Dhjsj

Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 to restore investor confidence by requiring public companies to strengthen corporate governance through several mechanisms, including enhanced disclosure on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (ICFR). As claimed by regulators, the disclosures on the effectiveness of ICFR are aimed at improving the quality of financial reporting, which would, in turn, reduce the information asymmetry for investors in U.S. capital markets” (Donaldson). Sarbanes- Oxley named after its creators, Senator Paul Sarbanes, D-Md and Congressman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio. Enacted in 2002 with the purpose to crack down on corporate fraud. The implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley led to the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to oversee the accounting industry. It was created to eliminate corporate fraud, and it put in place a ban on company loans to executives while also giving job protection to whistleblowers. Before SOX was put into place the accounts were a self-regulated profession, such as medical professionals and lawyers. This is what led to the fraudulent actions of major institutions, people can be greedy, and they need checks and balances to ensure the fidelity of the firm. There are criminal enhanced penalties for corporate fraud and related misdeeds, this brings justice to the sector as well as working as a deterrent for additional immoral

However, the author argues that these audits have become increasingly ineffective. Identify and discuss at least three reasons why these audits are becoming less effective.

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.

According to Terry Sheridan, in the article, SOX Compliance is Still a Challenge- and Costly- for Many Companies, she states that “Aside from external audit fees,

However, the application of SOX has brought on regulations that public companies must put in place and follow to prohibit these unethical occurrences. One major advantage for associated with SOX is that more thorough audits are being conducted by auditing firms. Audits being conducted more thoroughly will provide accuracy and an increased reliability of financial data. This will affect taxes in a positive way and provide firms with an advantage. Causholli, Chambers, and Payne (2014) suggest that prior to the implementation of SOX in 2002, “an auditor’s opportunity to sell additional non-audit services in the subsequent year, coupled with the client’s willingness to buy services, intensified the economic bond between auditor and client, in turn reducing auditor independence and the quality of financial reporting” (p.681). The regulation of auditor provided non-audit tax services has increased the reliability of tax and financial reporting within companies. Seetharaman, Sun, and Wang (2011) explain that “in a post-Sarbanes-Oxley environment, the benefits of auditor-provided non-audit tax services (NATS) seem to manifest themselves in higher quality tax-related financial statement management assertions” (p. 677).

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,

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).

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,

SOX requirements reduce fraud and increase corporate governance across both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. The SOX Act’s requirements changed corporate governance in many ways (Maleske,

The main purpose of this research proposal will be to focusing on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act also known as SOX which was enacted on the 30th July 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was named after the two benefactors which are U.S Senator Paul Sarbanes and U.S Representative Michael Garver Oxley. This act was established after several high profile accounting scandals which occurred in the United States such as Worldcom and Enron the aim was to prevent such cases from occurring again in the future. To put the

The complete destruction of companies including Arthur Andersen, HealthSouth, and Enron, revealed a significant weakness in the United States audit system. The significant weakness is the failure to deliver true independence between the auditors and their clients. In each of these companies there was deviation from professional rules of conduct resulting from the pressures of clients placed upon their auditors (Goldman, and Barlev 857-859). Over the years, client and auditor relationships were intertwined tightly putting aside the unbiased function of auditors. Auditor careers depended on the success of their client (Kaplan 363-383). Auditors found themselves in situations that put their profession in a questionable time driving them to

Lindberg and Beck (2002) claim that auditor independence is hailed as the “cornerstone” in the accounting profession as it is the core reason as to why the public trusts their professional opinion. However, since 2000, many accounting fraud scandals have negatively impacted public opinion on the legitimacy of the audit profession and, if in fact, its independence is uninfluenced by other parties. One of the scandals being the sudden collapse of Enron, given that a few months prior its bankruptcy its auditors Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accounting firms, claimed that Enron was financially healthy, but in fact they were paid off

Cable provider Adelphia was one of the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s that led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A key provision of the Act was to create a stronger ethical climate in the auditing profession, a consequence of the apparent role that auditors played in some of the scandals. SOX mandated that auditors cannot audit the same companies for which they provide consulting services, as this link was perceived to result in audit teams being pressured to perform lax audits in order to secure more consulting business from the clients. There were other provisions in SOX that increased the regulatory burden on the auditing profession in response to lax auditing practices in scandals like Adelphia (McConnell & Banks, 2003). This paper will address the Adelphia scandal as it relates to the auditors, and the deontological ethics of the situation.

For these reasons, corporate financial accounts do not provide accurate or sufficient information to corporate managers, investors, or regulators. This leads us to recommend that the SEC allow each stock exchange to set the accounting standards for all firms listed on that exchange and to promote the development of industry-specific non-financial accounts to complement the financial accounts (After Enron 53). The most important lesson of the Enron collapse is that every link in the audit chain including: the audit committee and the board, the independent public auditor, the bankers and lawyers that aided and abetted the misrepresentation of Enron’s financial condition, the credit-rating agencies, and the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to deter, detect, and correct the conditions that led to that collapse. Although not a part of the formal audit chain, most of the market specialists in Enron stock and the business press were also late in recognizing Enron’s financial weakness (Corporate Aftershocks 12).