Analysis Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

Prior to the advent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, referred to herein as “SOX,” the board of directors’ pivotal role was to advise senior leaders on the organization’s strategy, business model, and succession planning (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Additionally, the board had the responsibility for risk management identification and risk mitigation oversight, determining executive benefits, and approval of significant acquisitions (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Furthermore, for many public organizations, audit committees existed before SOX and provided oversight of internal processes and controls. Melissa Maleske (2012) advised that the roles and responsibilities of the board were viewed “…from a perspective that the board serves management” (p. 2). In contrast, Maleske (2012) noted that SOX regulations altered the landscape “…to a perspective that management is working for the board” (p. 2). SOX expanded not only the duties of the board and the audit committee, but also the authority of these bodies (Maleske, 2012, p. 2).

White collar crime has been around for ages. Today more and more news stories can be found where the elite, the top executives of fortune 500 companies, are being prosecuted for participating in illegal activities. It was hoped that the passing of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2001 after the Enron debacle would reduce the amount of illegal acts being committed in corporate America. The Sarbanes Oxley act makes executives personally responsible for their activities requiring top management to sign off on financial statements stating they are true and accurate and these executives can face jail time for committing fraudulent acts. Unfortunately, immorality in business is still running rampant. One illegal practice we see happening in

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted to bring back public trust in markets. Building trust requires ethics within organizations. Through codes of ethics, organizations are put in line to conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public trust. Through defining a code of ethics, organizations can follow, market becomes fair for investors to have confidence in the integrity of the disclosures and financial reports given to them. The code of ethics include “the promotion of honest and ethical conduct, requiring disclosure on the codes that apply to senior financial officers, and including provisions to encourage whistle blowing” (A Business Ethics Perspective on Sarbanes Oxley and the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was signed into law from public demand for a reform. Even though there are some criticism about it, the act still stands to prevent and punish corporate fraud and malpractice.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 – its official name being “Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002” – is

On July 30, 2002, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was signed into law by President Bush. "The Act mandated some reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud" (SEC.Gov. 2013 P. 1). The SOX Act also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in response to numerous failures of the profession to fulfill its trusted role; to oversee the activities of the auditing profession (SEC.Gov, 2013. The auditing of financial statements is required for the protection of public investors; however the question that arises is whether or not all PCAOB members should be taken from the investments communities that use audited financial statements. The remaining of this

I think that the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) has been feasible in managing tricky financial reporting from major corporations. It has a much lower influence on the misappropriation of benefits. No law or Act have the ability to cover all human predisposition to endeavor relationships with good offense. The law made it harder to quote out of context the association's cash related affairs and made the results more extraordinary (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). SOX have increased auditor’s vigilance and tightened management's responsibility for reporting misappropriating assets (Church & Shefchik, 2012). Here are two reasons I trust SOX was successful. First, this Act was powerful enough to cause chief executives to consider money

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was a piece of legislation enacted by the United States Congress with the intent “to improve corporate governance and restore faith of investors” (Hanna, 2014). I have studied this act in my accounting courses, and the primary reason the act seems to have been implemented is due to the various accounting scandals involving major corporations at the time, such as Enron and WorldCom (Hanna, 2014). The United States economy was still recovering from the dot-com bubble that burst in the late 1990s (Hanna, 2014), and a mild recession that occurred during 2001. Thus, the major accounting scandals that were causing large corporations to fold further shook investor confidence. In my opinion, if it weren’t for this act, many investors would have abandoned the stock market permanently or at least restricted their investments to highly conservative blue chip companies, hindering the ability for other companies to raise capital for growth.

This research paper endeavors to expose how the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002 might have led to the accountability of holding corporate executives for their actions in the past and also in the future. The paper will examine and explore the genesis of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as well as give details on the act’s relationship to the ethics of the institution and the persons who work and manage the institution. The paper also proceeds to discuss different corporations around the globe that have been endorsed with the Sarbanes- Oxley Act and their subsequent benefits and demerits as opined by different individuals. The paper shall prove to be a relevant tool for any administrator managing a public company. Anyone going through this

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, also known as SOX, was enacted in response to several corporate and accounting scandals with the goal of restoring investor confidence in the financial statements of public companies. It is a U.S. federal law covering such issues as auditor independence, corporate governance, evaluation of internal controls and greater financial disclosure. SOX also set new or expanded requirements for the board of all public companies, management or public accounting firms in the U.S. It outlines the obligations of the board of directors for public companies, adds criminal penalties for certain transgressions and required the Securities and Exchange Commission to establish regulations to specify how corporations will conform

After major corporate accounting scandals, especially from Enron and WorldCom, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. It is a United States federal law that set corporate governance over U.S. Public Companies. The bill contains eleven sections which hold a public corporation’s board of directors’ accountable, created criminal penalties for certain misconduct, and created regulations to define how public corporations are to comply with the law. Even though it was enacted almost fifteen years ago there is still debate and controversy. Even now there is talk about Congressional Republicans aiming to loosen a provision of Sarbanes-Oxley, which was introduced in the Financial Choice Act by Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), the chairman of the

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was designed to create oversight and decrease the amount of corruption in the accounting industry. The Article includes a number of provisions dealing with financial reporting, conflicts of interest, corporate ethics and the oversight of the accounting profession, as well as establishing new civil and criminal penalties.

After a prolonged length of corporate scandals involving big public businesses from 2000 to 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act changed into enacted in July 2002 to restore buyers' self-belief in markets and near loopholes for public groups to defraud traders. The act had a profound effect on company governance within the country. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires public groups to bolster audit committees, carry out inner controls assessments, set personal liability of directors and officers for accuracy of financial statements, and enhance disclosure. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also establishes stricter crook consequences for securities fraud and changes how public accounting companies operate their corporations.

While researching whether or not The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was the correct decision at the time, there was no lack of information to be found. There are thousands of conflicting articles on both sides of the isle. My thought is, although it has brought to light the need for a higher ethical standard within the accounting industry, to task the government the job of regulating morality simply does not work.

It’s difficult to say if executive compensation at current levels are unethical. I fully understand that fact that some positions are salary based, hold more responsibility, and are more liable when there is a conflict, but I do not agree with the amounts in which they are compensated. When a company sets large compensation rewards for only certain levels it limits the income or assets to award lower levels employees. One must consider that each employee is a cog/gear within a machine and if not maintained properly or replace then problems come about with the functionally to operate. I believe that once an employee has retained so many years of employment there should be some type of compensation. I would recommend that after each third year a

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in July 30, 2002, by Congress to protect shareholders and the general public from fraudulent corporate practices and accounting errors and to maintain auditor independence.   In protecting the shareholders and the general public the SOX Act is intended to improve the transparency of the financial reporting.   Financial reports are to be certified by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) creating increased responsibility and independence with auditing by independent audit firms. In discussing the SOX Act, we will focus on how this act affects the CEOs; CFOs; outside independent audit firms; the advantages and a