The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Overview:
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 controls and reporting within accounting and finance and the managerial aspects of public companies (2). Among the many objectives of SOX the most important objective is to oversee public accounting, publicly reporting companies, and the investment industry; however, SOX needed assistance in order follow through with these objectives:
To better observe the actions of public accountancy, SOX has established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. This board oversees the accounting profession and publicly reporting companies with respect to audits and other reporting. It also has created rules designed to assure that auditors of publicly reporting companies are independent of the companies on which they report (3).
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) employees are required not to have any direct relationships with the public companies and/or employees of the companies in order to keep all terms of accountability fair. Title I of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act describes the ro...
... middle of paper ...
... For companies that may already have a code of ethics and have passed the standards required by SOX than they are at an advantage; however, with the cost of following proper auditing standards increasing and the cost of setting the code of ethics, the PCAOB has the possibility of significantly reducing the income of public companies and accounting firms.
Works Cited
2002 AICPA. How the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Impacts the Accounting Profession.
30 August 2002. 14 April 2005.
2004 Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. PCOAB: Restoring Confidence.
2003 Annual Report. Bethesda, MD: Design: Financial Communication Inc. June 2004
Miller, Richard I. and Pashkoff, Paul H. Regulations Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act:
Journal of Accountancy. October 2002.
Weaver, David R, Esq. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: AN OVERVIEW. Edward Jones. 1 July 2004.
The SOX act section 404 requires that the auditor assess the company’s management of internal controls and report on it. The act requires that a company include a copy of the internal controls in the year end annual report. All financial statements must be certified by a company’s management. (Coustan, 2004)
The audit committee must certify that the company’s auditors are independent. The audit committee must approve all professional services provided to the company by its independent auditors and ensure that auditors do not provide to the company any of the specifically prohibited services identified by SOX, such as bookkeeping services. The audit committee must receive and analyze key items of information from the independent auditors. These items of information include auditors’ analysis of critical accounting policies adopted by the
Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Acts are important legislations in the corporate world because of their link to public and privately held companies. Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to enhance transparency and accountability in publicly traded companies. On the contrary, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to disentangle the confused web of financial service company valuations. Actually, these valuations are usually hidden by complex and unclear financial instruments. The introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley Act was fueled by recent incidents of accounting frauds by top executives of major corporations such as Enron. In contrast, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted as a response to the tendency by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, rating agencies, and accounting companies to serve up harmful offer of ruined assets and liabilities brought by systemic non-disclosure (Anand, 2011, p.1). While these regulations have some similarities and differences, they have a strong relationship with the financial markets.
It has been a decade since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act became in effect. Obviously, the SOX Act which aimed at increasing the confidence in the US capital market really has had a profound influence on public companies and public accounting firms. However, after Enron scandal which triggered the issue of SOX Act, public company lawsuits due to fraud still emerged one after another. As such, the efficacy of the 11-year-old Act has continually been questioned by professionals and public. In addition, the controversy about the cost and benefit of Sarbanes-Oxley Act has never stopped.
CEO Jeffery Skilling and Kenneth Lay, the CEO prior to Skilling, were taken to trial. They were both found guilty of committing multiple types of financial crimes, and sentenced to 24 years in prison. CFO Andrew Fastow was also taken to trial and was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison. The collapse of such a large corporation led to changes in financial controls. U.S. Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The SOX Act protects investors from deceitful accounting actions by companies (4). The Financial Accounting Standards Board increased its ethical behavior. FASB is responsible for generally accepted accounting principles, which provides standards for financial statements of publicly traded companies. These changes brought to life after the Enron scandal have decreased fraud and increased investor confidence. Although the acts that Enron committed were immoral and destroyed thousands of lives, it has lead an increase of controls and compliance, preventing something like this from happening in the
Throughout the past several years major corporate scandals have rocked the economy and hurt investor confidence. The largest bankruptcies in history have resulted from greedy executives that “cook the books” to gain the numbers they want. These scandals typically involve complex methods for misusing or misdirecting funds, overstating revenues, understating expenses, overstating the value of assets or underreporting of liabilities, sometimes with the cooperation of officials in other corporations (Medura 1-3). In response to the increasing number of scandals the US government amended the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 to mitigate these problems. Sarbanes Oxley has extensive regulations that hold the CEO and top executives responsible for the numbers they report but problems still occur. To ensure proper accounting standards have been used Sarbanes Oxley also requires that public companies be audited by accounting firms (Livingstone). The problem is that the accounting firms are also public companies that also have to look after their bottom line while still remaining objective with the corporations they audit. When an accounting firm is hired the company that hired them has the power in the relationship. When the company has the power they can bully the firm into doing what they tell them to do. The accounting firm then loses its objectivity and independence making their job ineffective and not accomplishing their goal of honest accounting (Gerard). Their have been 379 convictions of fraud to date, and 3 to 6 new cases opening per month. The problem has clearly not been solved (Ulinski).
The scandals have made some big implications on the profession as a whole. One being the decision from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOA) of 2002, in April 2003 they voted to assume the responsibility for establishing auditing standards. The Auditing Standards Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) previously played this role.
The audit committee a part of the board of directors plays an important role in preventing fraud. They are directly responsible for overseeing the work of any public accounting firm, such as PwC, employed by the company. They also must preapprove all audit services provided by the auditors.
After news of the scandal of Enron, one of the hottest items on e-Bay was a 64-page copy of Enron’s corporate code of ethics. One seller/former employee proclaimed it had “never been opened.” In the forward Kenneth L. Lay, CEO of Enron stated, “We want to be proud of Enron and to know that it enjoys a reputation for fairness and honesty and that it is respected (Enron 2).” For a company with such an extensive code of ethics and a CEO who seemed to want the company to be respected for that, there are still so many unanswered questions of what exactly went wrong. I believe that simply having a solid and thorough code of ethics alone does not prevent a company from acting unethically when given the right opportunity.
Organizations that only have top management as the board members are more susceptible to accounting malpractices. Members of the board should preferably own shares in the company to ensure diligence when it comes to the interests of the company. Apart from the Board of Governors, there should also be an audit committee in place to oversee the financial dealings of the bank. Members of the board and the audit committee should have basic financial knowledge. Some of the members should also be experts in finances so that they can detect any anomaly that may take place in terms of financial reporting. An overhaul of the regulatory framework is required to empower authorities to intervene immediately, and make improvements. New technology is required. Manual antiquated processes should be eliminated because this causes greater human error and poor
The SOX is to restore confidence and reassurance to the American people and notice to corporate America, unethical business practices will not be tolerated (Ferrell, et al, 2013). All key players in an organization such as the top executives, lawyers, accountants, banks, board of directors, and employees all have an obligation to do the right thing and report any wrong-doings (Ferrell, et al,
...e financial reports and statements are correct. This auditing will be conducted by auditing department of the organization, even may be done by an independent auditor who is not part of the organization, and sometimes public officials are elected. In case of unmatched consequences the organization need to give explanation on the misrepresentation of wrong statements. Auditors purpose is then to ensure that the misrepresentations are corrected, then maintain accurate, reliable financial documents and statements.
4) . One of the largest bankruptcies in history was enabled by accountants hiding debt and destroying the evidence to avoid implication (Buckstein, part 2 pgs. 1, 2, and 3). These unfortunate events led to the need for increased scrutiny and regulations, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Buckstein, part 3 pg 1). This legislation inspired the creation of the Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) (Buckstein, part 3 pg 1). These changes have led to an increased awareness of the need for auditor independence as well as higher standards for accounting and business in general (Buckstein, part 3 pg 1). While these measures have helped to reassure the public, there is still the question of why Accountancy is not a protected
...mpany Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) tasked with the oversight of audit of publicly traded companies under the authority of the SEC. The report card is still out on the new law as to whether it will cause change in the corporate office and the corporate governance.