Business Operations: Financial Issues

In this paper, we will be discussing how Sarbanes Oxley has affected the American business and if it has accomplished its goals. The goal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) is to convey confidence in the stock exchange, but it does not defer all immoral activities that take place on the stock exchange. People no matter the law, are responsible for the quality of their work and are accountable for the integrity of themselves and their company. Their own ethical values can take precedence over those set by Sarbanes-Oxley. Not all values are equal in quality, and a person may go above the rules delegated by Sarbanes-Oxley, however, there is another side. Sarbanes-Oxley has created a fear among business practitioners that this new set of standards

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act and the Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act, was signed into law on July 30, 2002, by President George W. Bush as a direct response to the corporate financial scandals of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International (Arens & Elders, 2006; King & Case, 2014;Rezaee & Crumbley, 2007). Fraudulent financial activities and substantial audit failures like those of Arthur Andersen and Ernst and Young had destroyed public trust and investor confidence in the accounting profession. The debilitating consequences of these perpetrators and their crimes summoned a massive effort by the government and the accounting profession to fight all forms of corruption through regulatory, legal, auditing, and accounting changes.

SOX enactment is an act that was formulated as a result of corporate scandals from Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and Tyco. However, Congress succumbed to pressure from the public for the government to take action about the unethical behavior of company executives of publicly –traded companies. Thus, the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was to restore the integrity and public confidence in financial markets. During these scandals, there were flagrant disregard to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). For example, according to Washington Post (2005), WorldCom

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was implemented and designed to “protect the interests of the investing public” and the “mission is to set and enforce practice standards for a new class of firms registered to audit publicly held companies” (Verschoor, 2012). During the early 2000 's, the world saw an alarming number of accounting scandals take place resulting in many corporations going bankrupt. Some of the major companies involved in these scandals were from Enron, WorldCom, and one of the top five accounting and auditing firms, Arthur Andersen. These companies were dishonest with their financial statements, assuring the public the company was very successful, when in reality they were not. This became a problem because if the public believes a company is doing well, they are more likely to invest in it. That is to say, once these companies were exposed, it caused a number of companies going bankrupt and a major mistrust between the public and the capital market. Consequently, the federal government quickly took action and enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, also known as SOX, which was created by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Many have questioned what Norman Bowie (2004) had questioned,

Senators Paul Sarbanes and Michael Oxley were the sponsors of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which represented a tremendous change to federal securities law. The act was signed into law by president George W. Bush who described it as “the most far reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt1.” After the financial scandals implicating Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing, the public needed to restore their trust in the public financial statements of the companies and that’s where the SOX Act of 2002 came into place. The act is composed of eleven titles which require numerous reforms to prevent accounting fraud, increase corporate responsibilities, among others.

The Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 is the most important piece of legislation since the 1933 and 34 securities exchange act, affecting everything from corporate governance to the accounting industry and much more. This law was in direct response to the failure of corporate governance at Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. The Sarbanes - Oxley seeks to bring back the confidence in all publicly held corporations to the shareholders, while placing more responsibility on CEOs and CFOs for the actions of the corporation. "Sarbanes - Oxley is more than just another piece of legislation - it has become synonymous with a new culture of corporate accountability and reform1." The SOX, as it has come to be known, covers a myriad amount of corporate

Congress established the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is otherwise called the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, in the beginning of corporate and accounting scandals that prompted liquidations, serious stock misfortunes, and a loss of trust in stocks (Batten, 2010). The demonstration forces new obligations on corporate administration and criminal authorizes on those supervisors who spurn the law, and it

In the article “SOX- Context and Theory: Market Failure, Information Asymmetry & The case for regulation …volume 9(3), Professor Jasso argued that Sarbanes Oxley Act is a principle that be used only for the “ethical and moral boardroom in the public corporation”, however, it is intensely more than that (Jasso, 1). In other words, Professor Jasso had many reasons to proof that the act itself had made a positive impact to the financial and managerial accounting since the ‘July 30, 2002’ (Jasso, 1). He described how SOX had made

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was passed by Congress in 2002 as a response to large corporate accounting fraud scandals that resulted from blatant abuse of self-regulation. SOX “is the most far-reaching and significant new federal regulatory statute affecting accountants and governance since the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934” (Wegman, 2007). The main goal of SOX was to protect investors from fraud by strengthening oversight and improving internal control. In the discussion below are the advantages and disadvantages of SOX as well as an opinion regarding how successful, or unsuccessful, the SOX regulations were for the prevention of fraud and protection of small business.

There are various sections of SOX that deal with the criminal penalties that have to be undertaken based on certain misconducts as well as the need for the Securities and Exchange Commission to come up with necessary regulations. These are meant to define and determine the manner in which public corporations have to comply with the relevant laws that underline the course of their operations. . A number of major accounting and corporate malpractices had been reported to have been perpetuated by the management teams of WorldCom, Enron as well as Global Intersection. In this context, there is going to be a comparison and a contrast of the views of accountants and management in scope of SOX in internal regulation. In addition, there is going to be an analysis the manner in which the changes facilitated by the Act have affected accounting firms,

In the early 1990s, a young company named Enron was quickly moving up Fortune magazine’s chart of “America’s Most Innovative Company.” As the corporate world began to herald Enron as the next global leader in business, a dark secret loomed on the horizon of this great energy company. Aggressive entrepreneurs eager to push the company’s stock price higher and a series of fraudulent accounting procedures involving special purpose entities were about to be exposed. In early 2002, the United States Justice Department announced its intent to pursue a criminal investigation into the once mighty company, Enron.

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was created to address the reoccurrence the likes of the several major scandals of the past. The nature of those past years scandals made it clear that preventative measures was a possible way to prevent any future scandals. And the efficacy of Sarbanes Oxley Act, many people as well as companies believed that fraud is easy to prevent.

Enron’s ride is quite a phenomenon: from a regional gas pipeline trader to the largest energy trader in the world, and then back down the hill into bankruptcy and disgrace. As a matter of fact, it took Enron 16 years to go from about $10 billion of assets to $65 billion of assets, and 24 days to go bankruptcy. Enron is also one of the most celebrated business ethics cases in the century. There are so many things that went wrong within the organization, from all personal (prescriptive and psychological approaches), managerial (group norms, reward system, etc.), and organizational (world-class culture) perspectives. This paper will focus on the business ethics issues at Enron that were raised from the documentation Enron: The Smartest Guys

The development of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was a result of public company scandals. The Enron and Worldcom scandals, for example, helped investor confidence in entities traded on the public markets weaken during 2001 and 2002. Congress was quick to respond to the political crisis and "enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was signed into law by President Bush on July 30" (Edward Jones, 1), to restore investor confidence. In reference to SOX, penalties would be issued to non-ethical or non-law-abiding public companies and their executives, directors, auditors, attorneys, and securities analysts (1). SOX significantly transformed the procedures in which public companies handle internal

Business Industry has witnessed the outcomes of bad moral decisions taken by business leaders. Enron’s story is only one example of corporate scandals and cases of bad moral decisions, which has not only shaken the public trust in corporations, but also affected the bank accounts of investors and employees. Before the bankruptcy of Enron; it was included in one of the fortune 500 companies after its fraudulent accounting case the share went down to $1 (Enron scandal, 2010; PBS, 2002; Godwin, 2006; Godwin, 2008).