Skip to main content

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) has had a significant impact on strategic management practices and strategies. Discuss how the Sarbanes-Oxley...

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), passed in 2002, was intended to prevent scandals such as the Enron accounting fraud. It tried to prevent fraud in accounting, increase people's confidence in the financial reports of public companies, and safeguard shareholders. It created new laws about internal financial reporting and new requirements for financial audits of public companies. 


One of the most important effects the law had was that it made boards more powerful than management. Before Sarbanes-Oxley, boards had to some degree served under management. Boards now have greater oversight over management and must be more active about making sure management is abiding by the terms of the law. Boards have to take a more responsible role over management, and they also have to have greater technical expertise to do so. 


In addition, since the law was passed, companies have had to develop codes of ethics and conduct that apply to their senior management and financial officers. NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange also started expecting companies to disclose their codes of conduct, and the Sarbanes-Oxley law stated that the SEC would expect companies to do so as well. 


Sarbanes-Oxley also instituted the independent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to perform external independent audits of companies. In the past, companies were allowed to perform these functions internally. In addition, since the law was passed, shareholders have taken a more proactive role in the management of companies and used proxy votes to voice their opinions on matters such as executive compensation. The need to follow the provisions of the law has resulted in increased costs for public companies. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more