Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
sarbanes-oxley act critique
sarbanes-oxley act critique
company's and sarbanes-oxley act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: sarbanes-oxley act critique
SOX Compliance: Eleven Essential Controls for the SME
Small to mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) can benefit from implementing control objectives for governance, compliance, and improved security. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) announcement puts an end to several years of speculation, so SMEs must get on top of their control game.
Executive Summary
Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) is here to stay for small to mid-sized enterprises (SMEs), which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defines as any publicly traded company with less than $75 million in market capitalization. Despite the fact that auditing standards have been adjusted for smaller organizations, many SMEs still need to prioritize and strengthen those internal IT controls that protect information assets.
The Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) is the organization that sets standards for auditing and grants certification to auditors. New studies from ISACA pinpoint the top controls that are the most important for SMEs. This research note discusses:
» The latest SOX developments in the SME space.
» Key findings from the ISACA study.
» Which tactics SMEs can use to satisfy internal IT controls.
SMEs must implement control objectives for compliance and improved security, but have limited means to do so. The ISACA study prioritizes the most important IT controls so that SMEs can get on top of their control game.
Optimization Point
Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was enacted in 2002 as an anti-fraud measure in the wake of large accounting scandals such as Enron and WorldCom. Until recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) applied the same SOX auditing practices to all companies, regardless of their size, infrastructure, level of risk, or available resources. As long as it was publicly traded, whether the market cap was less than $75 million or more than $100 billion, the same auditing rules and standards applied for all companies.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was named after Senator Paul Sarbanes and Michael Oxley. The Act has 11 titles and there are about six areas that are considered very important. (Sox, 2006) The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 made publicly traded United States companies create internal controls. The SOX act is mandatory, all companies must comply. These controls maybe costly, but they have indentified areas within companies that need to be protected. It also showed some companies areas that had unnecessary repeated practices. It has given investors a sense of confidence in companies that have complied with the SOX act.
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.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which contains 11 sections, was originally created by Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley in response to the several exposed accounting scandals, including WorldCom and Enron as the most prominent examples. As a result of these accounting scandals being exposed one after another, the confidence that investors had put in the capital markets collapsed overnight along with those companies that engaged in huge frauds. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 had been passed to redeem the reputation of the markets. With its stated purpose, which is “to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures,” SOX Act came into effect in 2004. However, the deadlines of compliance have been extended several times due to the significant costs incurred by companies’ compliance of the SOX Act. In addition to the dollar amount required to spend, another real cost that cannot be ignored. As stated by Peter Bible, the CAO of General Motors Corp, “having ...
In July of 2002, Congress swiftly passed the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investors Protection Act at the time when corporations like Arthur Anderson, Enron and WorldCom fell due to fraudulent accounting practices and bad internal control. This bill, sponsored by Mike Oxley (R-OH) and Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), became known as Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).It sought to restore public confidence in publicly traded companies and their accounting practices, though the companies listed above were prosecuted on laws that were already in place before SOX. Many studies have examined the effects of SOX on corporations in the past eleven years. The benefits are hard to quantify and the cost are rather hard to estimate including the effect on market efficiency.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted on July 30, 2002. It was enacted by the 107th United States Congress. It is named after sponsors U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley. It is also known as the ‘Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act’ in the Senate and ‘Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act’ in the House. The main purpose of this act was to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes. This act was enacted as a result to a number of corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco internationals, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems, and WorldCom. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted many rules in order to implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a legislation aimed at increasing the accuracy of financial statements that were issued by companies that are publicly held (Livingstone, 2011). The passing of this act was a response to some of the financial malpractices that took place at companies such as WorldCom and Enron. According to Livingstone, making ethical decisions is critical because ethical lapses can lead to severe unforeseen consequences (Livingstone, 2011). This paper will discuss the effects of the Act on the audit committees of public company boards of directors as well as outside independent audit firms. The main advantages and disadvantages of the Act and recommendations of the changes that should be made to the act will also be included.
The rise of Enron took ten years, and the fall only took twenty days. Enron’s fall cost its investors $35,948,344,993.501, and forced the government to intervene by passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) 2 in 2002. SOX was put in place as a safeguard against fraud by making executives personally responsible for any fraudulent activity, as well as making audits and financial checks more frequent and rigorous. As a result, SOX allows investors to feel more at ease, knowing that it is highly unlikely something like the Enron scandal will occur again. SOX is a protective act that is greatly beneficial to corporate America and to its investors.
Holt, Michael F. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: overview and implementation procedures. Oxford: CIMA Publishing, 2006. Print.
...he Sarbanes-Oxley act, which began with companies like Rite Aid abusing the deregulated system, are (1) the required attestation by the CEO and the CFO; and (2) better internal control mandates, procedures and documentation requirements.
What makes the Sarbanes-Oxley Act effective is that it is “Administered by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), SOX sets deadlines for compliance and publishes rules on requirements, covering a wide range of rules. The consequences for failing to comply with certain provisions range from fines to imprisonment” (Cunningham). The SOX also creates, “accountability of company executives and members of the board of directors” (Jahmani). The act essentially created several provisions to regulate and protect shareholders along with the general public from accounting errors and fraudulent practices in the enterprise. The accounting industry, financial reporting, and the auditing of public companies in particular must follow these provisions.
Sarbanes-Oxley act was passed in 2002 in reaction to several scandals and the dot com bubble involving major corporations. Eron, Tyco and Worldcom were the prime scandals. In the light of those scandals, Sarbanes- Oxley was passed with an intention to make corporate governance more rigorous, protect investors from fraudulent activities performed by the corporation by making financial practises more transparent, strengthen corporate oversight and promote/improve internal corporate control. In short it was meant to enhance corporate governance and restore faith in investors.
Recently, IT governance has been a mainly factor for fulfill business need from investing in IT area. In addition, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) mentioned IT governance issues for enhancing internal contro...
Krishan, G.V., & Wei, Y. (2012). Do small firms benefit from auditor attestation of internal control effectiveness? Auditing, 31(4), 115-137. doi:10.2308/ajpt-50238
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).
Small, medium enterprises (SMEs) are largest types business in the world, making up an estimated 99.7% of business. According to the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) there are nearly five million existing businesses in the UK as of 2013. SMEs are a key contributor towards economic growth in terms of creating more employment, stimulating innovation and promoting social unity. SMEs are responsible for 47% of private sector employment, yet despite such global present there is still no agreed definition of a SME (Storey 1994). Bolton (1971) attempted to define them through a statistical and economic analysis. Classifications which are based on criteria, such as number of employees or annual turnover, however, do not remain consistent across borders. Given their size, smaller companies tend to be more intent on survival rather than expansion and profit maximisation. Smaller sized firms have always felt that the current reporting framework for IFRS is tailored more for the needs of larger companies and that the heavy cost burden it imposes upon them may not be entirely justified. In response to these concerns, the IASB subsequently issued the IFRS for Small and Medium-sized Entities (IFRS for SMEs) in July 2009. This standard offers an alternative framework which can be adopted by entities in place of the already extant full set of IFRSs or local national requirement standards.(Holt 2010) This essay will critically evaluate the impact of the IFRS for SME’s and whether or not it stands as the most suitable framework available for SMEs to use.