Article: Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley 2101

  • While John Dvorak is highly regarded and respected in the Technology sector, I don’t agree with a total repeal of SOX, as it has done some good in spite of the costs and challenges in fully supporting it. Hopefully, the recent changes made by the PCAOB to the currently nebulous SOX 404 standards will provide some middle ground between a total repeal and where we are at today.%0AArticle: JOHN DVORAK’S SECOND OPINION Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley%0APlease paste to browser and add{5EA568D5-6DE9-4AB8-AF93-7FD86647A8CB} While I’m not advocating a return to the crazed investment fever of 1999, I wouldn’t mind seeing something other than mergers and acquisitions. While M_and_As were popular back then too they now seem to be the only thing happening in tech. %0AI blame Sarbanes-Oxley and so does everyone else in the valley. %0ANo CEO can handle going from high-flying and aggressive go-go growth to slamming on the brakes to become the CEO/personal auditor of the company fretting about ridiculous details. %0AMost people estimate that it costs any public company a minimum of 4% of bottom line profits to implement and maintain compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley.

  • Presidential hopeful Ron Paul ® voted against SOX in the first place and would repeal 404. This is MY main issue this go around.
    I just read the following article. I think it is the MOST important item in the upcoming election. How many others are as sick of Sarbox as I am? It is costing me a fortune and for what??? Here is a guy running for President that is against this Act and will work to repeal it. Ron Paul. Read this:
    Then go to the home page and find the ‘Ron Paul file’ where you can read a lot of other stuff about him. He is so popular on the Internet you can get lost in the websites his supporters have put up for him, but the official campaign website is I sure haven’t heard another candidate talk about this albatross around our necks. He even voted against in the first place and tried to get it repealed once before. He has been in Congress for ten terms. So this guy really means it. Just to imagine being free of 404… chills.
    Anyway, I thought it was a great article.
    See also:

  • Is it the Sarbanes Oxley Act that has done the damage or the interpretation of that act firstly via the PCAOB and then, perhaps more signifcantly, the over compliaction of that interpretation by the audit firms who have the goal to maximise revenue whilst protecting themselves from any litigation?
    The Act in itself seemed reasonable. The only really contentious element of it from what I can see was 404 and even that looks OKish in the Act itself. The PCAOB guidance, whilst understandable, may have been somewhat over the top - especially in how to intrepret 404.
    The application, however, of that guidance by the big 4 seemed excessive to me. Every excuse under the sun seemed to appear to justify the extra work the auditors had to do to satisfy SOX leaving the question ‘what were they doing before’. In so doing fees went up at a cost to either the shareholder or investment spend.
    We should also recognise how much was uncovered in the US as a result of SOX.
    Why should there only be two options - all or nothing?

  • I agree with WL that some middle ground on SOX compliancy is needed and am hopeful the changes due near year-end might provide the adjustments needed in SOX 404. There is a lot of goodness in SOX 302 and other elements of the law that was admittedly overdone for SOX 404 (esp. being nebulus in it’s application) and made costly for some companies to implement.

  • Also John9988 I think you are a touch deluded if you think that SOX is the most important issue in the upcoming (in 15 months.) election. 8O

Log in to reply