Apolyton Votes!

[Ramo]

Yep. Fantastic law

[-Jrabbit]

I voted as I always do -- against the incumbents.

Power corrupts.

I also make it a policy to talk earnestly to pollsters, answer all their questions, then tell them that 50% of my responses were lies.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Sarbannes-Oxley, and thats supposed to be a check in the good collumn.

It appears to be a law regarding corporate financial reporting, in response to Enron and such. This is bad how?

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Damn the lines were long.

Pain in the butt for you...but it gladdens my heart to see USAians going to the polls.

I was traumatized by the days when South Africans stood in lines for 3 days to vote while the U.S.A. had 30% of registered voters showing up at the polls.

*****************

I wish we got to die our fingers purple when we vote like the Iraqis get to do. I'd die my middle finger purple and display it proudly to TV cameras as I left the polling place.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian


It appears to be a law regarding corporate financial reporting, in response to Enron and such. This is bad how?

-Arrian

Unnecessary cost burden especially for small publicly traded companies. Hasn't done diddly squat except add cost and fatten auditors pockets.

Once again a knee jerk reaction by a bunch of knee jerkers.

Cost of implementation
Some people in the business community have acknowledged that, as John Thain, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange states, "There is no question that, broadly speaking, Sarbanes-Oxley was necessary" [1]. However, the cost of implementing the new requirements has led some to widespread questioning of how effective or necessary the specific provisions of the law truly are.

For companies, a key concern is cost of updating information systems to comply with the control and reporting requirements. Systems which provide document management, access to financial data, or long-term storage of information must now provide auditing capabilities. In most cases this requires significant changes, or even complete replacement, of existing systems which were designed without the needed level of auditing details.

Costs associated with SOX 404 compliance have proven to be significant. According to the Financial Executives International (FEI), in a survey of 217 companies with average revenue above $5 billion, the cost of compliance was an average of $4.36 million. The high cost of compliance throughout the first year can be attributed to the sharp increase in hours charged per audit engagement. This has been a boon for the auditing profession, more than offsetting the reduced revenues arising from the Act's restriction against those firms conducting various non-audit services for audit clients.

Year One Resources Spent on Section 404 Compliance
Roundtable Survey, December 2004, by Revenue
Company Revenue < $5 B $5 B - $10 B $10 B – $50 B > $50 B
Average Additional Audit Hours 6,285 20,756 11,540 19,000
Average Total Compliance Cost (millions) $9.1 $6.1 $20.6 $1230.3

As more companies and auditors gain experience with SOX 404, audit costs have been falling. Audit firm revenues are still higher than they were prior to the Act, although audit fees were rising prior to the Act, partly as a result of the accounting scandals that prompted the Act.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Some people in the business community have acknowledged that, as John Thain, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange states, "There is no question that, broadly speaking, Sarbanes-Oxley was necessary"

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Good you can read.

Now experience it first hand in practice.

[Arrian]

As more companies and auditors gain experience with SOX 404, audit costs have been falling. Audit firm revenues are still higher than they were prior to the Act, although audit fees were rising prior to the Act, partly as a result of the accounting scandals that prompted the Act

Shocker! New regs cause a spike in costs, which then come back down a bit once people have sorting things out, but it still costs more than before.

Yes, it costs more. The question is whether or not that cost will help protect against another Enron-type disaster. And frankly I'm not qualified to judge that. But I'm certainly not inclined to buy into the whining about costly regs. Boo ****ing hoo.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Voted Democrat down the line pretty much, but then I live in NYC.

If the Republican Gov. candidate had run instead for State Comptroller, I would have voted for him, but the guy decided to take on Spitzer even though it was clear from back in March that Spitzer would win, and win huge.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Donegeal


Oh yeah, I forgot one. County Corenor. Why the hell that's an elected position I don't know, but I voted repug.

Are you serious? The CORONER has a party affiliation?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian


See, my reaction to this is "bull****! OF COURSE 'some in the business community' are against it." My level of trust in "the business community" is a lot lower than it used to be, so I'm not inclined to buy that line.

And then there is this:



Shocker! New regs cause a spike in costs, which then come back down a bit once people have sorting things out, but it still costs more than before.

Yes, it costs more. The question is whether or not that cost will help protect against another Enron-type disaster. And frankly I'm not qualified to judge that. But I'm certainly not inclined to buy into the whining of "some in the business community" about costly regs. Boo ****ing hoo.

-Arrian

The costs associated with implementation nationwide far exceeed any protection for the likes of Enron or Worldcom fiascos. So for the sake of a few douche bags we needlessly impede the wellbeing of rest of the business community. Plus goes to figure the companies most directlyimpacted as a percentage of bottom line are the small publicly traded companies, you know those actually poised to grow (at least until having to put up with this kind of bs regulation that is).

[Arrian]

So for the sake of a few douche bags we needlessly impede the wellbeing of rest of the business community.

"few" ?
"needlessly" ?

Just because only a few got caught after wrecking their companies doesn't mean shady accounting was restricted to a few douchebags.

Yes, it costs more. So does properly disposing of waste oil instead of dumping it in a pond. Are you against environmental regs too?

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Being a publically-traded company means that extra scrutiny is required in order to protect investors.

If the costs of that scrutiny outweigh the benefits of raising capital through stock offerings then the companies should remain private.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian

Yes, it costs more. So does properly disposing of waste oil instead of dumping it in a pond. Are you against environmental regs too?

-Arrian

Thats a more diffcult discussion as I am predisposed to question them yes.

On the other hand I realize that issue is much harder to determine costs of noncompliance (environmental impact damages long term issues, costs of clean up etc.) vs. costs of compliance with said reg on a nationwide basis. So given that, the prudent course of action is to have the insuarance policy that enviro regs present.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Being a publically-traded company means that extra scrutiny is required in order to protect investors.

If the costs of that scrutiny outweigh the benefits of raising capital through stock offerings then the companies should remain private.

And a number are doing so. Hip hip hooray another means to stifle US company growth as private ownership usually means retarded growth rates.


In fact both my wifes company and my own have gone this way. Georgia Pacific being bought by Koch Industries and teh company I work for which has sales of about $1 billion. (Chief reason my company is going private is Sarbanes. Biggest immediate synergy found at my wifes company was the immediate dismissal of 200 accountants doing Sarbannes work)