Debate on Rep. Garrett's Sarbanes-Oxley Amendment that Garrett and Rep. Adler offered today to the Investor Protection Act of 2009.
The amendment text mirrors legislation Rep. Garrett introduced earlier this year exempting small businesses from Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002. Garretts bill, the Small Business SOX Compliance Relief Act is aimed at permanently exempting small businesses (non-accelerated filers) from the burdensome reporting requirements contained within Section 404(b)of the SOX 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. 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. My legislation would 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. Regarding the intended decrease in compliance costs following the 2007 reforms, a George Washington University study found that the decrease in audit costs following Auditing Standard No. 5 was not statistically significant . As a result, even following the 2007 reforms, Section 404 of SOX will continue to subject small businesses to overly burdensome fees. 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. In addition to having an effect on individual businesses, SOX Section 404 may have a dramatic effect on the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets, as the high cost of compliance has the potential to cause public companies to go private, or prevent private companies from going public. Of the small companies surveyed by the SEC, 70 percent reported they had considered going private to avoid subjecting themselves to Section 404 requirements . Additionally, Section 404 requirements may cause foreign companies to delist from U.S. exchanges. Among SEC survey respondents, 77 percent of small foreign firms considered delisting. When businesses have been conducting their affairs within the confines of pre-SOX law and acting with integrity it is reflected in the trust of their shareholders and the strength of the market, said Garrett. There is a place for Federal oversight, but the weighty cost of compliance under Section 404 is slowly strangling small businesses. I believe my legislation will lessen the burden Section 404 unnecessarily imposes on U.S. small businesses, while continuing to bolster confidence in the integrity of publicly held companies.
Loading...
I think the chairman's argument of the amendment discouraging a company from growing is a weak one because small public companies almost always incorporate some sort of growth strategy. His main argument that the monetary burden of SOX is exaggerated also seems weak given he didn't really give any basis for why he believes that. Just like garett argued before, That half a million to million dollar estimate that small business spends on compliance could be put to better use by producing goods
pakpaulyoung 2 years ago
1. 75 mil are relatively small companies opposed to the likes of Enron and worldcomm.
2. Splitting up into two subsidiaries does not mean they are part of two separate corps.
3. The next Enron cannot happen because after passing the 75million cap SOX compliance becomes mandatory.
4. Enron's market capitalization was somewhere between 65-100 billion. A small company collapse of 75 mil or less should not phase a real investor who diversifies his/her portfolio correctly
pakpaulyoung 2 years ago
Have you given the SLIGHTEST thought to how many companies over 75 million will now break up into subsidiaries ect to get under the 75 million ceiling? 150 million split up into two subs and now no more SOX? Come on, wake up!!!!!
kimdaviscali 2 years ago
Quit throwing out "The White House says do it" "The White House says do it".. .who cares what the White House says, they're not the experts in the field and aren't going to pay the retirements of the people who fall to the next Enron after you do this ridiculous act.
kimdaviscali 2 years ago
It does not maintain the status quo, now that they know there is no fear of an auditor knocking, they'll scrap any intent to comply now or in the future.
kimdaviscali 2 years ago