Reasons to Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley
It has been six years since Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the devastating accounting irregularities of Enron and WorldCom. While the intent of the law was to prevent corporate fraud, there is growing evidence that it has done more harm than good, and is undermining the venture-capital industry in Silicon Valley. Now, with signs that our economy is moving toward recession, Congress should take this opportunity to repeal the law for four reasons:
It was insufficient at preventing insolvencies and accounting shortfalls
in companies such as Bear Sterns, Lehman Bros., American International Group
(AIG) and Merrill Lynch. It takes longer for a company to enter the Capital Market: Estimates from leading figures in the venture-capital community indicate the
average company will now take 12 years before it can successfully issue an
initial public offering (up from five years pre-Sarbanes-Oxley) because they do
not have enough capital to cover the estimated $4.36 million hidden tax in
yearly compliance costs, according to an estimate by the Financial Executives
International. (The initial estimate from the Securities and Exchange
Commission was approximately $91,000 per company on average.) Sarbanes-Oxley
turned out in practice to cost small companies 50 times more than the SEC
estimated. Oxley said the law gave the accounting industry "almost carte
blanche to do almost everything they wanted to do, which turned out to be far
more expensive than anticipated. ... They just went crazy."
In addition, by creating criminal liabilities for board members,
Sarbanes-Oxley has made it harder to find experienced members to join corporate
boards.
It initiated a movement among smaller public companies to return to
private status or merge. In 2006, the law firm Foley & Lardner LLP
conducted a survey of 114 public companies on the effects of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Twenty-one percent of companies were considering going private, 10 percent were
considering selling the company, and 8 percent were considering merging with
another company. These respondents mostly were companies with less than $1 billion
in annual revenue.
It is resulting in a trend where companies choose to go public on
foreign, not American, stock exchanges. In 2005, a report by the London Stock
Exchange cited that about 38 percent of the international companies surveyed
said they had considered issuing securities in the United States. Of those, 90
percent said the onerous demands of the new Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance
law had made London listing more attractive.
Latest News
Ideoblog | How about optional SOX?
Tech Crunch | Newt Gingrich: Kill Sarbanes-Oxley
CNET | Sarbanes-Oxley Cheat Sheet
InfoWorld | New regulations will soon swell IT workloads
|