Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Modules
· Home
· Content
· Directory
· Downloads
· FAQ
· Forums
· Search
· Sox_Admin
· Statistics
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Your Account

Sarbox Compliance
The appropriately named Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Toolkit includes a whole range of materials specifically put together to both introduce, and take you through this most important of legislation.

For detailed information see the toolkit's own website: Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance


SOX Act and Security
As security is such a major theme on the Act, many organizations are using the international ISO standards. The ISO 27001 Portal outlines these. A copy of the standards, and security policies, can be obtained via the ISO 17799 Toolkit.

The SOX email storage requirements can be fulfilled using the GFI MailArchiver


SOX Advertisers


Sarbanes What?
Our server logs indicate some interesting mis-spellings: Sarbannes Oxley, Sorbane Oxley, Sarbanne Oxley, Sarbaines Oxley, Sarbanesoxley, Sorbanes Oxley, Sabanes Oxley, Sarbane Oxley, and Sarbanes Oaxley, to name but a few!

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Forum: Forums

The Sarbanes Oxley Act :: View topic - The Garrett-Adler amendment to the Sarbanes Oxley Act
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Login to check your private messagesLogin to check your private messages   LoginLogin 

The Garrett-Adler amendment to the Sarbanes Oxley Act

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Sarbanes Oxley Act Forum Index -> General Sarbanes Oxley Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lekatis
SoxGuru
SoxGuru


Joined: Feb 15, 2005
Posts: 302
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:45 am    Post subject: The Garrett-Adler amendment to the Sarbanes Oxley Act Reply with quote

Prepare for the Garrett-Adler amendment to the Sarbanes Oxley Act.

The House Financial Services (HFS) Committee has voted to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to permanently exempt small public companies (companies valued at less than $75 million) from the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404b.

The Garrett-Adler amendment, offered by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and Rep. John Adler (D-NJ), was approved in the HFS Committee as part of the Investor Protection Act (IPA).

The Garrett-Adler amendment (that is incorporated in the Investor Protection Act of 2009) exempts all small issuers from 404(b) and requires the SEC to study how the cost-of-compliance burden for companies with market caps between $75 million and $250 million can be reduced.

More than 50% of all publicly traded companies have market capitalizations below $75 million.

Let's remember Section 404b of the Sarbanes Oxley Act

SEC. 404. MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL CONTROLS.
(a) RULES REQUIRED.—
The Commission shall prescribe rules requiring each annual report required by section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) to contain an internal control report, which shall—

(1) state the responsibility of management for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting; and

(2) contain an assessment, as of the end of the most recent fiscal year of the issuer, of the effectiveness of the internal control structure and procedures of the issuer for financial
reporting.

404(b) INTERNAL CONTROL EVALUATION AND REPORTING.—
With respect to the internal control assessment required by subsection (a), each registered public accounting firm that prepares or issues the audit report for the issuer shall attest to, and report on, the assessment made by the management of the issuer.
An attestation made under this subsection shall be made in accordance with standards for attestation engagements issued or adopted by the Board. Any such attestation shall not be the subject of a separate engagement.


Is it a good decision?

I do not think so. It is a fact that smaller public companies have less controls in place and face more risks, as there are as many people in the smaller companies committing fraud as those in major organizations.

I am also surprised with the humor or the ignorance - they do not protect investors of small public companies any more, with an amendment incorporated in the "Investor Protection Act"!!!

I have made a decision: I will never invest in smaller public companies again, as there is no independent reasonable assurance that their financial statements are reflecting the financial conditions of these companies.

Audiatur et altera pars (hear the other side)
Garrett Statement on Committee Passage of Sarbanes Oxley Amendment


Rep. Scott Garrett’s (R-NJ) Sarbanes-Oxley amendment to the Investor Protection Act of 2009, cosponsored by Rep. John Adler (D-NJ), was approved by the Financial Services Committee today by a roll call vote of 37-32.

This amendment would exempt small businesses from the burdensome reporting requirements contained within Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 .

The amendment language mirrors legislation Garrett introduced earlier this year, the “Small Business SOX Compliance Relief Act.”

“Although the stated intent of Sarbanes-Oxley was to provide investor confidence in our markets through greater accountability and disclosure, the Act has had the unintended effect of creating undue—and often unbearable—burdens on small businesses,” Garrett said.

“There is a place for Federal oversight, but the weighty cost of compliance under Section 404 is slowly strangling small businesses. It is diverting valuable resources away from other legitimate business needs; creating massive and tedious documentation requirements; and discouraging the public listing of both international and domestic companies on U.S. markets.

Honest companies are being punished and the U.S. economy will suffer as a result. Especially now, as our country struggles to emerge from a recession, the last thing American small businesses need is another barrier to economic stabilization.

I would like to thank my colleague from New Jersey for working with me on this bipartisan amendment that will free small businesses from onerous regulations and allow them to return their focus and their resources to creating jobs for unemployed Americans and innovating for our economy.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has repeatedly extended the deadline for non-accelerated filers to begin providing audited assessments of their internal controls over financial reporting, an acknowledgement of continued concern about compliance costs.

Although reforms were made in 2007 to relax the guidelines for smaller companies, businesses of all sizes still report excessive compliance costs, as noted in an SEC report from September 2009 .

In summarizing survey responses from businesses regarding the benefits of Section 404 compliance, the SEC wrote, “[A] majority felt that the costs of compliance outweighed the benefits. This was especially true among smaller companies.”

The extra requirements of Section 404 increase costs to small companies significantly.

Section 404 adds external consulting costs, including legal fees, and substantially increases the audit and attestation fees for these companies. Research by NASDAQ shows that the burden of compliance, on a percentage of revenue basis, is 11 times greater for small companies . This creates an unfair competitive advantage for larger companies

Which is your opinion?
_________________
George Lekatis
President of the Sarbanes Oxley Compliance Professionals Association (SOXCPA)
www.sarbanes-oxley-association.com
Back to top
View users profile Send email Visit posters website
gmerkl
MasterSoxer
MasterSoxer


Joined: May 26, 2008
Posts: 187
Location: Switzerland

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:12 am    Post subject: It's too early to start a hype Reply with quote

It is too early to start a hype and some important facts are missing:
============================================
1) the amendment that you mention is not the only amendment that would impact section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. There are several other amendments that would impact section 404.

2) the bill has only passed the comittee for financial services of the US house of representatives. It has not yet been approved by the full house, it has not been discussed or approved by the senate and not been signed by the president. So it is too early to start any hype.

3) I have not seen rigorous scientific studies that have showed that section 404(a) or section 404(b) have decreased restatements of financial statements that were caused by material misstatements due to fraud or error. Section 404 and regular audits of financial statements are not primarily designed to specifically prevent or detect financial statement fraud. management override for fraud is the achilles heel of internal control.

4) While the recent SEC study has collected some data on the costs of complying with section 404(a) and section 404(b) and "perceived" benefits through surveys of companies and interviews of investors, the study has some important flaws.

a) The study has not made an estimate of the costs of section 404(a) and section 404(b) for non-accelerated filers. In addition, the costs have not been put in a form that would be meaningful to an investor (e.g. how much % reduction in net profit it is going to cost) in non-accelerate filers so that the investor can make an INFORMED judgement about the cost-benefit relation.

b) In the study, the SEC admits that they have not asked investors that actually invest in non-accelerated filers, but only a small number of investors that invest in much larger companies. In addition, when being asked about any perceived benefits, those investors did not know and were not given the costs of compliance.

5) Existing studies show that the additional audit fee for section 404(b) and the cost for section 404(a) increase degressively with increasting company size measured by total assets. The cost of section 404 is thus higher when expressed as a percentage of assets, revenues or net profit.

6) The benefit of any regulation that is designed to protect investors should exceed the cost that is born by these investors. Otherwise investors are not protected, but harmed by the regulation and consultants and auditors are the ones who primarily benefit from this regulation.
Back to top
View users profile
gmerkl
MasterSoxer
MasterSoxer


Joined: May 26, 2008
Posts: 187
Location: Switzerland

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:28 am    Post subject: internal control and the reliability of financial statements Reply with quote

"I have made a decision: I will never invest in smaller public companies again, as there is no independent reasonable assurance that their financial statements are reflecting the financial conditions of these companies."

An audit of internal control over financial reporting is not the only tool that is designed to assure the reliability of the financial statements of non-accelerated filers:

Non-accelerated filers (i.e. smaller public companies) have been required to have internal control over financial reporting by the Securities Exchange Act (as amended by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) since 1977.

Non-accelerated filers are already required to have their managment perform an assessment of the effectiveness of their internal control over financial reporting (i.e. section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act).

In addition, non-accelerated filers are required to have disclosure controls and procedures which cover all disclosures in quarterly, annual and ad-hoc reports and cover more than just the financial statements. In addition, their management also has to assess the effectiveness of those disclosure controls and procedures every quarter. Fraudulent financial reporting is subject to administrative sanctions by the SEC (including officer and director bars and monetary penalties) and is subject to criminal sanctions by the Department of Justice (including jailtime).

Non-accelerated filers are also required to have their consolidated financial statements audited by a registered public accountant. As part of his audit, the registered public account decides in which areas of the financial statements it is more efficient to audit the effectiveness of internal control over those areas (i.e. tests of controls) and in which areas it is more efficient to audit the financial statement items themselves (i.e. substantive tests, such as confirmation of receivables, confirmation of cash and liabilities, etc.).

Sarbanes-Oxley's provisions for the protection of whistleblowers also apply to non-accelerated filers. However, the board of directors or the audit committee of companies who do not have a listing on a national securities exchange in the US are not required to establish a system for the receipt of whistleblowing complaints.
Back to top
View users profile
lekatis
SoxGuru
SoxGuru


Joined: Feb 15, 2005
Posts: 302
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The facts

1. The Obama administration is strongly supporting the amemdment.

The House Financial Services Committee, under pressure from the White House, voted to exempt small public companies from 404b. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel lobbied members of the Committee to exempt small public companies.

We already have an agreement:

Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel negotiated with Adler on behalf of the White House and the Treasury Department to avoid a more damaging amendment that would have exempted firms already covered by Sarbanes-Oxley-those with market capitalization of less than $700 million.

"Mr. Adler was persuaded that it would be better public policy to do a $75 million forever carve-out," Frank told reporters. Sarbanes-Oxley requirements already are suspended for those companies, he added.

Jen Psaki, deputy White House press secretary, said it is a “strong bill” and noted, “Our focus must be on addressing the threats posed to investors and consumers by large, interconnected companies rather than placing an undue burden on small businesses. We are working closely with Congress to determine the best vehicle for getting that accomplished.”

2. Several Sarbanes Oxley professionals have already been informed by smaller public firms that they will not be needed in 2010.

3. About my right to (not) invest in small public firms that will not be under 404b.

Yes, I have made a decision: I will never invest in smaller public companies again, as there is no independent reasonable assurance that their financial statements are reflecting the financial conditions of these companies

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro wrote a letter to the committee on Oct. 16 opposing an exemption, saying the law "leads management to better understand financial reporting risks, put in place appropriate controls to address financial reporting risks, and addressing internal control deficiencies in a more timely fashion."

Former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt was sharply critical of any efforts to roll back Sarbanes-Oxley. "Any member of Congress that supports the weakening of Sarbanes-Oxley is by definition anti-investor and will bear that responsibility for their legislative careers," Levitt said.

According to New York Times
The House Financial Services Committee this week approved an amendment to the Investor Protection Act of 2009 — a name George Orwell would appreciate — to allow most companies to never comply with the law, and mandating a study to see whether it would be a good idea to exempt additional ones as well.
_________________
George Lekatis
President of the Sarbanes Oxley Compliance Professionals Association (SOXCPA)
www.sarbanes-oxley-association.com
Back to top
View users profile Send email Visit posters website
gmerkl
MasterSoxer
MasterSoxer


Joined: May 26, 2008
Posts: 187
Location: Switzerland

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:47 am    Post subject: Amendments in the house committee on financial services Reply with quote

The Maloney-Garrett amendment no. 9 would temporarily exempt non-accelerated filers from compliance with section 404(b) until the SEC and the GAO have completed a study to evaluate the costs and benefits of section 404(b) for non-accelerated filers. The exemption would be at least until June 1, 2011.

The Capuano-Garrett amendment no. 32 would require the SEC to study whether to include an additional less than USD 250 million revenue filter for issuers that have a public float of less than USD 700 million in its definition of a smaller public companies.

The Garrett-Adler amendment no. 44 would permanently exempt non-accelerated filers from compliance with section 404(b). It would also require the GAO and the SEC to study how the cost of compliance with section 404(b) could be reduced for issuers with market caps between USD 75 and 250 million and whether such cost reductions or a complete compliance exemption would encorage companies to list on securities exchanges in the US.

The amendments have been made sequentially. It would seem that the content of the Garrett-Adler amendment no. 44 would sort of overrule the Maloney-Garrett amendment no. 9 by exempting non-accelerated filers permanently without any further condition.
Back to top
View users profile


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Sarbanes Oxley Act Forum Index -> General Sarbanes Oxley Discussion All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forums ©

 
Trademarks referenced on the SOX Act Forum are property of their respective owners. Comments are property of their respective posters.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Implementation Portal: Sarbanes Oxley compliance, information, software, & internal audit committee resources. Sarbox.
Site source is copyright nuke (c)2003, and is Free Software under the GNU / GPL licence agreement. All Rights Are Reserved.