Introduction
Enron Company was among the United States
top in fortune. However, it had a false account problem that led to its sudden
bankruptcy raising the attention of not only the public but also the government
and other stakeholders on the internal supervision and auditing systems of
companies (Berger, 28). It is the impact of the scandal that proved to be
making the public and other investors suspicious of the books of accounts of
many businesses that led to the quick passing of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002
to avert the repeat of such a scandal in the future. The Sarbanes–Oxley Act is also referred to as
the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" in
the Senate whereas in the house it is called the "Corporate and Auditing
Accountability and Responsibility Act"
but is mostly referred to as the SOX Act (Berger, 30). SOX is an
American federal law that set the new or even expanded the requirements placed
on all the US public company boards, accounting firms and also management
companies (Berger, 33). There are also some of the provision of the Act that
had a direct effect on the private companies such as the intentional tampering
with any evidence with the then motive of interfering with any form of Federal
investigation. In reaction to the major scandals in corporate and accounting
sectors such as the WorldCom and Enron, the bill has sections that cover the
responsibilities of any given corporate board of directs while at the same time
adding the penalties for certain misconduct. The Act further required the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to institute some regulations that
would refine the mode at which the public corporations would comply with the set
laws (Berger, 30). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and PCAOB was institute to
improve the auditing standards and also restore the public confidence in the
governance of financial markets and the accounting profession as the overseers
of sound financial reporting free of material mistakes and errors. In its role,
the SOX Act has been subject to a variety of success and failures as is
indicated in the below research. However, the SOX Act has been more successful
than the failures it has faced (Turnbull, 30).
To be able to understand the impact of
the SOX Act since its adoption, it is important to have a background of its
initiation process and to pass through both houses to become law.
Sarbanes,–Oxley Act, was named after is a sponsor who was a US Senator named
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH). Before
the adoption of the SOX Act in 2002, several capital markets in the country had
already been subject to a variety of financial scandals that led to several
financial giants such as Enron and Tyco International admitting the existence
of financial fraud and massive corruption (Asthana, Steven and Sungsoo, 34).
The American public rose up in arms, and there was great uproar due to the
trend that had begun shaping up in the country. The collapse of the companies
came at a time that most Americans had become more vigilant in their security
in every aspect especially because it was just after the 9/11 attacks that had
increased the paranoia and scrutiny of the public on all the policies and also
on the ongoing in the country. There were also some of the investors that also
reacted to the issue by abandoning the companies they had invested in leading
to increased bankruptcy among such entities. The fraudulent activities of such
enterprises that had made up books by the unscrupulous management resulted in
massive losses for the individual investors and also significantly affected and
further threatened the economy of the country. It further led to the affecting
of the capital markets in the nation (Asthana, Steven and Sungsoo, 35).
However, it is the Enron scandal that resulted in the brewing of the massive
storm since it was a major company in the country. It severed the capital
markets and also affected the confidence of the public in a great way.
Moreover, the Enron scandal further questions the integrity of the auditors
since it led to the driving Arthur Anderson Company that was one of the World’s
biggest audit firms into collapsing. Therefore, it is this that motivated and
inspired the coming up and actuating of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 with the
sole purpose of protecting the investors through improving the reliability as
well as the accuracy of the corporate and also to restore the confidence of the
public in financial statements (Asthana, Steven and Sungsoo, 35). One of the
major impacts of the Act is the increased regulations that it imposed on
entities. During its debate and adopting the act was composed of sixty-six
sections with some being long while others were short. Every part of the law
was also mandated to dealing with given part of the reporting cycle of the
organization with the sections contained in eleven titles that majorly death
with internal controls of the companies. Each and every title within the Act
resulted in its impact on the various areas of the financial reporting in any
company (Turnbull, 34). It is this that made fraud even more difficult. The Act
made it almost impossible to commit fraud since it would be both tedious and
virtually impossible to influence any changes on all the eleven titles without
causing any form of significant changes that may be noticeable. Furthermore,
the SOX Act further made the regulations on companies financial reporting even
stricter than any other rules ever imposed on entities in the history of the
United States financial markets. As compared to some of the previous acts such
as the Securities Act of 1933 and 1934 it was way stricter (Asthana, Steven and
Sungsoo, 40).
It is the milestones attained by the Act
that made it mandatory for the top management of any entity to certify the
accuracy of any information that they may have presented from the consumption
or use of the public regarding their company (Berger, 35). Moreover, the Act
stiffened the penalties that result from any form of malpractice or
inconsistency ion the part of the financial books of records. It further
increased the oversight role played by the board of directors as well as
further cemented and increased the autonomy and responsibilities of the outside
auditors that act as the watchdogs to the public through reviewing and
verifying the corporate financial records (Berger, 35).
The provision of the Act in section 101
to 103 led to the establishment of a significant and stable at monitoring the
objectives of the public company executives, the accounting firms as well as
the certified public accountants all to increase accountability (Lai, 41). The
regulatory body is called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)
consisting of five members who are financially literate of whom, two of them
are CPAs with the rest not being accountants and are representing the public
interests. It is the PCAOB that was mandated and accorded the power to register
the public accounting forms, to enforce the compliance of the Act to the letter
by the firms, manage the undertakings of the board of directors and also to
conduct any necessary inspections (Lai, 41). Its independence was further
reinforced by the fact that it does not provide any service as the US government
department or agency ensuring that it is compromising or political interference
as kept at minimal. PCAOB further had other responsibilities that included
watching the companies, enacting and also adopting the professional accountant
group’s auditing standards and other quality control and ethical principles
required for the continued growth and thriving of the entities (Li, Pincus, and
Rego, 10-11). The PCAOB was also regulated and monitored by the fact that it
had to provide an annual report to the SEC. it further had to conduct annual
inspections of the top public accounting firms. However, both SEC and PCAOB may
conduct inspections at any random time making it even harder to fail to comply
with the standards set.
The independence of the auditors was also
increased and made it better for the operation of the auditors without any
external infringement on their work. It is this that led to the growing
scrutiny on the books of accounts, and the financial records have to have a
sound and reliable vetting process hence increasing the accountability and the
accuracy of the financial records released to the public. Before the Act, the auditors faced a severe
conflict of interest (Shakespeare, 333). It was because the primary â€watchdogs
for the investors and the public, in general, were self-regulated and also
conducted some major non-audit and consulting work for such companies still
mandated to audit. As a result, the majority of the jobs were far more
financially lucrative than the auditing jobs themselves, and it is this that
brought about the possibility of compromise due to the vested interest in other
areas. For example, for such an auditor, any form of challenging to the
company’s accounting approach would subsequently lead to the damaging of the
relationship with the client and hence may result in the loss of the bigger
jobs or possible engagements (Turnbull, 26). The act protects the auditors
through the banning of the accounting firms from providing any form of a list
of banned non-auditing services for any particular clients. The audit and the
review partners are also rotated at random every five years. According to the
provision of the Act, if a company’s chief executive, accounting officer,
financial officer and any other senior managers have worked with an accounting
firm during the previous years, then the accounting firm is restricted from
providing any legal audit services for such accompany and thus furthering the
independence of the auditors (Shakespeare, 333).
The enactment of the SOX Act has also
been imperative at enabling the investors the public and also the regulatory
authorities to pinpoint or rather identify the boardroom failures (Kuschnik,
75). The board directors especially those who sit in the Audit committees are
charged with the responsibility and also the mandate to act as oversight for
the financial reporting of the US corporations all on behalf of the investors.
The scandals that rocked the country indicated that the board members had
failed at protecting the interests of the investors and also failed to protect
the corporations from the subsequent financial meltdown and fraud. However, the
establishment of the SOX Act was critical to the identification of the Board
members who may either not exercise their responsibilities or those that are
not fit to hold the positions due to their lack of expertise and skills to
understand the complex the dynamics of business (Kuschnik, 80). It has been a
crucial tool to put the board of directors in the limelight to ensure that they
are well placed and also have the capacity to identify, stop and even act in
case of an impending threat to the financial position of any corporation. It is
this that has also led to the emergence of more informed and qualified boards
of directors in the country resulting in the efficiency of the systems.
Before, the passing of the SOX Act, the
funding received by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) mandated with the
regulatory role was insufficient (Kuschnik, 65). The insufficiency in the
funding affected its operations and hence its strained efficiency and in some
cases led to the compromising of some of its structures due to the lack of
funds to execute such endeavors. However, since the passing of the SOX Act, the
funding of the entity has almost doubled. Sarbanes insisted on the need to
ensure that such bodies are capable of executing their duties if at all their
oversight role were to be met (Kuschnik, 67). Moreover, following the public
outcry and the pressure that mounted on the government to address the financial
issues that faced the country among the corporations, Congress and other
budgetary allocation committees identified the need to invest more in the
regulation of the capital markets. It also wanted to lead at safeguarding and
protecting the investors and the public from any fraudulent activities from the
companies and other involved stakeholders. The motivation to avert the 2000
crisis and also to maintain the public confidence in such corporation, the
government have prioritized on making the SOX Act effective ad its proven
efficiency over the past more than a decade of its existence is a major reason
why every government prioritizes the making such bodies and SEC work (Kuschnik,
67).
The SOX Act has also been proven to
result in a variety of benefits to firms and investors alike. SOX have been
credited to the increased corporate transparency. Research documented by Turnbull
(26-30), indicated that a comparison between the listed and the non-listed
companies that are not subject to the SOX reported that the SOX compliant
companies were far more transparent following the enactment of SOX. 6heir
dispersion and also the accuracy of the analyst’s earnings forecasts were
noticeable and significantly higher than that of those that are not compliant
with the SOX regulations (Turnbull, 26). There was the reduction of the stock
valuations of the majority of the firms which subsequently drive the share
prices down to the advantage of the public that could now purchase them at
affordable rates. There are also some indications pointing to the fact that the
borrowing costs decreased for the entities that enhanced their internal
controls. Moreover, the fact that corporations have increased their internal
controls and their financial statements have also led to the change in
perception by the shareholders and the public who began regaining the lost
confidence in most corporations and began perceiving them as being more
reliable (Turnbull, 26).
The Act further impacts the
management’s responsibility in the financial reporting responsibility in a very
major way while at the same time instituting grave consequences on any form of
violation of the securities laws (Cosgrove and Niederjohn, 10). The Act calls for the top management to take
it upon them to ensure that the financial reports issued are accurate and up to
date. The top managers are also mandated with the responsibility of verifying
and certification of the financial report before they are released. However,
there are severe consequences for any intentional falsification of the
certification by any top manager. The manager found guilty of withholding
information or interfering with the certification may face a sentence of up to
10 to 20 years in prison (Cosgrove and Niederjohn, 22). If the company, on the
other hand, is required by law to make any form of a restatement due to the
misconduct or defrauding by the top management, the senior managers may also be
forced to give up their bonuses or even profits made upon the sale of the
stocks of the company. Furthermore, the Act also stipulates that any
individual, that is found guilty or convicted of the violation of the
securities law; they may be prohibited from engaging in any service at the same
role or position in the future. The law ensures that with the severe consequences
instituted for any form of misconduct on the part of the management, they are
personally held liable instead of leaving it upon the company shareholders to
take the financial burden that comes with such defrauding of the public
corporation.
The
SOX Act is not all flowery as one may be quick to imagine due to its numerous
advantages. It has its shortcomings. The major weakness faced by the SOX Act is
that it has resulted in increased cost of accounting fees due to having to
comply with the provisions enacted by SOX Act. As a consequence of the
increased accounting fees, there is a subsequent increase in the audit fees as
well with some of the experts arguing that up to 74% increases the fees in the
post-SOX period (Kleckner and Jackson, 13). The price increased due to the
enactment of the SOX Act is directly attributed to the increased workload and
also the growing liability on the auditors that came with the provisions of the
Act. The Act allowed for increased efforts in the audit which further complicated
the auditing engagements and also the requirement that the firms retain the
audit papers for at least seven years to enhance the control of the public
companies internal control structure which an effect on the cost has incurred
in securing such documentations as well. The Act also requires that the
communication between the auditor and the client be maintained for a while and
as a result ensure that the efforts in accounting are even enhanced, and it m
ay also lead to the increase in the amounts charged by such firms (Kleckner and
Jackson, 13). The auditors’ legal liability also leads to the rise in the legal
liability costs due to the increased risks. There could be the probability of
misstatements that may include the inadequate or improper disclosures and also
impropriate valuation, missed fraud or unnoticed fraud that may result from
negligence and also the delays in completion of the audit exercise that could
all lead to lawsuits and other expensive affairs.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act in Section 404 is
one of the most expensive parts of the Act requiring the public companies to
perform an extensive internal control test and also include an internal control
report with the annual audits. The testing and also documentation of manual and
automated controls involved in financial reporting requires the involvement of
some external accountants and also in some cases some IT personnel (Kleckner
and Jackson, 13). The cost of complying is also burdening for the majority of
corporations that heavily rely on the manual controls. Sarbanes-Oxley Act
encouraged companies to make their financial reporting efficient, automated and
centralized.
Despite the fact that the SOX Act
operated almost flawlessly and with increased advantages, it has faced
unpredicted noncash costs that may be unforeseen, ignored or underestimated.
There are indications that the unexpected costs may have risen in their
millions of dollars higher than the original estimates while the noncash
expenses such as the opportunity costs, excessive staff burden, and the lost
investment opportunities may not have been considered during its initiation
(Cosgrove and Niederjohn, 55). It may be difficult to identify explicitly
measure and even quantify the noncash expenses that the businesses accrue as a
result of the enactment of the law, but it is a factor that has led to the
decision of many companies going private to avert the costs. The losing of
investor opportunities is directly attributed to the implementation of the SOX
Act with evidence pointing to the decisions made by large non-domestic public
companies that withdrew from the US stock exchange. Various enterprises have
announced their plan not to enlist with the US exchange due to the high costs
implication that comes with compliance with the SOX. It is this that resulted
in the decision of most of the companies to enlist with the London Stock
Exchange which has fewer cost implications arising from the compliance with the
regulatory authorities. There are also some major local companies in the United
States that have taken the decision to enlist their IPO in other countries to
avoid the massive compliance costs that come with the SOX (Cosgrove and
Niederjohn, 53). Due to the enormous burden that comes with compliance with the
SOX regulations, some companies spent a lot of time and their financial efforts
at enlisting at the cost of the potential opportunities that could be
presenting within their industry of operation. Several corporations lose out
about the possibilities that may be demanding some capital outlay and
therefore, resulting in leaving them to comply with the certifications and
internal controls on financial reporting that may be a requirement by SOX
(Koehn and Del Vecchio, 38).
In conclusion, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
passed in 2002 was put in place following a prolonged period of corporate
scandals that involved the public companies from 2000 (Koehn and Del Vecchio,
40). There were several major companies such as that ended up being liquidated
and going bankruptcy despite the robust and sound financial records that it had
indicated over the years. The closure of some of the companies such as WorldCom
and Enron raised tension and a sense of mistrust among the Investors in the
United States and also to the public, and it is the pressure exerted by the
public to enforce change that resulted in the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act in 2002 (Koehn and Del Vecchio, 38). The adoption of the act over the past
over a decade led to tremendous achievements and milestones over the course of
time. The Act has been the roadmap at restoring the investor’s confidence in
the capital markets and also had been instrumental in closing the existing
loopholes within the corporate that left room for potential defrauding of the
investors. It has over time led to profound corporate governance changes in the
United States (Koehn and Del Vecchio, 38). It requires that the companies
strengthen their audit committees, engage in internal control tests, increase
their transparency and disclosure and also set personal liabilities for the
directors at ensuring accuracy and consistency of the financial statements. The
Act has also led to the establishment of strict penalties for the securities
fraud and also changes the public accounting firms that operate their
businesses. It has, however, been attributed to massive direct and indirect
costs. The direct costs result from the bulky nature of the work and the
increased liability on the part of the auditing firms that has subsequently led
to an increase in the costs charged by such companies. The indirect costs are
mostly the noncash costs that may include the opportunity costs, the costs of
investments lost and the expenses on the staff burden that resulted from the
regulations that are hard to comply. As a result, some corporations opt to
enlist in exchanges from other countries whole others have opted to go private
to avoid the high compliance costs that come with the SOX Act. However, a
cost-benefit analysis indicates a significant advantage of having the
regulations as it has led to the streamlining of the sector and also resulted
in returned confidence in the capital markets by both the public and the
investors.
Additional articles
Business Ethics and Corporate Social ResponsibilityA. Purpose of Corporate Social Responsibility Corporate social responsibility can be defined as a form of business...Business-Ethics-and-Corporate-Social-Responsibility …
Read Article[1]A contract is a formal accord between two or more parties with a promise to perform or not to perform particular tasks or acts. The agreement creates a legal duty for each party involved in the contract and maintains a right to seek remedy in c...Contract-Law:--Refusing-to-Honor-a-Promise …
Read ArticleResponse Paper: Analysis of the Theme of Law, Duty and Justice in Trifles by Susan Glaspell. Trifles is a play based on mystery murder of Mr. Wright, and Mrs. Wright is arrested as she is the primary suspect i...Theme-Analysis-in-Trifles-by-Susan-Glaspell …
Read Article