The Disadvantages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

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

Sarbanes –Oxley Act, enacted by the United States congress is aimed at protecting investors. The protection is provided by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures.

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.

The purpose of this memo is to provide you with information on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX Act) and to describe the importance of its implementation, per your request. The SOX Act was first introduced in the house as the “Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002” by Michael Oxley on February 14, 2002. Paul Sarbanes, a Democrat U.S. Senator, collaborated with Mr. Oxley, a Republican US Senator, creating significant bipartisan support. The SOX Act was enacted by the end of July 2002 in response to recent corporate accounting scandals. The twin scandals that were impetus for the legislation involved the corporations of Enron and 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,

The act identifies and assigns accountability to those who knowingly falsify documents and it clearly states the consequences for acting outside the defined standard, relating to corporate governance. Using case studies we will review how the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is helping to standardized a code of conduct and how it has increased the awareness of corporate responsibility. First, we will review the definitions of corporate governance, business ethics and corporate responsibility. Next, we will examine the effectiveness of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, through a case study and identify possible challenges the Sarbanes-Oxley Act may face, as public demand for social responsibility increases. Finally, we will review proactive recommendations for provisions to key titles of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These provisions will accommodate the growing public demand for ethical and social responsibility.

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

Prior to the 2002 scandal of Enron, the standards for financial reporting were much more relax than the regulations that businesses encounter today. The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002(SOX) came into play as a response to the unruly financial reporting to the public from companies such as Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco and WorldCom. The public scandals created insecurities for any American to invest in big companies, due to fear of additional fraud encounters. The Sarbanes Oxley Act was enacted to try create some trust between these big companies and the hardworking individuals who were investing in them. The fraud scandals were front page news stories and the government hoped that passing this legislation

As a result of SOX, top management must individually certify the accuracy of financial information. In addition, penalties for fraudulent financial activity are much more severe. Also, SOX increased the oversight role of boards of directors and the independence of the outside auditors who review the accuracy of corporate financial statements.[1]

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.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a game changer for corporations all across the United States. Prior to Sarbanes-Oxley Act, big name companies such as Enron, Kmart and Tyco were more inclined to have fraudulent activities happen internally. Having all these issues arise during the last decades, Congress was anxious to act and create Sarbanes-Oxley Act with the intentions to protect investors and have strict reforms to deter internal financial frauds from occurring again. Although, this reform has had a great amount of success in achieving its goals, it also has some holes that were not well though out, when it comes to the entirety of it. The main problem with Sarbanes-Oxley is the cost it has on smaller companies, which shifted the power from the investors and into the auditors. (Prince, 2005)

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passes in 2002 in response to a handful of large corporate scandals that occurred between the years 2000 to 2002, resulting in the losses of billions of dollars by investors. Enron, Worldcom and Tyco are probably the most well known companies that were involved in these scandals, but there were a number of other companies guilty of such things as well. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed as a way to crackdown on corporations by setting new and improved standards that all United States’ public companies and accounting firms were and are required to abide by. It also works to hold top level executives accountable for the company, and if fraudulent behaviors are discovered then the executives could find themselves in hot water. The punishments for such fraudulence could be as serious as 20 years jail time. (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The primary motivation for the act was to prevent future scandals from happening, or at least, make it much more difficult for them to happen. The act was also passed largely to protect the people—the shareholders—from corporations, their executives, and their boards of directors. Critics tend to argue that the act is to complicated, and costs to much to abide by, leading to the United States losing its “competitive edge” in the global marketplace (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The Sarbanes-Oxley act, like most things, has its pros and cons. It is costly; studies have shown that this act has cost companies millions of

The Sarbanes Oxley Act came to existence after numerous scandals on financial misappropriation and inaccurate accounting records. The nature of scandals made it clear there are possible measure that could be used to prevent future occurrence of financial scandals. And the existence and effectiveness of Sarbanes Oxley has caused

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