The Role of the CFO: An Analysis

In addition, associated with the misapplication of accounting methods, the financial industry has been plagued with one disaster after another involving numerous scandals from top leading American companies. Consequently, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 compromising eleven sections that are generated to insure the responsibilities of the company’s managers and executives. This act identifies criminal penalties for particular unethical practices and currently has new policies that a corporation must follow in their financial reporting. The following examples describe some of biggest accounting methods as a result of the greed and the outrage of the ethical and financial misconduct by the senior management of public corporations.

"People have said these things are starting to filter down to smaller, non-public companies, Banks are requiring different standards for corporate governance which has increased as a direct result of Sarbanes-Oxley. People have started talking about spending more for internal controls, software, having to hire more auditors and higher D&O [directors and officers] insurance." (Leport 2005)

Sarbanes-Oxley was put in place after accounting scandals left many investors questioning whether corporation’s financial reporting could be trusted enough to invest in. The ability to report pretty much anything in their financial statements left those investing in a vulnerable position. The new laws that governing accounting procedures and financial reporting have made investors more likely to invest knowing that the figures that they are basing their investment on closer to the truth of the company’s finances. Calling for an outside auditor to validate the financial statements made sure that company’s reported the true actions of the company leaving most feel more secure in their investment.

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

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

I believe the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been effective in managing the risks exposed through previous corporate fraudulent financial reporting scandals. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act makes fraudulent financial reporting a crime in which strong penalties can be enforced (Ferrell & Ferrell, 2013). This act also protects investors as corporations are required to be transparent with their finances as well as to create a code of ethics in which they are to abide. The purpose of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also known as SOX, is to make top executives responsible for the information that appears on the company’s financial documents. With the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act executives are required to know what is on financial statements and to

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

It is highly recommended that the CFO does not interfere with the CAE’s job to provide feedback directly to the audit committee. Moreover, the company’s strategy should be discussed to assure that COO, marketing and sales VP and general counsel do not take passive roles. Additionally, the CFO should not focus so greatly on opposite strategy as presented by the CEO, as now the CEO wanted to maintain secure growth via acquisitions, securing gap in production and more geographic coverage, and on the other had the CFO wanted only more and more new acquisitions, which was not the right approach because his subordinates may have been confused about company’s strategy.

A recent study by Xue Wang (Emory University) tackles how SOX has affected the compensation and turnover rates of CFOs.   They play a critical role in developing firms’ financial reporting and making voluntary disclosure decisions.   Moreover, CFOs are ultimately responsible for the quality of internal control systems.   The study provides some important insights about the impact of SOX on the executive labor market.   It shows that requiring more disclosure of information about a firm’s internal controls provides some positive benefits with respect to corporate governance, in this case making it easier for boards to monitor the activities of CFOs.   In comparing and contrasting firms with strong internal controls received an increase in salary, bonus, and total compensation in the post-SOX time periods.   In contrast, CFOs of corporations reporting a problem with their internal controls incurred a significant reduction in their compensation packages.   With respect to CFO turnover, Wang did find that CFO turnover rates generally increased form the pre- to post-SOX period.

This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is said to be promoted to produce change in the corporate environment, in general, by stressing issues of public accountability and disclosure in the financial operations of business. It explains how this is an Act that represents the government's and the Security and Exchange Commission's concern in promoting ethical standards in terms of financial disclosure in the corporate environment.

(1)It’s against the SEC laws and inconsistent with GAAP standards; unfair to stockholders; uncertainty about how long the company can cover up the deficiencies which keep growing with the company; honesty and integrity are challenged. (2)Loyalty to Eddie and the company is challenged. No more personal financial benefit can be generated from the rising stock price and the CFO position any more. Investors are still kept in the dark. (3) The company’s stock price may drop significantly when investors learn about the truth; company may face bankruptcy due to loss of public confidence. The wealth of Eddie’s whole family will shrink seriously. (4) While Eddie may

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.