Research Proposal The Quality of financial Reporting after the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley Act Dr. Hassan Ahmed Assistant Professor at Cameron University
Abstract The complexity of business environment necessitates a set of required disclosures in a timely fashion. The full disclosure principle under U.S. GAAP is based on a vague definition that cannot be clearly implemented. The cost of disclosures can be significantly large and can have a negative impact on companies’ future earnings (small businesses). The purpose of this article is to examine the disclosure establishment of pre and post Enron, the effect of those disclosures on both corporations and on potential investors and to examine whether financial reporting quality
…show more content…
Arthur Levitt’s top priority throughout his tenure with SEC was, to protect potential investors. Mr. Levitt’s policy was to increase the quality of financial reporting and strengthen the role of the corporate audit committees. Contingent liabilities are often referred as off-balance sheet activities and they are neither recognized as assets or liabilities nor they are reported on the balance sheet simply because GAAP does not recognize them as such. Enron and many other large companies were successful to keep billions of dollars of debt off-balance sheet (Chandra, et al, 2006). Title 4 section 401, j of SOX’s enhanced financial disclosures required the disclosure of all material off balance sheet transactions, obligations, arrangements and any material current or future that will have an effect on the financial condition (SOX, 2002). Economics and Accounting literature devoted considerable amount of time to analyze the cost-benefit of SOX and found that US firms incur 6.1 billion was spent of manpower, IT and consulting services (CFO, Bergen 2004 and 2005). The debate of whether the cost of complying SOX is cost effective, is an impetus toward
a policy change, however, one can ask, ever since the SOX implementation, how the quality of financial reporting has effected? Research Question and Hypothesis Development Many studies have addressed disclosure mismanagement of financial statements before and after Enron scandal, however, the few studies that have tackled
Since the financial crisis investors have become less confident in the companies within the market. In order to restore confidence within the market and the audits of their financial statements Senator Sarbanes and Representative Oxley created the legislation known as the Sarbanes Oxley Act which came into effect in 2002. The legislation created major regulations on company financial reporting and the regulation of it. Forcing management to be accountable for the financial reporting and internal controls within their company and requiring the audit committees to report on their opinion of the company’s internal processes. (Soxlaw.com)
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 creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, “a number of high profile accounting frauds and misstatements, some of unprecedented scope and scale, dominated the headlines” (Kulzick, 2008). According to Kulzick, one out of every ten public companies had restated earnings during the last five years and companies such as Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, Global Crossing, and Arthur Anderson were dominating the headlines with financial discrepancies resulting from poor oversight that were contributing to massive losses in the stock market. In my opinion, all fiscally responsible organizations should want to pull best practices from Sarbanes-Oxley to ensure their reporting is accurate, consistent, appropriate, complete, and understandable regardless of if they are requirements or not. This can be accomplished by ensuring the CEO and CFO are certifying the accuracy of all financial information and internal controls before it’s published for public
Passed in the wake of last year's corporate accounting scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires public companies to disclose more financial information than in the past, and it holds corporate directors and officers more accountable for the accuracy of disclosures than ever before. Sarbanes-Oxley also requires companies' top officers to assess and certify the effectiveness of the internal controls they use for financial reporting.
Accountability is a critical factor for all public and private companies. In public companies accountability increases, public confidence in the board of management entrusted with a corporation. However, lack of accountability and transparency leads to loss of public confidence in the management of any entity. To this end, the state provides the legislative framework that ensures accountability and transparency prevails in public entities (McNally, 2013). Thus, the role of government is to ensure public companies are managed in a transparent and accountable manner as a way of attracting more investments and retaining public confidence. Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a law in the United States enacted to ensure public companies adhere to transparent standards of accounting in resource usage. The act
Don E. Garner, D. L. (2008). Accounting and the global economy after Sarbanes-Oxley. London: M.E Sharpe.
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
This paper will discuss the legislation that was enacted following these events. It is known as the Public Accounting Return and Investor Protection Act, better known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and has been enacted since the year 2002 (Mishkin, 2012, p. 158). This Act is applicable to all public companies within the US as well as any international companies who have securities within the US registered with the SEC ("The Vendor-Neutral Sarbanes-Oxley Site", 2012). In this paper, it will be discussed why Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted and the key specifications.
Baruch Lev and Feng Gu authors of “The End of Accounting and The Path Forward for Investors and Managers” indicate that over the past 110 years, the structure and content of financial reports has not changed, and that the role that these reports play in influencing the decisions of investors has greatly diminished. Lev and Gu make a case that non-transaction events that are not captured by the financial reports such as those disclosed through 8-k filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) have a greater impact on stock prices, and thus more useful to investors. In addition, they suggest that one of reasons for the decline in usefulness of financial reports stems from the increase of estimates that has made its way into these reports (Lev and Gu 2016).
After major corporate and accounting scandals like those that affected Tyco, Worldcom and Enron the Federal government passed a law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. This law was passed in hopes of thwarting illegal and misleading acts by financial reporters and putting a stop to the decline of public trust in accounting and reporting practices. Two important topics covered in Sarbanes-Oxley are auditor independence and the reporting and assessment of internal controls under section 404.
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
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).
As the scandals came to light, mistrust of financial reporting in general grew. One article in the Forbes magazine noted that “repeated disclosures about questionable accounting practices have bruised investors’ faith in the reliability of earnings reports, which in turn has sent stock prices tumbling” (Forbes). Imagine trying to carry on a business or invest money if you could not depend on the financial statements to be honestly prepared. Information would have no credibility. There is no doubt that a sound, well-functioning economy depends on accurate and dependable financial reporting. United States regulators and lawmakers were very concerned that the economy would suffer if investors lost confidence in corporate accounting because of unethical financial reporting.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted into law in 2002 in the wake of corporation financial reporting scandals involving large publicly held companies. SOX instituted new strict financial regulations with the intent of improving accounting practices and protecting investors from corporate misconduct. SOX requires corporate executives to vouch for the accuracy of financial statements, and to institute and monitor effective internal controls over financial reporting. The cost of implementing an effective internal control structure are onerous, and SOX inflicts opportunity costs upon an enterprise as executives have