Talk:Sarbanes–Oxley Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another Business Trend Bandwagon?[edit]

SOX often reminds me of the ridiculous amount of money which companies threw at the Y2K bug. It seems like just another excuse for IT and accounting vendors to sell extra services of questionable worth. Every couple of years business latches onto another silly craze such as ISO-9001 compliance, Six Sigma, Y2K compliance, and now SOX compliance. Can someone find some sources for this type of criticism? -The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.25.75.66 (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Y2K bug was real. Don't for one second imply it wasn't. Know anything about WORKING STORAGE? Probably not. Limit your opinions to things you know something about.
Um, no - it's a requirement of American Federal law for publicly traded companies. It would be a trend if it was optional - people face severe legal penalties if they don't comply! 65.95.109.97 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.. the penalties are serious and real. Regulatory compliance isn't a reaction to WorldCOM, it's a direct result of legislation. Whereas, one may rightly believe that the Sarbanes Oxley Act itself was a reaction, the reality of complying with Sarbanes Oxley does not represent sleazy vendor's interests. Although such capitalizing enterprises probably do exist.67.162.163.191 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true enough, provided that you are in the US - however, service industry elements (mostly financial services / auditors) are pushing SOX compliance worldwide, even for companies that have no interests in or dealings with the US. There are good reasons why they may be required to anyhow; the USG feel that any company worldwide with more than 300 shareholders in the US is subject to this law, even if they don't trade shares on US stockmarkets; this gives a lot of financial firms leverage to try and scare european companies into implimenting SOX compliance programmes, even when they don't need to. That said, I have no idea how the USG plan to monitor or force compliance by non-US firms with no US publicly traded shares, but which are caught by this umbrella.

SOX can not and is not enforced upon companies which are not publicly traded on US boards of trades. However, a number of European countries have similar legislation and Japan is in the process of enacting similar legislation in the near future.Shelshula (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A particular concern is that compliance with the law (particularly its provisions to shift personally identifiable data to the US, on demand, possibly without the express permission of its subject) automatically breach the much stricter data protection laws in Europe. DaveHowe 10:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"SOX often reminds me of the ridiculous amount of money which companies threw at the Y2K bug." - Why was it ridiculous to (1) identify a problem) and (2) send money to avoid it? I am amazed at the number of "pundits" who identify Y2K as some kind of hoax or scam, when in fact it was a real problem that was dealt with in a serious and timely manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbrims (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed in the obvious lack of understanding on where the SOX Act came from. It was a direct reaction to the several large companies in the early 2000s that took advantage of their internal accountants and cooked their books. The CEOs of these companies walked away with millions of dollars stolen from their employees. This was a huge deal and very negatively affected the stock market because in one day, a huge company like Enron or WorldCom was suddenly worth nothing. Everyone who received stock options as a form of a 401K in those companies lost everything they had been working for. I'm at a complete loss as to why Republicans have been speaking out about repealing the SOX Act. What's the harm? What threat does this Act pose, other than to ensure that publicly traded companies that make over a certain amount are actually complying with the GAAP standards? The only thing this Act requires is that these companies hire an external auditor to sign off on their books and write a note on whether or not they're sound. How can anyone take issue with that? (Unless you have something to hide, of course). NevilleSantana153 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Stephanie Santana[reply]

The Future of SOX 404 Compliance[edit]

Does the article cited really have all those misspellings? For example:

  • "Understandable" where "understandably" was clearly meant?
  • "Shoed" where "showed" would be proper.

If not, these should be corrected; otherwise, a [sic] or three might be in order. Robert A West 15:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PCAOB is now considering changing Auditing Standard 2 and quite a few other important elements. Please refer to http://www.pcaob.com/News_and_Events/News/2006/12-19.aspx to update the current status of SOX. I tried but my comments were deleted.171.18.2.84 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 supersedes Auditing Standard No. 2. Auditing Standard No. 5 was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2007 and is effective for audits of fiscal years ending on or after November 15, 2007.Shelshula (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 5: Criticism[edit]

How about a Criticism section? Acirema 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wiki isn't for opinion, it is for information. Disadvantages and advantages can be quoted, but save criticism and praise for message boards.

Almost every wiki article has a criticism section so what the hell are you talking about? As long as the criticisms are properly referenced it is a legitimate section. I'm disappointed this article lacks such a section as Ron Paul often criticizes this and I'd like to know why. JettaMann (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles have a critical section in them, This one clearly needs one and I feel it will be very extensive. As stated before there are countless experts who have stated problems with SOX 404.. It should be included in a way that the average reader will understand.Mantion 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SarBox has come under such withering fire, I can't believe the criticism section is missing (excised?). Whoever the anonymous second poster is, they are not quoting official policy. - MSTCrow 00:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Starter bit, SarBox has decreased investor confidence, cost of implementation (this is from April 2006, cost estimates have since skyrocketed about the figures given): http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/kerpen_factor200604070838.asp

A criticism section should only be posted when there is also a proponents section. They should balance each other. Otherwise the page is likely to be tagged as biased. Additionally, the criticism section should be more then just quoting the unsubstantiated opinions of two people as to why they think SOX is bad. The criticism section should include things about cost benefit, or effectiveness, or anything actually measurable. Shelshula (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Dvorak is mentioned in the criticism section. I laughed. If a computer guy - well known for unsubstantiated comment - is the best we can do then maybe the section needs to go away. Yankoz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.20.50 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall St. Journal and Ron Paul are legitimate sources. The section should remain. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a consensus on this rather volatile subject? I basically agree with Shelshula's comment of 8 June 2008. However, one of the definitions of "criticism" is "the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.". I think that is what should be implied by the word in this context. Unfortunately, another, more commonly used, and equally valid definition is "the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding". To avoid misunderstanding, I suppose we could use some synonym for the first definition I used, but I honestly can't think of any neutral word as good as criticism.
So, how about merely adding two sub-sections under Criticism? Call them Positives and Negatives or Pro and Con, keep them in that order, then put the appropriate criticisms in their appropriate subsections. Without entries in both subsections, a Criticism section is inappropriate, however, since Wikipedia should remain neutral and objective, something that's hard for most of us to do, but it's the right thing. As long as there are constructive criticisms (true objectivity, no "flaming") from both sides, not just one side, and they're within Wikipedia guidelines, that should satisfy legitimate needs for such comments. How about it? -- SFFrog (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Billymuscles (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC) says:[reply]

Criticism is not positive; consequently, a contrasting "Praise" section is necessary. Providing sources for all criticism and praise is essential to maintain neutrality and to avoid the appearance of the cited criticism or praise being perceived as the opinion of the author of the respective sections.

Sorry, had to cut lines from the WSJ editorial as they introduced unsourced claims. I put in context for the sourced claims made in the editorial. Sorry, but the numbers in the WSJ piece were too selective. I like the idea of a criticism section, but it's a tricky thing. Simply stating "X said Y" when Y is not well-sourced is not cricket, in my view.--Dlawbailey (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a reference which caught my eye, a very very low quality study done by http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/accounting/docs/speaker_papers/spring2005/Zhang_Ivy_Economic_Consequences_of_S_O.pdf The basic methodology of this study is very bad, and its results are useless. To give you a taste, it contains sentences like, "As a result, economic news is unlikely the driver of the huge losses of the period." Their way of controlling the difference between a "SOX-stock market return" and a model of a "SOX-DIDN'T-HAPPEN-stock market return" is by comparing googled news results. Please, do not reference extremely low quality "studies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.136.74 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending litigation section[edit]

Do not put extreme POV unreferenced material in this article. The SOX violation section was written with no attempt was made to write a balanced article. User:x0000grb has only made contributions on this topic, and appears to have a conflict of interest. I find it difficult to assume good faith. Wikipedia is not a soapbox Bardcom (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4.2 - SOX Section 404: Assessment of internal control[edit]

This section repeatedly uses the word "recently" which is very inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Actual dates should be referenced, or at least reasonable time frames, so that future readers know when the heck something happened.

for example: "The recently released Auditing Standard No. 5[17] of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which superseded Auditing Standard No 2., has the following key requirements for the external auditor:"

Auditing Standard No. 5 was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2007 and is effective for audits of fiscal years ending on or after November 15, 2007.

Reading this article in June of 2008 means there was nothing recent about those changes.Shelshula (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. This has been fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute tags[edit]

This article has been tagged as disputed for a long time. Are the disputes still active? If so, what are the remaining issues? If not, can the page be cleaned up, so the tags can be removed? --Elonka 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags. Looking at the article it seems that everything is solid. There should be a little more references but nothing major. --Patrick (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not solid. It's disorganized, incoherent in places, and fails to fairly and neutrally address criticisms of the law--the few parts of the article that include critical academic work have unsourced rebuttals that violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. There's no mention of the constitutional problems with the PCAOB that could result in the entire law being invalidated. The "history & context" section is particularly one-sided. THF (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about tagging the specific areas that need to be addressed? Rather than having a blanket "this article is bad" tag at the top, use templates such as {{POV-section}}, {{POV-statement}}, etc. --Elonka 19:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the whole article is bad. THF (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific on what exactly is bad about it? --Patrick (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ted works for AEI, which is an anti-regulatory think tank. He is a tough customer! I've debated parts of this article with him in the past. He would like the history and context part to be more balanced, but I don't think there is an "alternate history" of how SOX came to pass. Big corporations got out of control and they got slapped down hard once it got really obvious. He probably thinks the market would have handled this on its own (e.g., self regulation through "Financial Reporting Insurance" and resulting financial control ratings from auditors or rating agencies). Would have resulted in a streamlined 404, most likely. But that is an alternate reality that did not occur. The Chairman of the SEC had been warning since the mid-1990's, but nobody listened until it became a crisis and we all lost a lot of money. Sarbanes has gone on record multiple times with the storyline included and I believe the hearings are public record. But he has some good ideas from time to time, which I've tried to include.Farcaster (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tags at the top of the page seem very unnecessary. I ill remove unless there is a substantive objection here.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The leading note about neutrality of this article being in dispute should remain. Consider please that “Mark to Market” in Sarbanes-Oxley is not discussed and yet it is a main reason for the USA financial market instability of 2008. This is highly political!

“Of the $700billion, $500billion could be eliminated by suspending Sarbanes-Oxley and letting market forces work.” Newt Gingrich (9/29/08)

www.HeritageInstitute.com/governance/Sarbanes-Oxley.htm

www.openmarket.org/2008/09/29/bailout-fails-move-on-to-mark-to-market-reform/

CharlieShipp (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark to market is not part of Sarbanes-Oxley. It is part of a separate accounting standard. The comment doesn't make sense. Don't let conservatives fool you here; they make stuff up all the time.Farcaster (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments; your bio is well-lived and impressive; good charts too. Yes, other Conservatives have said the same thing about ‘mark to market’ and SOX. From Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 we read in section 108 ACCOUNTING:


"... the Commission may recognize, as `generally accepted' for purposes of the securities laws, any accounting principles established by a standard setting body ..."


I’ll search NYT, W-Post for leading, learned Liberals who support the premise. CharlieShipp (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charlie, SOX is costly for companies, particularly small companies. I hope they exempt small companies. SOX talks about internal company processes and how they are controlled (e.g., signoffs, reviews & approvals, audit committee independence, etc.). Mark-to-market in the subprime crisis relates to forcing companies to write down assets that they cannot sell and is part of a separate accounting standard. In some cases, this write-down makes the company subject to a margin call. In english, I loan you some money and you buy a mortgage-backed security. Defaults on the mortgages paying cash into that security go up and nobody will buy that security on the open market. So you bought it for $100 and you must mark it down to $50. That triggers a clause in our contract that enables me to get my $100 back. You see the problem...I gave you $100 and you must give me $100 back, but you can only sell the asset for $50 in the short run. In truth, that asset might be collecting cash worth $75, but mark-to-market won't let you value it like that if accounting firms put their heads in the sand. This bankrupted a lot of mortgage companies. It isn't so much the mark-to-market as the margin call aspect. Suspend the margin calls is a better idea.Farcaster (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-SOX Schto eto?[edit]

http://www.ftd.de/technik/it_telekommunikation/:Digitale-Dokumente-Deutsche-Firmen-spielen-auf-Risiko/415430.html

213.52.175.218 (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgage Crisis[edit]

Is it worth adding that many economists are blaming the acts clauses on "Mark to Market" restrictions, as a significant cause of the current situation in the markets? [1] [2] [3] Charles Edward 00:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Mark to market is NOT part of Sarbanes-Oxley. It is part of FAS 157, a technical accounting standard. If SOX were repealed, it would still be out there.Farcaster (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sources above directly contradict that.

Mark to market is a Sarbanes Oxley accounting rule that requires holdings, assets, and loans be valued at their current value. It was aimed at keeping company’s books on the up and up but it has devastated banks and mortgage lenders in the housing slump.[4]

Do you have a source? Charles Edward 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted the source correctly; the source is wrong. Try this: http://sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-234.htm. There is nothing in there about SOX. Also, bring up the SOX Act and search for "fair value" or "mark to market." I've never seen it in there.Farcaster (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and good enough for me :) Thanks Charles Edward 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this: Sarbanes-Oxley has become an ‘umbrella’ term, including mark to market accounting. Even with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_to_market entry, the term 'Sarbanes-Oxley' commonly covers the legislation acts and directions that reacted to Enron, WorldCom, and others at the top of this article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 9:45, 17 March 2009 (PT)

From the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 we read in section 108 ACCOUNTING: "... the Commission may recognize, as `generally accepted' for purposes of the securities laws, any accounting principles established by a standard setting body ..." including mark to market. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 9:45, 17 March 2009 (PT)

Just to be perfectly clear, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and Mark to Market accounting are entirely separate issues. If SOX were repealed, we would still have mark to market accounting, which is part of FAS 157. Likewise, if mark to market is adjusted or eliminated, we would still have SOX. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. Trying to combine the two is a game being played by some powerful conservatives who want the SOX law repealed. They are playing loose and fast with the facts. Bear in mind also that suspending mark-to-market is very controversial. If banks are not required to write-down their assets to the most objective measure--what like-kind assets have sold for recently--we will never know how healthy they are. This increases the risk of a Japan-like stagnation. On the other hand, marking assets to market rather than a reasonable estimate of expected cash value kills small finance companies because they are then faced with margin calls. Companies that borrowed and made good loans have gone bankrupt or nearly so (see Thornburg Mortgage and American Capital Strategies for examples of companies that could no longer get funding because their performing assets had to be marked down significantly, for no apparent reason.)Farcaster (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Farcaster: Thanks for all you have taught me and readers here. Your bio is well worth reading, with charts and dollar amounts, highly recommended reading. And your prior comment was excellent (but I am just an observer, not in your line of work, so can't totally judge.) As you said,

"... It isn't so much the mark-to-market as the margin call aspect. Suspend the margin calls is a better idea.", Farcaster (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence, although others may hold to the 'umbrella term.' Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of en dash in article title[edit]

Why does this article's title use an en dash rather than a hyphen? That appears to me to be a violation of Wikipedia's Common Name Rule. A quick Google search for "Sarbanes Oxley" seems to turn up far more hyphens than en dashes. For example, here the SEC uses hyphens rather than en dashes, and here The Washington Post uses hyphens rather than en dashes. Most Wikipedians trying to look up the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are likely to use a hyphen, rather than an en dash. This requires Wikipedia to constantly redirect all these searches. One of the reasons for the Common Name Rule is to reduce the number of redirections. Most computer users don't even know how to type an en dash (Alt+0150 in Windows). I'm sure somebody will try to argue that an en dash is more grammatically correct, so for them I point out that regarding article titles Wikipedia's Common Name Rule takes precedence over "correctness". --JHP (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly correct; and on Macintosh, it is option-dash. When changed, linking articles need to be changed also, correct? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The en dash in this title is correct and proper, and redirects from a hyphenated form are not unusual. I could not find where reducing the number of redirections was given as a reason for the Common Name Rule. There are other rules about en dashes and titles than just the Common Name Rule. In particular, debate on title changes should be avoided if the title is stable, which it appears to have been since the hyphenated redirect page was created in 2004. DLeonard (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During a Google-search, I found amazing instructional information. Hope you will be just as happy: "One mark of professionally set type is the proper use of hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes. Each is a different size and has its own proper usage. Learn how to create, modify, and typeset en dashes (–), em dashes (—), and hyphens (-) in desktop publishing. Here's How: The size of the en and em dashes is roughly equivalent to the width of the lowercase n and m, respectively, for the typeface in which they are used.
* En dashes (–) are primarily for showing duration or range as in 9:00–5:00 or 112–600 or March 15–31.
* Em dashes (—) are the proper dashes to use in place of single or double hyphens(--) as punctuation. Similar to a parenthetical phrase (like this) the em dash sets apart clauses in a sentence.
* Hyphens are for hyphenating words and to separate characters in a phone number (123-555-0123).
Create en dashes with Option-hyphen (Mac) or ALT 0150 (Windows) — hold down the ALT key and type 0150 on the numeric keypad.
Create em dashes with Shift-Option-hyphen (Mac) or ALT 0151 (Windows) — hold down the ALT key and type 0151 on the numeric keypad."
http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/finetypography/ht/dashes_hyphens.htm
Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the uneducated?[edit]

This article, while clearly thoroughly-researched, does not let the casual reader find out what Sarbanes-Oxley is just by reading the first paragraph. It should be clear enough that someone who just wants to know what it's about can figure that out at the start. "is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002" is not very informative! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.31.78 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. Keep in mind that the term has come to represent more than the original legislation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tangible benefits of SOX to investors[edit]

I think it would improve the article if additional examples of tangible benefits to investors could be cited. I have added one involving Value Line [1] in which a Value Line portfolio manager made a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.[2][3][4] The benefit to certain Value Line mutual fund investors was about $34 million.[5]


Vlanalyst (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)vlanalyst[reply]

References

  1. ^ ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-13675 In the Matter of Value Line, Inc., Value Line Securities, Inc., Jean Bernhard Buttner, and David Henigson, Respondents
  2. ^ Publisher Value Line may take earnings hit from SEC inquiry
  3. ^ Value Line Settlement Marks End of Buttner Reign
  4. ^ The S.E.C. Is Investigating Fee Practices at Value Line
  5. ^ Value Line, execs to pay $45 mln in SEC case

Introduction and Section 2.1[edit]

In the Introduction it is stated, that the SOX Act Passed the House with 421 to 3 votes, in Section 2.1 it says that is passed the House with 423 to 3 votes. Am I missing something or is that a mistake?

WikiProject Public Policy United States Assessment[edit]

After reading both a low-quality, C-rated article (Internet Censorship) and a high quality, GA-rated (Brown v. Board of Education), I found this article had more in common with the GA-rated article. While I agree that the introduction is lengthy for a synopsis, the article is thorough, well-researched, and readable. Although my knowledge of the SOX act is limited, I recognize that its passage and its advocates and critics are highly polarized. I am therefore impressed that the article maintained a neutral POV and granted equal attention to the SOX act's advantages and disadvantages. In addition, its summaries of papers examining the cost-benefit analysis of the act appear an unusual feature of a Wikipedia article, and one I find useful, because it gives the reader a starting point of academic papers and their findings to read for more information. IR393.awc211 (talk 16:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good Ashley, Sadads (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion[edit]

The events that led to the passage of SOX mirror those that led to the Securities Act of 1933 and other pieces of legislation shortly thereafter. It might help Reader see the bigger picture by inserting some of this history (maybe a sentence with wikilinks) into the lead somewhere. NancyHeise talk 02:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me.
However, I think the lede is already a bit bloated. How about mentioning it further down the article, in the "History and context..." section? bobrayner (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of Sarbanes Oxley Act on a long term basis[edit]

I'm not sure how the section entitled "Benefits of Sarbanes Oxley Act on a long term basis" is intended to differ from the "Benefits to firms and investors" section. I'm not sure what the author was trying to construct here; it feels more like a thesis than anything else. The first sentence claims sox "ensures reliable financial reporting" and "investors confidence is increased", but the given cite is an op-ed that seems to indicate the act intended to do this but reslts were mixed as of five years ago. The next sentence claims "Companies are no longer able to manipulate inventories or stocks of products or sales as there is a real time reporting system in place"; complete nonsense that is again not supported in the cite from 2003.

The claim of "ensures standard data entry system" is supported by a vendor whitepaper which speaks to data quality, but nothing directly linked to the act. The last claim of ethical progress is covered in the "Benefits to firms and investors" section. I'd love to re-write this to comply with our guidelines, but I'm not seeing anything realistic that is not already covered. Would appriciate clarification on intent here. Kuru (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed a "New developments" section from the same author that was completely uncited and duplicates material in the "legal challenges" section. I would prefer a discussion before this material is re-added. Kuru (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A December 21, 2008 Wall St. Journal editorial stated . . .[edit]

More than half of the criticisms section is based on an editorial, that itself doesn't even cite most sources. I realize addition info has been added from other sources to counter some of its claims, but it seems silly to even reference an editorial, especially one with so many factual errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.238.160 (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newt Gingrich continues to hammer Sarbanes-Oxley[edit]

Last evening, in the Iowa debate of eight Republican primary election candidates, Newt Gingrich was passionate about repealing three Democrat supported legislation areas. He, again, uses the umbrella term when referring to issues relating to 'Mark-to-Market'. Here are my notes on what he said in his brief closing remark: 'I thank Fox and Washington Examiner. Election is 15 months away. We are in a crisis now—contact your representatives. Repeal Dodd-Frank; repeal Sarbanes-Oxley; repeal Obamacare! This summer, start saving American families from the pain they are in. We need real leadership now!" So you see, he remains adamant in criticizing this regulatory act and what has ensued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the main FoxNews Headline for today: "2012 GOP Target Enron-Era Rules"; with the text: "Several GOP candidates say they seek to repeal at least part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, an almost decade-old accounting regulation, which they argue will ease burdens on businesses." One can presume that the part they mean is 'Mark-to-Market'. . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/27/decade-old-accounting-regulation-becomes-popular-target-on-2012-campaign-trail/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The Fox News article is very well written, by James Rosen, and ends with an interview quote of former congressman, (Republican) Michael G. Oxley of Ohio: “We didn't write [the law] in stone,” said Oxley to Fox News. “I think it's highly likely and probably a good thing that you'd have some revisions.” . . . Republican candidates mentioned in the article are Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Praise for Sarbanes-Oxley[edit]

I removed the statement that restatements have fallen after an initial spike after the act was passed. The source does not support this contention, nor have I been able to find any other source with data beyond 2006. --Mattzell 8/23/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattzell (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one sentence[edit]

Hello,

I have a problem with one sentence written in the Article, it say so: "It does not apply to privately held companies." But all the companies (more or less) except the governmental e.g. are privately held - through the shares - if not on any other way.

To which companies is SoX then applicable? --194.152.253.4 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a poor choice of wording. I'm not familiar with the quirks of American regulatory vocabulary in this field but the Act talks about issuers - that is, issuers of shares and bonds. It may be that whoever wrote that text in the article used "privately held" to mean an organisation that is controlled by a single owner, which would not have any other shareholders who need protection from deception by dubious accounting or misreporting. However, I believe such organisations could still be subject to SoX if they issue certain other pieces of paper, such as bonds - after all, somebody deciding to invest in some bonds would still need to base their decisions on financial statements and would therefore deserve SoX's protection from misleading statements. bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence was generally correct; the act only applies to firms in which shares are publicly traded (not just a private corporate allocation, or non-corporate entities). Many other regulatory agencies (e.g. state insurance) adopt "SarBox" compliant standards which essentially enforce the same rigor for non-public firms, which can lead to some confusion. The private/public nature of the act is noted elsewhere in the article, so I'm not sure it needs to be re-added. Kuru (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecutions[edit]

I would think many would find some simple statistics or examples of people and/or organizations that have been prosecuted under this law. I know that there have been some cyber-criminals prosecuted under it, notably U.S. vs. Kernell (which involved hacking into Sarah Palin's email account) which is not really what the law was intended for.

Also, I cannot find any instances of a corporate executive actually ever being prosecuted under SOX for financial controls failure. If that is something that can be verified, it would be very informative, that the thing the law is designed to do is either not being enforced or companies are complying 100% with it. 208.46.106.5 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Wade Anderson[reply]

This seems to be the section that is most related to my concern... I am looking for FAILURES of SOX to prevent its targeted problems. In particular, it seems that the recent problems at Toshiba are just what SOX was supposed to order against. The doctor was out? Perhaps more likely that I just don't understand one or both sides of it, but I definitely understand that Toshiba screwed up big-time and had to postpone the regular shareholders' meeting for several months. (My general feeling is that you can't fix the game because the wannabe cheaters will violate ANY rule, including any rules imposed for SOX testing. Just a new target for scamming--or for legalized bribing of politicians to create new loopholes. Ergo, I am already highly skeptical of SOX, but that would be a POV and Wikipedia only wants facts--like how SOX failed at Toshiba.) Shanen (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.1 : Patently biased and fails to show neutral citations.[edit]

The whole section in of itself is POV; I cannot find any adequate citations that would substantiate the whole section. I hope someone will be able to show us some citations that would guide us to a sensible understanding without POV being injected. Otherwise if there is a failure to show us an unbiased opinion of why this legislation passed, I would object to it being neutral as part of wiki standards.J.arellano619 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed Name Misspelling[edit]

In the section "Clawbacks of executive compensation for misconduct" there is a common misspelling of Don Whalen's name, being listed as Dan Whalen. Here is a link to one of our Audit Analytic's reports written by Don: http://www.auditanalytics.com/0002/view-custom-reports.php?report=41b4b4e7b20568a09a3b31aad2157fdb JMorgan at Audit Analytics 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sarbanes–Oxley Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Odd typo?[edit]

Found the neologism, "Spussyarbanes" in the text. Its only google hit is here.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sarbanes–Oxley Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bad links[edit]

Hello, there are some bad links that lead to ads and possible virus material. I found that footnotes 22 and 23 are two of multiple culprits. I'm trying to do some schoolwork on this but this article's broken links aren't helping me at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4580:1E04:1540:5FCB:98B2:ED12 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - looks like the domain expired and was bought out by scammers. I've found an alternate source for one of the documents, and removed the others. Kuru (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarbanes–Oxley_Act&oldid=1209395047"