AllentownJake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 10:20 PM
Original message |
Wow I 100% agree with the White House on an issue |
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/white-house-quietly-worki_n_340791.htmlThe White House is working to exempt smaller publicly held companies from SOX. I 100% agree. Actually if the White House wants to repeal SOX and focus more on auditor independence I would never say another critical thing about the White House a day in my life. SOX is a stupid bill and has done nothing to prevent financial malfeasense. It is expensive and a waste of time.
|
NYC_SKP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 10:21 PM
Response to Original message |
Arkana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 10:24 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Thank GOD. SOX is inefficient, ugly, and fucking ANNOYING AS HELL.
In my last job, I was responsible for gathering data for the controls my company had written. Not only did they overlap in several places, but they asked for stuff we didn't even have. It pissed me off.
|
Cant trust em
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I support regulation, but whenever I talk to someone who has to do the work... |
|
I feel sorry for them for all of the paperwork that they have to do.
|
Arkana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Regulation I don't mind--but for the love of all that is fucking holy |
|
Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 10:42 PM by Arkana
HAVE A DEPARTMENT DEVOTED TO IT.
For chrissakes, my company had written their own controls--and my department, which was the one being tested, was testing itself.
We weren't required to comply with SOX but we were doing it voluntarily--mostly because the CEO knew the investors would be reassured. But my GOD. It's so goddamn annoying--and so badly executed--that it's almost not worth doing it.
|
Cant trust em
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 10:32 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I was just reading this article and looking for some alternative analysis. |
ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 10:38 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Kerry has been pushing a small business exemption for years. In fact, it appears that's the track the WH is on
|
AllentownJake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. I thought you'd be happy |
|
and I know very well about Senator Kerry, this is the house
|
SpartanDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 10:49 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Of course HuffPo is gonna spin this as badly as possible |
|
it's become nothing more than a worthless shitty left wing Drudge.
|
Common Sense Party
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-02-09 11:45 PM
Response to Original message |
8. They should count up all the billions and billions of productive |
|
work hours that have been WASTED on SOX paperwork and compliance. How much better off would American companies be without it?
|
Arkana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Not all parts of SOX are bad. |
|
The idea of "separation of duties" is a good one--it keeps one person from being a linchpin that could break an entire process. If done right, there will be no slowdown.
But the controls--the vast amount of data required for them is just stupid.
|
AllentownJake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
13. A normal good audit would expose those weaknesses |
|
and evaluate them. Focus instead on making sure the auditors are not too comfy with the management of companies and you will do better.
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 12:10 AM
Response to Original message |
10. 75 million dollars is not exactly a "small company". |
|
...and I've found implementation is drop-dead easy IF a company already has reasonable documentation, standards and practices, etc. It's very expensive and difficult for companies that have been playing fast and loose with the facts, or have been ignoring industry best practices (especially in IT)...
Is there a certain piece you disagree with greatly?
|
AllentownJake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. I've been through 3 SOX implementations |
|
I can say this, I've never seen them as easy and it took auditors away from other auditing to focus on compliance.
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. People going "out of process" is part of life. |
|
Kindergarten never ends.
In companies where folks were allowed to act like small children, it can be a brutal change.
In the ISO 9000 (etc.) and Sarbox changing companies I've worked with, though, once the kids knew the rules, they could follow them.
As far as taking auditors away from one thing, to focus on basic compliance, I think I understand (which means I probably don't), in the same sense that NCLB made teachers focus on minimal compliance.
With NCLB and Sarbox, parties complained about difficulties of compliance. With NCLB and Sarbox, parties complained about the "minimum".
Yes, it can be rough, but the bare minimum of compliance isn't much.
|
AllentownJake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. Have we had more financial accounting scandals |
|
or less since the implementation of SOX.
I'll give you a hint, if SOX was effective, we would never be in the situation we are in today.
|
boppers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. Would Maddoff still be running his scam? |
|
Is less regulation the solution?
|
AllentownJake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-03-09 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. SOX had good components |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-03-09 05:19 AM by AllentownJake
and bad components. The documentation standards were stupid, the auditor independence standards were a good start.
Focus on more auditor independence and accountability and audits will improve and the scandals will fade.
The problem we have is a fundamental conflict of interest. When the auditor is paid by the company that it is auditing, the investors are not the client of the auditor.
Bernie was a private company, he would never be accountable to any kind of regulation like SOX. SOX is designed to protect share holders, Bernie's investors were never share holders
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 06:19 PM
Response to Original message |