulated. They besides performed important non-audit or consulting work for the companies they audited. Many of these confer withing understandings were far more moneymaking than the auditing battle. This presented at least the visual aspect of a struggle of involvement. As an illustration, CPAs with Arthur Anderson, continually looked the other manner while scrutinizing Enron ‘s histories as they did non desire to endanger possible hereafter consulting contracts which were worth more than the auditing fees presently being generated.

Another job identified by the Senate Banking Committee which helped to set up the demand for implementing new accounting criterions concerned audit commissions. Audit commissions on Boardss of Directors, were charged with set uping oversight mechanisms for fiscal coverage in U.S. corporations on the behalf of investors. The Enron, WorldCom and Tyco dirts identified Board members who either did non exert their duties or did non hold the expertness to understand the complexnesss of the concerns. In many instances, audit commission members were non truly independent of direction.

As a consequence of the aforesaid struggles, the relationship between accounting houses and their publically held audit clients dramatically differs under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The undermentioned alterations for hearers are as a direct consequence of the transition of SOX ; get downing with the fact that hearers will describe to and be overseen by a company ‘s audit commission. These audit commissions must pre-approve all audit and non-audit services provided by their hearers. Hearers must describe new information to the audit commission, including “ critical accounting policies and patterns to be used, alternate interventions of fiscal information within GAAP that have been discussed with direction, accounting dissensions between the hearer and direction, and other relevant communications between the hearer and direction ” ( McDermott, 2010 ) . The Sarbanes-Oxley Act statutorily prohibits hearers from offering certain non-audit services to scrutinize clients. These services include: “ clerking, information systems design and execution, assessments or rating services, actuarial services, internal audits, direction and human resources services, broker/dealer and investing banking services, legal or adept services unrelated to scrutinize services and other services the PCAOB determines by regulation

to be impermissible ” ( McDermott, 2010 ) . Furthermore, the lead audit spouse and 2nd or reexamining spouse must be rotated every five old ages on public company battles. An accounting house will non be able to supply audit services to a public company if one of that

company ‘s top functionaries ( CEO, Controller, CFO, Chief Accounting Officer, etc. ) was employed by the house and worked on the company ‘s audit during the old twelvemonth.

Sarbanes-Oxley stopping points two legal and ethical loopholes that have been used in the yesteryear to victimize investors. It requires fiscal statements to be free non merely of falsities, but besides of misdirecting skips. Fiscal statements must besides describe off-balance sheet information if it is relevant to the company ‘s fiscal position. Company officers are required to subscribe these studies, forestalling them from alleviating themselves of duty for inaccuracies and fraud by indicating to the accounting section or pleading ignorance. Issuers of fiscal statements must describe on the internal controls designed to promote accurate fiscal coverage. If there is an inauspicious fiscal alteration, companies are now required to describe these alterations shortly after they occur. Under the Sarbanes Oxley Act, stiff prison sentences are now mandated for “ anyone who destroys, fells, or alters paperss or objects for the intent of blockading justness, including deliberately misfiling paperss so that they are hard to happen.

Argument continues over the sensed benefits and costs of SOX. Supporters contend the statute law was necessary and has played a utile function in reconstructing public assurance in the state ‘s capital markets by, among other things, beef uping corporate accounting controls. Oppositions of the measure claim it has reduced America ‘s international competitory border against foreign fiscal service suppliers, stating SOX has introduced an excessively complex regulative environment into U.S. fiscal markets. Another concern is whether the cost of following with ordinances has driven concerns in general – and little houses in peculiar – to go forth the public capital market and “ travel private. ” “ Harmonizing to a RAND Corporation study, the leaning for little public companies to be purchased by private houses, which are non capable to Sarbanes-

Oxley, increased by 53 per centum during the first twelvemonth. The estimation was calculated comparative to similar foreign companies, which are besides non capable to Sarbanes-Oxley ” ( Karaca-Mandic, & A ; Kamar, 2006 ) .

Many little concern proprietors are concerned about the subdivision of the Sarbanes Oxley Act which requires publicly-traded companies to engage third-party hearers. The cost of following with SOX 404 impacts smaller companies disproportionately, as there is a important fixed cost involved in finishing the appraisal. “ During 2004 U.S. companies with grosss transcending $ 5 billion spent 0.06 % of gross on SOX conformity, while companies with less than $ 100 million in gross spent 2.55 % ” ( ) . Those concerns argue the jurisprudence should relieve some smaller concerns, who they say ca n’t afford the costs to follow. Randall Griffin, President of Corporate Offices Property Trust in Columbia, Maryland says, “ Small publically traded concerns deserve the [ particular ] intervention because it takes clip and resources, even extra employees, to make full in needed paperwork, with entire costs estimated at about $ 1 million ” ( Hopkins, 2006 ) . “ [ If ] It costs a company a million dollars excess ; you have to be able to manage that, ” Griffin said. He went on to state, “ It forces the smaller companies to either grow, to unify or to travel private. You ca n’t remain little and absorb those costs ” ( Hopkins, 2006 ) . One of the ailments is that the jurisprudence assumed excessively much ; that all concerns will perpetrate the same offenses absent authorities monitoring. “ Not everyone who operates a public company is involved in accounting issues, ” said Lawrence Pemble, Executive Vice President of Bethesda-based Chindex International. “ To enforce this degree of demand on everyone, for some people it ‘s non such a immense issue, but for us it is a immense issue. We have no option but to follow. ” ( Hopkins, 2006 ) .

Strictly talking, the demands and prohibitions contained in Sarbanes Oxley do non impact non-profit-making entities in the same mode that they impact for-profit entities. However, there are two commissariats applicable to all companies across the board. They are the commissariats associating to condemnable liability for papers devastation and for revenge against whistle blowers. While about all of the commissariats of the Sarbanes Oxley Act use to publicly traded corporations, the transition of the measure got the attending of the full not-for-profit community every bit good. “ Sarbanes-Oxley has caused non-profit-making leaders to concentrate upon “ good administration ” and reexamine the patterns of the non-profit-making entities, including ( I ) the adequateness of internal controls on fiscal affairs, ( two ) the effectivity of board commissions, ( three ) the apprehension of fiducial responsibilities, and ( four ) the importance of struggles of involvement policies ” ( DeLucia, 2004 ) .

Several province legislative assemblies have passed or are sing statute law incorporating elements of the Sarbanes Oxley Act to be applied to non-profit-making organisations. Even if non mandated by jurisprudence, non-profit-making leaders should look carefully at the commissariats outlined in the Sarbanes Oxley Act and voluntarily follow these patterns. “ Regardless of the present range of bing and possible new statute law at the province and federal degree, non-profit-making organisations have heard the wake-up call. For all of us in the sector, the Sarbanes Oxley Act spearheaded a renewed realisation that non-profit-making organisations rely on -and must protect- the indispensable and univocal assurance and trust

of our components. Self-regulation and proactive behaviour will ever turn out more powerful than mandatory regard of Torahs ” ( Board Source, 2006 ) .

In many cases, not-for-profits have already voluntarily altered patterns and adoptive policies in response to SOX. Some of the recommendations for not-for-profits include: conducting outside audits, set uping at least one fiscal commission, altering hearers every five old ages, following GAAP guidelines, and endeavoring for greater revelation and transparence. All non-profit-making organisations that behavior outside audits, peculiarly medium to big organisations, should see organizing an audit commission and should divide the audit commission from the finance commission. Further, the audit commission should be composed of persons who are non compensated for their service on this commission and do non hold a fiscal involvement in, or any other struggle of involvement with, any entity making concern with the organisation.

The execution of the Sarbanes Oxley Act has created a new system of cheques and balances that will hold a important and durable impact on corporate America every bit good as on independent public comptrollers. However, it will take a mentality and attitude alteration to diminish the incidents of fraud. “ SOA conformity will non by itself guarantee that corporate dirts do non repeat. Legislation seldom stops unethical Acts of the Apostless or immoral behaviour ; instead, it provides a manner to cover with such behaviour within the legal system. Individual professionals and business peoples have an tremendous interest in forestalling future corporate dirts ” ( Koestenbaum, Keys, & A ; Weirich, 2005 ) . Ideally, the Board of Directors should advance ethical behavior that permeates the corporate civilization and saturates down through direction to the bosom of the company which is the employees. “ A major determiner of such a proactive ethical environment is strong, high-

quality leading provided by senior executives. “ We need a new concern theoretical account in which moralss and profitableness are treated as complementary instead than as reciprocally sole ” ( Koestenbaum, Keys, & A ; Weirich, 2005 ) . Such an environment would ideally discourage misconduct before it takes topographic point instead than penalizing it after the harm has been done.


Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out