Few pieces of legislation have had an impact on corporations, accounting firms, and investors like Sarbanes-Oxley. Sarbanes-Oxley was passed by Congress in 2002 as direct result of the accounting scandals that plagued the public equity markets during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Sarbanes-Oxley was developed to be a series of measures, safeguards, guidelines, and criminal punishments in order to prevent future accounting scandals on the scale of Enron and Worldcom. Sarbanes-Oxley has profoundly impacted both management and accountants albeit in mostly similar ways. The following exploration will compare and contrast these views held by management and accountants regarding Sarbanes-Oxley.
In the year 2002, the US reached a land mark decision when the Sarbanes Oxley act was finally affected into law which principally changed the way auditing and financial reporting was being conducted. This act was prompted by high level frauds that public companies engaged in with regard to financial reporting and auditing practices. The act therefore recommended the setting up of a Public accounting Oversight board which was mainly to conduct regulatory and supervisory roles in auditing public audit firms and individual auditors. This was done through establishment of proper quality control measures on the work of auditors to minimize the audit risks that firms could face while conducting their work. The Ligand Pharmaceuticals case
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 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.
In a recent article in the New York Times, Sarbanes-Oxley, Bemoaned as a Burden, Is an Investor’s Ally, by Gretchen Morgenson, is about some challenging the requirements that were put in place and the cost to the company’s. According to Morgenson, Tom Farley is one that is an outspoken critic of the law requiring outside auditor to attest on the management’s internal controls on the financial statements. He attributes the decline in corporations in the Unites States.
The government formulates various laws to achieve optimum utilization of resources in the public sphere. Sarbanes-Oxley Act is one of the numerous laws drafted to optimize resources utilization in public companies (McNally, 2013). The act seeks to attain maximization utilization of resources by entrenching accountability and transparency in the reporting of financial matters. To this end, this paper explores the effects of Sarbanes-Oxley Act on United States financial market.
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.
The goal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was to deter and prevent corporations from committing financial fraud, protect shareholders and regain the confidence the public had in financial statements that the released (Ferrell, Hirt, Ferrell, 2009). The act did put additional duties on the corporate accounting departments as well as the auditing firms that monitored these corporations. Prior to the law’s enactment, corporations largely had auditors and financial monitors on staff. The law requires that an external auditing firm review not affected by conflict of interest, audit and monitor the financial records of the corporation. While audits are largely seen in a negative manner, having an annual audit done by an outside firm will allow for
Auditing is a systematic process of objectively obtaining and evaluating evidence regarding assertions about economic actions and events to ascertain the degree of correspondence between those assertions and established criteria and communicating the results to interested users (Boynton & Johnson, 2006). In auditing there are many attributes that describes the auditor’s work. Elements of the Generally Accepted Auditing Standards are followed by auditors. The Generally Accepted Auditing Standards apply to financial, operational, and compliance audits. Auditing public traded companies has been effected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Auditors have additional responsibilities because of
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was established as a result of corporate scandals that led to the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This paper will explore the circumstances that led to the creation of the PCAOB. I will then go on to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the PCAOB, and suggestions for improvement of the PCAOB auditing process.
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
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made substantial reforms in the regulation system for public accounting firms that audit public companies. It contains requirements strengthening penalties for corporate fraud. It also restricts the types of consulting
The Sarbanes-Oxley act was enacted in 2002 as a United States federal law that changed the regulations and procedures of management and public accounting firms, and all U.S. public company boards. The act was created in response to the major scandals in corporate and accounting corporations. Sarbanes-Oxley over the years has implemented new sections and regulations. The act specifically requires that the management of public companies assess the effectiveness of the internal controls to ensure that it will not affect financial reporting (Kravitz, 2012). Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act specifically requires “a publicly-held company’s auditor to attest to, and report on, management’s assessment of its internal controls”. (Kravitz, 2012) This has helped many publicly companies (especially small ones) to improve their financial reporting and transparency.
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.
Oftentimes, firms fail to put into place efficient internal controls that may unfortunately lead to corporate loss and even corporate failure. Under the authority of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), congress mandated that all public companies must establish and enforce a system of internal controls over its financial reporting. The role of an auditor is to evaluate these controls and issue an opinion with the goal of assuring that management