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...
5:16
20091103 Debate on Rep Garrett's SOX Amendment 2by repscottgarrett89 views
I find it offensive that you make the statement that the White House knows more about what is needed than the SEC does?What a stupid statement.
kimdaviscali 2 years ago
Management is not enforcing SOX because they want to, they are doing it because they have to... I'm an auditor, I've seen the lack of tone at the top. What a slap in the face to investors, especially so soon after Madoff.
kimdaviscali 2 years ago
That's not true that you're not reducing anything, for the last 5 years while you've been continuing to give extensions they've all put controls in place because they knew at any time you could enforce the non-accelerated filers to comply as well. Now they know they won't EVER e held accountable and the fear of that knock on the door by legislation and an external auditor are gone and it will go back to a free for all.
kimdaviscali 2 years ago
What a TRAVESTY considering what's going on with the economy right now, are you all in a race to the bottom?
kimdaviscali 2 years ago