Sarbanes-Oxley

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
I would be curious to hear from those that support more regulation on the economy their thoughts so far on Sarbanes-Oxley. That act is not the same as what we are looking at today but it came out of our last big 'corporate scandal' which was the Enron/Worldcom corporate fallout and was put together pretty hastily.

I know the business critique of the act and working for a public company I've seen the changes first hand that the act has caused. However I'd be curious to hear those who supported the new regulations and whether they are still happy with it today?
 
has S/O really accompolished anything ? I had the idea that it was pretty toothless and not adhered to very well.
 
would be more jobs for me.... sox itself got me a few job roles because others had to spend more time dealing with that bullshit and hired me to handle their other work.
 
Chapdog said:
would be more jobs for me.... sox itself got me a few job roles because others had to spend more time dealing with that bullshit and hired me to handle their other work.
Click to expand...

our office has been teaming with accountants since this passed.
 
cawacko said:
our office has been teaming with accountants since this passed.
Click to expand...

i never got why people who touch SOX bitch about it so much. I would always comment to them that its a gift.. job security and opportunity to us Finance/accounting MBA types.
 
It has made CEOs and the like more nervous about things.

Its been a huge pain in the ass for the rest of us.



I doubt much has changed.
 
uscitizen said:
So has it worked ?
and do we need the same type of oversight in the finiancial and banking industry ?
Click to expand...

different kind.. SOX is to avoid cooking the books. Oversight in the banking, insurance, and mortgage industries should center around limitations on what they the companies can invest in with the money they have on deposit for premiums or savings. Additionally there should be some sort of forced accountability for selling bad mortgages. some scum with shit credit shouldnt be able to buy a home with less then 20% down as regular practice that was going on in the mid 00's..
 
Has it made financial reporting more accurate? Does it make people report actual figures or is it just one more layer added to the shit pile? All I know is before it Enron lied and pensions died.
 
Yes in finiancials we need the restrictions put back in that were removed. that is the first required action imho.
 
cawacko said:
our office has been teaming with accountants since this passed.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's definetely moved it to being more favorable for larger scale businesses (ie: big corporations) to handle it better, like most regulations. How ironic given that like most regulations, it was supported by lefties to address bigger corporate power.
 
Socrtease said:
Has it made financial reporting more accurate? Does it make people report actual figures or is it just one more layer added to the shit pile? All I know is before it Enron lied and pensions died.
Click to expand...
Enron execs were prosecuted before it, so was it really ever needed?

The very few corps where criminal accounting fraud occurred cost billions yes, but Sarbanes-Oxley has cost $1.4 TRILLION in lost productivity.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/haman2.html
The cure is worse than the problem by far.

I suppose we could reduce a lot of crime by forcing every person to record their daily activities, but it would be wrong, so it is too for business.
 
uscitizen said:
Did Dano's post make sense to anyone else ? Or is it just me ?
Click to expand...

I can be clearer. If you pass a law that requires more accounting oversight, then the businesses need to hire more accountants. In other words the scale of a business necessary to compete now needs to be larger or closer to what a big corporation is.
 
uscitizen said:
Sheesh Dixie is quoting Paulite leaders now.
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor -whenever any one mentions the words "sarbanes oxley" tune out. A con is about to start burying you in right wing horseshit.

Cawacko and I used to argue, years ago, about the bush economics. I would tell him the cons were trying to bankrupt the govt so that they could basically, undo the new deal/great society programs, and ensure that we never got health care.

he used to laugh at me, and say "cut social spending, where? bush is spending like a liberal".

Now, years later, they have been succesful in exactly what I laid out to Cawacko, and Cawacko has forgotten all about it and is still yammering on about Sardines and Oxes.

It's just noise to cover the roars.
 
Darla said:
Do yourself a favor -whenever any one mentions the words "sarbanes oxley" tune out. A con is about to start burying you in right wing horseshit.

Cawacko and I used to argue, years ago, about the bush economics. I would tell him the cons were trying to bankrupt the govt so that they could basically, undo the new deal/great society programs, and ensure that we never got health care.

he used to laugh at me, and say "cut social spending, where? bush is spending like a liberal".

Now, years later, they have been succesful in exactly what I laid out to Cawacko, and Cawacko has forgotten all about it and is still yammering on about Sardines and Oxes.

It's just noise to cover the roars.
Click to expand...

Ohh I fully agree. And yes I need to tune out a few emotacons here more.
 
Darla said:
Do yourself a favor -whenever any one mentions the words "sarbanes oxley" tune out. A con is about to start burying you in right wing horseshit.

Cawacko and I used to argue, years ago, about the bush economics. I would tell him the cons were trying to bankrupt the govt so that they could basically, undo the new deal/great society programs, and ensure that we never got health care.

he used to laugh at me, and say "cut social spending, where? bush is spending like a liberal".

Now, years later, they have been succesful in exactly what I laid out to Cawacko, and Cawacko has forgotten all about it and is still yammering on about Sardines and Oxes.

It's just noise to cover the roars.
Click to expand...

I don't get the relevance of what you said to anything we are discussing. All I asked was opinions of people who support it and why. That's not a gotcha question or even that partisan. It's simply asking why people like or don't like it.

Purely conjecture but you must think it is a big failure since it seems to be an issue you think not worthy of even discussing. It is has a tremendous impact on business. You can argue postive or negative but it is not benign legislation.

So not sure what it has to do with Bush cutting social spending or not.
 
Chapdog said:
i never got why people who touch SOX bitch about it so much. I would always comment to them that its a gift.. job security and opportunity to us Finance/accounting MBA types.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the tax code. Some of us prefer to do productive work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top