U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–603 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–840

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

SARBANES–OXLEY ACT OF 2002

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE DRAMATIC CHANGE ACROSS THE CORPORATE LANDSCAPE TO REESTABLISH INVESTOR CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF CORPORATE DISCLOSURES AND FINANCIAL REPORTING

SEPTEMBER 9, 23, AND OCTOBER 2, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

(

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

JACK REED, Rhode Island

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

ZELL MILLER, Georgia

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey

KATHLEEN L. CASEY, Staff Director and Counsel

STEVEN B. HARRIS, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel

DOUGLAS R. NAPPI, Deputy Staff Director

BRYAN N. CORBETT, Counsel

MARTIN J. GRUENBERG, Democratic Senior Counsel

DEAN V. SHAHINIAN, Counsel

STEPHEN R. KROLL, Special Counsel

JOSEPH R. KOLINSKI, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator

GEORGE E. WHITTLE, Editor

(II)

(III)

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

Page

Opening statement of Chairman Shelby ................................................................ 1

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:

Senator Sarbanes .............................................................................................. 3

Senator Crapo ................................................................................................... 3

Senator Santorum ............................................................................................ 4

Senator Dole ...................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 31

Senator Bayh .................................................................................................... 5

Senator Stabenow ............................................................................................. 16

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 31

Senator Corzine ................................................................................................ 18

Senator Dodd .................................................................................................... 20

Senator Schumer .............................................................................................. 23

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 25

Senator Enzi ..................................................................................................... 32

WITNESS

William H. Donaldson, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission . 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

The Wall Street Journal article, by Michael Schroeder, ‘‘Cleaner Living, No

Easy Riches,’’ submitted by Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, dated July 23, 2003 . 48

Letter from Senator Debbie Stabenow to William H. Donaldson, Chairman,

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, dated August 5, 2003 ................. 51

Letter from William H. Donaldson, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange

Commission to Senator Debbie Stabenow, dated September 3, 2003 .............. 55

Chicago Tribune article, by Ameet Sachdev, ‘‘New Rules No Bar to Mergers

in Accounting,’’ submitted by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, dated August

11, 2003 ................................................................................................................. 60

Memo from the Division of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the SEC’s Enforcement Activities Since Passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, submitted by William H. Donaldson, Chairman,

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, dated October 29, 2003 .............. 62

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Opening statement of Chairman Shelby ................................................................ 65

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:

Senator Enzi ..................................................................................................... 66

Senator Dodd .................................................................................................... 68

Senator Reed ..................................................................................................... 69

Senator Corzine ................................................................................................ 77

Senator Sarbanes .............................................................................................. 78

Page

IV

WITNESSES

William J. McDonough, Chairman, Public Company Accounting Oversight

Board ..................................................................................................................... 69

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96

Samuel A. DiPiazza, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, PricewaterhouseCoopers ...... 82

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102

Edward Nusbaum, Chief Executive Officer, Grant Thornton, LLP .................... 84

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 110

Sean Harrigan, President, Board of Administration, CalPERS .......................... 86

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 115

Sarah Teslik, Executive Director, Council of Institutional Investors .................. 89

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 118

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2003

Opening statement of Chairman Shelby ................................................................ 121

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:

Senator Sarbanes .............................................................................................. 136

Senator Allard ................................................................................................... 139

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 169

Senator Corzine ................................................................................................ 141

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 143

Senator Dodd .................................................................................................... 147

WITNESSES

Peter G. Peterson, Co-Chairman, the Conference Board Commission on

Public Trust and Private Enterprise, Chairman and Co-Founder,

Blackstone Group ................................................................................................. 123

Ralph Larsen, Former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,

Johnson & Johnson .............................................................................................. 127

Charles A. Bowsher, Former Chairman, Public Company Accounting

Oversight Board ................................................................................................... 129

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 169

Paul A. Volcker, Former Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal

Reserve System .................................................................................................... 132

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 172

Brian P. Anderson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Baxter

International, Inc. ................................................................................................ 152

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 175

John J. Castellani, President, The Business Roundtable ..................................... 154

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 178

Keith D. Grinstein, Chairman, Coinstar, Inc. ....................................................... 155

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 180

Richard L. Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of Labor and

Congress of Industrial Organizations ................................................................. 157

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 183

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, at 10:01 a.m., in room SD–534, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of

the Committee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY

Chairman SHELBY. The hearing shall come to order.

I would like to welcome today’s witness, Chairman William Donaldson of the SEC. A little over a year ago, President Bush signed

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law and ushered in a new era of corporate responsibility. Today’s hearing is the first hearing in a series that will examine the impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on corporate

America.

When the ‘‘bubble’’ burst in the second quarter of 2000, it became

apparent that the explosive growth in market capitalization in the

late 1990’s had been accompanied by egregious examples of corporate misconduct and an all too often disregard for business ethics. All too often, auditors turned a blind eye. As these problems

came to light through a series of corporate scandals, investors lost

confidence in corporate management and financial reporting and

withdrew their money from the markets. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

was enacted, in part, to demonstrate to investors a commitment to

fairness and integrity in corporate America. The Act aims to deter

corporate misconduct and restore investor confidence primarily by

increasing the accountability of corporate actors, strengthening corporate governance, and improving the transparency and reliability

of audited financials.

First, the Act recognizes the respective roles that principal executive officers, lawyers, and accounting firms play in the operation

and oversight of a public company. Sarbanes-Oxley assigns new responsibilities to these corporate actors to ensure that they are accountable for the operation of the companies with which they work.

Through the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight

Board, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act aims to restore confidence in the accounting profession. With new requirements regarding financial

statement certifications, auditor independence, and lawyer reporting, the Act increases the accountability of corporate actors for

their decisions or advice.

2

Second, the Act seeks to change the ‘‘tone at the top.’’ For too

long, boards of directors have operated in a ‘‘country-club’’ culture

in which directors were more focused on networking than on the

difficult task of objectively and critically analyzing management

performance.

The Act recognizes that the board of directors, which is held accountable by a company’s shareholders, is the focal point of the

governance system. By mandating fully independent audit committees with the authority to hire and fire auditors and engage outside

advisers, the Act takes an important step toward separating the

board from management and restoring confidence in corporate governance and financial reporting.

And finally, Sarbanes-Oxley seeks to improve the transparency

and the reliability of audited financials by requiring a range of new

disclosures, including whether there is a financial expert on the

audit committee, whether the company has a code of ethics for certain officers, and additional information regarding certain financial

disclosures.

While recognizing the beneficial impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on corporate America, I also acknowledge that the implementation of the

Act does not come without a cost for public companies, both domestic and international. To satisfy the requirements of the Act, companies have dedicated additional funds and resources to modify

their operations and practices. These regulatory costs, however,

were necessary, I believe, to address the surprising erosion of business principles and lack of investor confidence.

The Act has also had a significant impact on international companies that trade in U.S. markets. These companies have engaged

in the process of harmonizing the mandates of Sarbanes-Oxley with

their respective national laws. This process, however, ensures that

global investors in U.S. markets receive consistent, comparable financial information on which to base their investment decisions.

In addition to criticizing the implementation costs associated

with the Act, critics argue that the Act deters corporate risk-taking. By requiring companies to adopt regulatory checklists, critics

argue that the Act encourages companies to be overly cautious and

to focus on procedure and process at the expense of innovative

management. I disagree. The Act does not penalize risk-taking but

rather promotes transparent and honest business practices. Informed risk-taking and honesty within a company are not mutually

exclusive policies. Although Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted only a little over a year ago, it has already caused beneficial changes in the

corporate practices. The overall impact of the Act, however, will not

become apparent until it has been fully implemented. The true

measure of the Act will be whether it restores investor confidence

in the markets and causes enduring changes to the corporate culture. To accomplish these goals, Congress and the SEC must be

vigilant in supervising and enforcing Sarbanes-Oxley.

I would at this point like to recognize the SEC’s commitment to

implementing Sarbanes-Oxley during the past year. The President

and Congress charged the SEC, Mr. Chairman, with an important

task that it admirably accomplished. Chairman, I look forward to

your testimony in a few minutes.

Senator Sarbanes.

3

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Chairman Shelby, and

I join you in welcoming Chairman Donaldson back before the Committee for this important hearing, the first in a series, to review

the implementation of the landmark legislation of last year and the

efforts to restore investor confidence.

Just over a year ago, as the President signed this legislation into

law, he called it ‘‘the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Roosevelt.’’ With the legislation now firmly in place, it is appropriate to assess the progress

made in its implementation and more generally the efforts to restore integrity to our capital markets—and with that, restore the

confidence of investors in those capital markets.

It is not yet 2 years since the collapse and bankruptcy of Enron

Corporation. That event, shocking and unexpected as it was, was

not isolated, but a pattern in which a number of major, highly regarded public companies and their auditors relied upon convoluted

and fraudulent accounting devices in order to inflate earnings.

The result was not a ripple in the market but, indeed, a tidal

wave. In the sober estimate of The Wall Street Journal, ‘‘The scope

and scale of the corporate transgressions of the last 1990’s now

coming to light exceed anything the United States has witnessed

since the years preceding the Great Depression.’’

That legislation, of course, came out of this Committee with an

overwhelming 17–4 vote, as the Chairman will recall, and went on,

of course, for overwhelming enactment through both the Senate

and the House of Representatives.

I think it is appropriate, at this point, to engage in the oversight

of the legislation, how it is being implemented, of course, keeping

in mind that our objective is to ensure the integrity of our capital

markets and to restore to investors the confidence that the information on which they base their investment decisions is complete,

accurate, comprehensible, and timely. We also need to keep in

mind the other significant changes taking place in the private sector, in the corporate boardrooms, in company-auditor relations, and

at the exchanges, changes not mandated by the law but which have

arisen as part of a general examination and reevaluation of the

practices that were taking place. I think these hearings will be

helpful in that regard as well, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to welcome Chairman Donaldson. I want to commend Chairman Donaldson and his fellow Commissioners and the

very dedicated staff at the Commission for proceeding, as they

have, to implement the statute with diligence and skill. I think the

staff there is not always fully recognized, and, Mr. Chairman. You

are fortunate to have so many capable people in the organization.

I know you are very aware of that and, in fact, have been trying

to do what you can to enhance the capacities at the SEC. We are

up here trying to provide you some additional money with which

you can do that and I look forward to your testimony this morning.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Crapo.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing very much. And, Chairman DonaldVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
4

son, I appreciate you being here and the important work that you

are doing at the Commission.

Our Chairman and our Ranking Member have very well stated

already the reasons why the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was needed

and the benefits that we needed to achieve from it. I think that the

necessity to restore integrity in capital markets and to achieve the

transparency and honest business practices that have been described was evident to everyone in America.

I truly appreciate, however, the opportunity of this oversight, because at the time many of us were concerned about the law of unintended consequences and the fact that, although we needed to

achieve the objectives that we sought to achieve to restore consumer confidence in our markets, we did not want to end up causing consequences that are more detrimental or going beyond the

mark and causing difficulties that are unnecessary on American

business, and doing what our Chairman said was a concern that

has been raised, that is, causing resources of American business to

go into regulatory compliance that does not achieve the necessary

purposes and that diverts money away from the kind of creativity

and entrepreneurship that we need to have in a dynamic economy.

And I am concerned about that. I think that we have achieved

significant aspects of our objectives with Sarbanes-Oxley. But at

the same time, I continue to receive concerns raised to me. I was

in Idaho this August meeting with a number of small businesses

who are looking at going public but, frankly, are not sure it is a

good idea anymore because of the regulatory costs that they are

going to pick up. And it is not all just this statute, but it is our

entire regulatory burden that we put on American businesses today

that I think we need to have a strong oversight of. And that is why

I thank our Chairman and our Ranking Member for bringing this

legislation forward.

Again, we need to hit the mark and achieve the integrity in our

capital markets. But we need to make sure that we do not go past

the mark, and it is that law of unintended consequences that I

hope we have an opportunity as we review this legislation and

other legislation that impacts our economy in the United States.

I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and also for giving

us the opportunity to come back, and I hope we will have continued

opportunities to come back and take a close look and give the kind

of scrutiny that is necessary to the way that we are managing

these incredible policy issues in our country today.

Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Santorum.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICK SANTORUM

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to

thank you for holding this hearing.

I just want to echo some of the concerns that my colleague from

Idaho has mentioned. I have heard words—and I agree with him—

of the importance of integrity and transparency. I also believe in

the importance of efficiency and productivity. And I am just concerned that we make sure that with this statute we have struck

the proper balance between those very important interests.

5

I heard the gentleman from Idaho talk about talking to people

who are thinking about going public. I have talked to a lot of people who have gone private because of this statute and because of

the regulatory burden placed upon a lot of small businesses, and

so they have gotten out of the regulatory scheme under this legislation and have gone private.

Now, in some cases, that may have been a good thing. Particularly in the 1990’s, a lot of people went public who should not have

gone public, and it is probably best that they go back and go private. And so maybe that is a positive. It may be unintended, but

it may be an intended consequence of getting people in the proper

markets.

But at the same time, I am concerned that we have chased people out of the public markets who, candidly, should be in the public

market for the purposes of this economy and the growth that this

economy needs to expand and create jobs and do the things that

are necessary to move this country forward.

I would be curious to get some reviews as to the potential impact

on the economy and growth as a result of this legislation. So, I

think there is a good story to tell, and I think the Chairman and

Ranking Member laid out a lot of positive things. And I would

agree with a lot of the positive things that have happened as a result of this legislation. I am concerned that, as the Senator from

Idaho suggested, there may be some unintended consequences, and

I think we have to be vigilant even though ever Member who was

here last year voted for this legislation. And I am very proud that

I voted for it. I want to make sure that we are not burying our

heads in the sand just claiming victory when there are some things

we might have to look at, both in potentially enhancing some of the

provisions, but maybe stepping back on some of those provisions

that may not have the consequences that would be beneficial to

both efficiency, profitability, transparency, and integrity on the

other side.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Dole.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE

Senator DOLE. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that, in the interest of time, I am going to submit for the record.

Chairman SHELBY. It will be made part of the record.

Senator DOLE. And I am to be at three hearings in the same

hour this morning.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Bayh.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR EVAN BAYH

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this very

important series of hearings. I have some of the same questions

about the role of small business, but I will wait and raise those in

the question period so that we can hear from our witnesses.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the

record, given the comments that have been made, an article from

6

The Wall Street Journal of July 22 of this year entitled ‘‘Cleaner

Living, No Easy Riches,’’ reporting on the concerns that some

smaller companies are avoiding public offerings or going private in

order not to comply. The article states, ‘‘Still, there is no sea

change. Of roughly 15,000 public companies, only 83 went private

in 2002, 63 percent more than the year earlier, but slightly fewer

than the 89 companies in 2000, according to Thompson Financial,

which compiles market and investment data for corporate clients.

So far this year, 41 companies have announced plans to revert to

private ownership.’’

As they say, there is no major sea change, and it may well be

that companies that in the past went public should probably have

thought about it a little more and stayed private. Once you go public and go on an exchange, you assume significant additional obligations because any investor anywhere here or, indeed, in the

world can purchase your stock. And if you are not really up to that

standard, falling shy will——

Chairman SHELBY. You should not be there.

Senator SARBANES. —cast a doubt on the validity, the honesty,

and the integrity of our capital markets, which is, after all, one of

our major economic assets. But, in view of some of the comments,

I would like to put that article in.

Chairman SHELBY. Without objection, the article will be made

part of the record in its entirety.

Chairman SHELBY. Chairman Donaldson, again, we welcome you

to the hearing. If you have a written statement it will be made part

of the record. You may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DONALDSON

CHAIRMAN, U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Chairman DONALDSON. Thank you, Chairman Shelby, Ranking

Member Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee. I would like to

make just a brief beginning statement. Thanks for inviting me to

testify on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

As you noted, it has been just over a year since Congress passed

and President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law.

Sparked by the dramatic corporate and accounting scandals, the

Act represents, in my view, the most important securities legislation since the original Federal securities laws of the 1930’s. Your

backing of the Act and the efforts to implement its sweeping reforms, along with the strong support of your counterparts in the

House and our authorizing committees, demonstrates Congress’

dedication to ensuring the integrity and vitality of our markets.

The Act set ambitious deadlines for more than 15 separate rulemaking projects by the Commission, called for the Commission to

complete several studies on different aspects of the capital markets,

and gave us new tools to enforce the securities laws. The bulk of

the rulemaking was required by January 26, 2003, 180 days after

the Act was signed, making this past January the busiest month

of rulemaking in the Commission’s history.

Because of the dedicated efforts of the professionals at the Commission, I am pleased to say we have met all the mandates and

challenges set out by the Act, and in record time, without sacriVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
7

ficing our other work or obligations, including our robust enforcement program and numerous regulatory initiatives unrelated to

Sarbanes-Oxley. The professionals at the Commission not only

worked quickly and efficiently but also thoughtfully.

In fulfilling the mandates of the Act, we provided a number of

opportunities for public input on our proposals and carefully considered thousands of comment letters. We have also used our new

enforcement tools, both on our own and in conjunction with the

President’s interagency Corporate Fraud Task Force, to expose and

punish acts of corporate corruption.

I am pleased to report the Public Company Accounting Oversight

Board, a cornerstone of the Act, is up and running under the strong

leadership of its new Chairman, Bill McDonough, former President

of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Commission and the

PCAOB will continue our joint efforts, which have already turned

what was an outline on paper into a proactive organization that is

registering accounting firms, operating an independent funding

mechanism, developing inspection and disciplinary programs, and

writing new auditing and attestation standards.

The framework for the reform mandated by the Act has largely

been put in place and companies, their boards and executives, and

other gatekeepers to our capital markets are proceeding to implementation. These are landmark rules and will require hard work

and significant expenditures in the short-run. Some in the business

sector feel that they are under siege from new regulations and the

threat of additional litigation. But the short-term costs of compliance, particularly efforts to improve internal controls, should be

seen, in my view, as an investment. In the long-term, I believe that

the reforms realized from the Act will result in sounder corporate

practices and more reliable financial reporting. New requirements

coming out of the Act, such as the personal certification by CEO’s

and CFO’s of their companies’ financial disclosures, the renewed

focus on the independence of corporate boards, and the focus on internal controls and procedures, will strengthen companies in the

long-run if they focus on the underlying intent of the Act rather

than on mere compliance.

Early on, almost every corporate law firm rushed to tout their

expertise in navigating the new requirements, some in ways that

emphasized technical compliance rather than real reform. But I

have been pleased to observe, I believe, a shift in that attitude.

More and more companies and their advisers seem to be channeling their energies into true compliance with the spirit of the

Act. Good, honest companies realize that corporate governance is

not primarily about complying with rules. It is about inculcating in

a company and all of its directors and officers and employees a

mind-set to do the right thing.

As I have said before, the focus on doing the right thing should

become part of the companies’ DNA. Companies that view the new

laws as opportunities—opportunities to improve internal controls,

improve the performance of the board, and improve their public reporting—will be better run, more transparent, and more attractive

to investors.

There have been suggestions that requirements of the Act and

recent crackdowns by criminal and civil authorities have discourVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
8

aged honest risk-taking. I take a different view. I believe that the

Act and the other steps that have accompanied it will lead to an

environment where honest business and honest risk-taking, the

foundation of American entrepreneurship, will be encouraged and

rewarded. We do not want to discourage legitimate business risktaking, but we are very concerned about activities some have

sought to disguise as honest business risks but which are really

legal and accounting maneuvers that have nothing to do with the

underlying business of the company. Nothing in the law, its implementation, or in the Commission’s agenda should make business

fearful.

Indeed, during the past year we have been monitoring areas that

may merit future attention, considering whether there are particular issues arising from the Act that should be addressed. For

example, we have attempted to reduce the compliance burdens on

smaller public companies and foreign issuers where appropriate

and permitted by the Act, and the Commission staff has issued

Frequently Asked Questions on the implementation of some of its

views. The Commission has been and will remain vigilant through

the implementation of the provisions of the Act and will consider

further actions as appropriate in furtherance of its objectives.

While much has been done so far under the Act, its full impact

has not yet been felt. Many of the rules that the Commission

adopted are still taking effect, and some, such as the adoption of

new exchange listing standards for audit committees, are still underway. While we will keep a close watch for regulatory burdens

and loopholes that might need to be addressed down the road, I believe that the markets should be allowed to adjust to the significant

new disclosures we will see this year, as well as the effect of other

reforms put in place by the Act, before significant additional

changes are made.

In conclusion, let me thank you again for your important leadership and support in the initiative to reestablish and strengthen investor confidence and integrity in our Nation’s capital markets.

While it may be a bit too early to judge the impact of all of the

various provisions of the Act, I assure you that the Commission

and its staff will continue to monitor its implementation and effects

to ensure that its goal of protecting investors and restoring confidence in our securities markets remain paramount. And beyond

Sarbanes-Oxley, the Commission will continue pressing ahead on

multiple fronts, including addressing such critical areas as shareholder access to the director nomination process, the mutual fund

and hedge fund industries, the structure itself of our securities

markets, and the many issues that are embedded in the need for

improved corporate governance.

I look forward to continuing and building on the strong and cooperative relationship that our agency has developed with you in the

past as we move forward with fulfilling the promise of the Act. This

is a critical time for our capital markets and the Agency, and the

way we address the challenges before us will determine not only

where we go tomorrow but also for years to come.

Thanks again for inviting me, and I would be happy to answer

any questions.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

9

Sarbanes-Oxley, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, is a frequent

topic of discussion with representatives from the European Union.

I appreciate what the SEC has been doing to deal with the sensitive concerns raised by European governments and companies

during this rulemaking process.

Can you today describe the process for addressing European concerns during the rulemaking and how that dialogue has impacted

the final rules, if any?

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes, I would be glad to. Our efforts are

to understand not only the European but also the world view, if

you will, of mandates in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and particularly

the registration of accounting firms who operate on U.S. companies’

subsidiaries. We held a conference a number of months ago and invited many of the participants, if you will, from Europe, Japan, and

elsewhere to come sit down with us, with the PCAOB Board, and

with the Commissioners. We all were there, and listened over the

course of a day to the objections and problems that they saw, including, but not limited to, the possibility that some regulations

would run counter to national laws.

I think in addition to that, with the arrival of Bill McDonough

as Chairman of the PCAOB, I think under Bill’s leadership now we

have been working to reach out to the European community, to

reach out to other countries in the world.

I think the dialogue that has been underway has been very constructive. I think we have been uncompromising in the execution

of a mandate that these accounting firms be registered. But we are

attempting to seek a common ground here in terms of the actual

coordination of our rules and national mandates.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, have you observed a noticeable decline in the number of international companies registering

with the SEC as a result of this legislation?

Chairman DONALDSON. Well, I think that the decline in the number of companies registering is a part of an overall syndrome here.

It is not a syndrome, really, but I think we are seeing an advance

in the competitive nature of international markets. I think that,

where the U.S. markets were the only real markets in the world

for a number of years, we are seeing an improvement in the capability of American investors to execute orders in international companies in their home markets. I think that is a natural evolution

of the trading techniques, if you will.

I suspect that there will be a period of time when companies are

evaluating just what the new mandates here and the regulations,

mean to them. And I think that is only natural.

Chairman SHELBY. This goes on anyway.

Chairman DONALDSON. Pardon?

Chairman SHELBY. This goes on every day.

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes, but I hope that in the final analysis,

the non-U.S. companies that wish to access the markets that we

have will realize that the rules and regulations we put in are in

their interest, and in their shareholders’ interest.

Chairman SHELBY. Sure. Mr. Chairman, I understand that at the

SEC you have initiated a rulemaking regarding increased disclosure concerning the director nomination process and shareholder

communications. What is the concern that the shareholder proxy

10

proposal is intended to address? And how will the increased disclosure improve corporate governance?

Chairman DONALDSON. A very good question. Let me try and

briefly answer it.

As you know, and I believe the Committee knows, we have a

number of proposed actions underway now that we put out for comment having to do with the entire proxy process.

Chairman SHELBY. Absolutely.

Chairman DONALDSON. I would divide this into two things: first

of all, philosophically, I believe that, as Sarbanes-Oxley has moved

the center of responsibility back to the board of directors, where

the board of directors hires the CEO, not vice versa. I think we

are——

Chairman SHELBY. The shareholders elect the board, don’t they?

Chairman DONALDSON. The shareholders select the board, and

the board selects the management.

Chairman SHELBY. Right.

Chairman DONALDSON. And we are in the process of reflecting

that in terms of the increased responsibility that the board has.

Concurrent with that is the access to the board and the formation of the board, the election process by shareholders. And what

we have put out for comment are several different proposed rules.

Two of them are already out there. The first has to do with making

companies explain in their proxy materials just how shareholders

can have access regarding their concerns at a company. To whom

do they write? Where is the forum for them to express, outside of

voting, their views?

Number two is we have asked companies to explain in their

proxy material just how they have gone about selecting directors.

What is the process that the company has used to bring forth its

slate? And how have they treated self-nominating people? How

have they examined people? How have they made the selection and

choice on directors?

Another part of our effort is upcoming, and that has to do with

giving—in the event that there is indication that the company is

not listening to the large shareholder groups—and by this we mean

that when you have certain things in a proxy statement that have

a 30- or 40- or 20- or 25-percent vote against certain things that

shareholders want to have happen, and the company says, ‘‘Thank

you very much,’’ and then just goes on, we say that is an indication

of some nonresponse to a legitimate shareholder concern of that

magnitude.

In that case—and we have not yet proposed rules on this—we

are saying that, if there is substantial evidence of that a situation

or if there is substantial evidence of withholding of votes on the

management slate indicating dissatisfaction, we want to make it

possible for shareholders to get together and get somebody on a

management slate.

Now, I do not want to go into too much detail here.

Chairman SHELBY. You probably do not need to.

Chairman DONALDSON. But there will be, I believe, safeguards

associated with this if the Commission moves ahead with it, safeguards indicating that a nominated person cannot and will not be

an employee of some special group that puts forth the nomination;

11

that the nominated person that goes on a management slate will

be subject to the same conflicts of interest protections, if you will,

so that competitors do not get put on the board. A whole series of

safeguards, if you will.

But we think that it is time—and, again, I am speaking for myself now because the Commission has not voted on this. We think

that it is time——

Chairman SHELBY. You feel you are on the right road, don’t you?

Chairman DONALDSON. I am sorry?

Chairman SHELBY. You are on the right road here, aren’t you?

Chairman DONALDSON. Well, I believe we are.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you very much.

Senator Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Donaldson, first I want to thank you for a very comprehensive statement. I know you abridged it in your oral presentation, but it is very helpful to have this very thorough and

thoughtful review which the Commission has provided us here this

morning.

Chairman DONALDSON. Thank you.

Senator SARBANES. When we did the first hearing on accounting

and investor protection issues raised by Enron, we had five former

Chairmen of the SEC here to lead that off, and they all expressed

concerns about a culture on Wall Street that led to the scandals.

Chairman Ruder described a philosophy that seeks to skirt the

edges of accounting rules. Chairman Williams described an attitude

that form is more important than substance, whether complying

with the letter of the law rather than the spirit is acceptable.

Chairman Arthur Levitt characterized it as an obsessive zeal by too

many American companies to project greater earnings from year to

year in what he called a culture of gamesmanship that says it is

okay to bend the rules, tweak the numbers, and let obvious and important discrepancies slide, in which the companies’ analysts, auditors, and directors are all complicit.

And when you testified in May of this year, you said, ‘‘Recent remarks by some business leaders lead me to worry that some just

do not get it. While I certainly hope and think that many do get

it, let me say very clearly we are not just going to assume that

Wall Street or the business community gets it. We are going to be

vigilant. We are going to be watching for compliance.’’

Now, since those comments, and in view of the earlier comments

by your predecessors, do you think that more and more business

leaders are, in fact, now getting it? Do you sense any change in the

culture that led to these deficiencies that we sought to address in

the legislation?

Chairman DONALDSON. Well, without repeating and boring you

with the repetition of what I might have said here before, let me

say again, in direct answer to your question, that I think we are

making some progress. This is a multifaceted attack on what I consider to be a complacency and an erosion of ethics, if you will, that

occurred during almost the past decade of the bull market. And,

again, going into history, if you look back to 1929, the history unfortunately does repeat itself. Similar things that went on back in

1929 that gave rise to the securities acts in the early 1930’s.

12

I do not think that you turn that attitude around on a dime. I

think it requires a multifaceted attack on it, and we are doing that.

You have helped us do that with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which

has brought a lot of companies and company boards up short in

terms of their procedures. And I think that is step one.

I think the fact that we have the PCAOB now riding herd on the

accounting profession and with a new level of supervision is step

two. And I think that is beginning to have its effect.

I think the results of the so-called global settlement and the separation of research from the investment banking industry hopefully

will place research back in its proper role. And hopefully a combination of all of these things will add to the beginning of the end

of the game of earnings manipulation, and, again, the beginning of

the end of that attitude that says we can play with our numbers,

we can postpone expenses, or we can hide earnings in order to conform with the straitjacket of unrealistic earnings per share growth

every quarter that Wall Street has insisted upon.

I think that is gradually changing. I do not think it will change

overnight. My own personal hope is that perhaps long after I am

gone, finally, companies will tell Wall Street how they are going to

run themselves as opposed to Wall Street telling them how they

are going to run their companies. Hopefully companies will announce that we are not going to have earnings per share growth

every quarter, that we are going to reinvest, we are going to do

what is necessary to make us a good, long-term investment. I believe eventually that will happen.

But that is an elaborate answer to your question, I think my own

judgment on the intangible aspect of what we are trying to do,

stopping short of going out to the new red line of law, of not skating on thin ice, I think that is beginning to happen. Although if you

take a look at some of the sensitive areas of, let’s say, compensation and so forth and look at what happened in the last proxy season, I think there still are areas where people are not getting it as

far as pay for performance and definition of what performance is.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I will defer to

the next round.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Dole.

Senator DOLE. Mr. Chairman, in the past few years, many commentators have raised concerns about the prevalence of pro forma

financial statements, those statements that are not required, as

you know, of course, to comply with generally accepted accounting

principles. Can you tell us whether Sarbanes-Oxley and other reforms have reduced the use of pro forma financial statements? Do

these issues still exist? Or has the law discourage market participants from making additional disclosures?

Chairman DONALDSON. Well, I think that increasingly the use of

misleading pro forma kinds of calculations is being whittled out of

the system. I think the issue, Senator, is one of misleading people.

I mean, it is fine to have discussion of pro forma results so long

as people get the GAAP results, the true results, and are not misled by a management decision to take out certain expenses and pro

forma something based on what they think is the real earning

power of the company.

13

Senator DOLE. It has been reported that there were problems implementing the CEO certification provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. It

was reported that problems have resulted from the two different

CEO certification provisions contained in the securities law and in

the criminal law.

Did reconciling these differences present a problem for the SEC?

And has the provision really served its intended purpose?

Chairman DONALDSON. Well, I will answer that in one way. The

head of one of America’s largest corporations came to see me to discuss this, and he made the statement to me that he always felt

that when he signed his name on anything, it should mean something. And he said it did not make any difference to him whether

he had to sign these new statements or not. I thought that was an

interesting comment. Referring back to the legal advice that a lot

of companies are getting in the initial stages, I think lawyers have

scared managements about the risk they are taking in signing

these things. I think the whole process will be viewed eventually

as a positive one. It requires a very careful internal review of what

is going on, and it is not just a piece of paper that is passed by

the CEO and he signs. He signs it, and he is careful with what he

signs, and I suspect he is very careful with the numbers coming

upward in the organization to him, requiring the same carefulness,

if you will, and precision to the numbers coming up to him.

Senator DOLE. Could you discuss with us some of the findings of

the I believe it is Section 702 of Sarbanes-Oxley that required a

study of credit rating agencies. Could you tell us a bit about what

the findings with regard to this part of the law are? And did the

Commission find barriers to entry for credit rating agencies? Would

we benefit from more credit rating agencies? And should the Commission even be involved in the process?

Chairman DONALDSON. Well, this is a major issue before the

Commission right now. As you know, we have a system where access to being a recognized credit rating agency severely circumscribed. And it raises a number of issues as to whether there

should be more access to becoming a recognized credit rating agency. It raises the issue of confidentiality of information given to the

credit rating agencies.

Clearly, I think that the oversight that we have, we are part and

parcel of the circumstances leading to the limited number of credit

rating agencies there are right now. And we have put forth a whole

series of questions and suggestions for public comment on the issue

of credit rating agencies, and I expect I will be back to you at some

point with some final conclusions that we have.

Senator DOLE. Could you tell us how much money has been returned to defrauded investors through the Fair Fund at this point?

Chairman DONALDSON. The Fair Fund?

Senator DOLE. Yes.

Chairman DONALDSON. Approximately a billion dollars.

Senator DOLE. A billion?

Chairman DONALDSON. A billion. But that money has not been

distributed yet because the distribution mechanisms are still before

the court in terms of the distributions of the money.

14

Senator DOLE. How do you envision the relationship of the SEC

and the PCAOB? Has the PCAOB taken any action that the SEC

disagrees with?

Chairman DONALDSON. The bottom line is that we have an excellent relationship, an increasingly good relationship with the

PCAOB. The PCAOB is a start-up organization faced with not only

renting offices but also setting standards and so forth against a tremendously demanding schedule.

I think that the schedule and the deadlines have been met, and

I think that the PCAOB directors and staff deserve a lot of credit

for meeting the schedule.

I will not say ‘‘clash,’’ but the natural interface, if you will, between the PCAOB as they put forth these rules and regulations

and our people as they review them against a deadline has caused

a creative and constructive dialogue between the organizations.

Some of those deadlines are past. We have a new Chief Accountant coming to the SEC, arriving at the end of this month. We have

a great leader who has come to the PCAOB. We interface with

them on a daily basis, and that the relationship is excellent.

Senator DOLE. Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Bayh.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Chairman Shelby.

Thank you, Chairman Donaldson. I am very grateful for your

taking on this arduous task and for getting off to such a positive

and productive start. I regret that I was not able to hear the opening statements of our Chairman and Ranking Member, but I do

share your positive assessment about the effects of this law. There

is nothing more important than the transparency of our capital

markets, and you have been played a big role in helping to get us

off to this positive start.

I did not have a chance to hear the comments either of Senator

Santorum or Senator Crapo, but I wanted to focus my remarks and

my questions on small business. And you alluded to the fact that

your staff has tried to look at small businesses and what we can

do to try and lighten their loads, if at all possible.

My interest in this subject stems from the role that small businesses play in our economy. I believe the statistics show that over

the last couple of decades the Fortune 500 companies have created

close to zero net new jobs in our country, while small businesses

have generated millions and millions of new jobs. So they tend to

be one of the real dynamic forces in our economy, and anything

that we can do to help to ensure their continued productivity, job

hiring capacity, while meeting the transparency requirements, I

think is in the best interests of our society. So it is how to strike

that right balance, particularly for these smaller companies.

Most of the comments I have heard tend to focus on a couple of

things, and let me just throw them out and see if I can ask for your

response. The internal audit functions in the smaller companies,

they have lower cashflow, and yet the smallest publicly held companies most often are held to the same standards as the ones that

are much, much larger. And for them it is no big deal to meet these

requirements.

15

Has your staff or have you focused on, given any thought to any

additional flexibility there or what might be done to lighten their

burden in that regard?

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes. Let me begin by making a personal

comment, and that is that I was a small businessman at one point,

and I went through the growth of a company and then through the

decision to go public with that company. And as a result of that experience, I think I would emphasize that when one reaches the

stage that you want to have access to public money and to bring

in outside shareholders, you assume a new level of responsibility

and cost.

Senator BAYH. Of course, but we should help them to meet that

in as efficient a way as possible, recognizing that there are differences between the smallest publicly held companies and the

gargantuans.

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes, and I just want to start by saying

that, because I think there is an additional cost. And clearly the

other side of this is that we are very aware—the Commission is

and the staff is—of the burdens on smaller companies. We have

tried as much as we could within the context of our obligations to

recognize that. We have given some of the smaller capitalized companies an extension of time to get themselves organized in terms

of bringing in outside directors, et cetera.

Senator BAYH. Well, let me ask about that before my time expires. That is another challenge I hear them mention with some

frequency. Many of the smallest businesses, as you know, have a

very high percentage of insider ownership, and very often seats on

the board are held by venture capitalists. These are sophisticated

investors who are unlikely to be confused in one way or another,

and they want a seat on the board.

The perception of the greater risk of liability under the new

standards and the pending changes in the treatment of stock options have made it, among other things, more difficult to attract

outside independent directors for some of these smaller businesses.

Anything we can do about that?

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes, I think there is. I think not only for

smaller businesses but also for larger businesses, we are putting

more obligations, more responsibility on directors, and I think that

means that companies—even large companies, but also small companies—are going to have to reach outside the traditional sources

of directors. I mean, not everybody can have a CEO or a group of

CEO’s on their board. And there is a huge number of highly qualified people out there who could become directors. And I think one

of our jobs and one of the jobs of the educational system in this

country is to work on the education of a new class of directors, if

you will.

Senator BAYH. My time has expired. I would just say one of the

challenges—at a time when the downside of becoming a director is

greater because of the potential for more liability, the upside has

been affected because of the pending change in the treatment of

stock options. And many of the smaller companies, it is much harder for them to pay cash. A Fortune 500 company has more tools in

their arsenal to attract some of this new legion of potential directors you have referred to.

16

Chairman DONALDSON. Right. In terms of options for a second,

I think that your statement is just right, that the options are only

one tool. There is restricted stock. There is cash. There are a lot

of noncash ways of compensating directors. In fact, I suspect in the

type of company you are talking about that the expense—a recognition of option, the true expense of options will not eliminate the

issuance of options. It will maybe make people a little parsimonious

with them because now we know what their real cost is.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Stabenow.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this

important hearing, and thank you, Chairman Donaldson, for your

leadership in this challenging time.

I would like to specifically ask for your comments regarding a

portion of Section 301 that I authored concerning corporate whistleblowers, and I have written a letter directly to you and I appreciate

the response. As we lay out the strategies for making sure this

does not happen again and we do not see in the future tens of millions of dollars in equity or thousands of jobs lost are to make sure

that those within the company or those who are investors who have

information concerning questionable auditing practices, accounting

practices, have the ability to speak directly to the audit committee.

And as you know, that provision in Section 301 does allow that

every employee at companies would have a mechanism through

which to submit confidential and anonymous concerns about questionable auditing practices and procedures directly to the public

company’s audit committee.

What I am disappointed about is that the Commission opted not

to create a clearer and more extensive rule implementing this portion of the law. The rule language that the Commission ultimately

adopted basically mirrors the law itself without additional guidance, which I know has been raised as a concern by many that I

have talked to.

I am certainly not supporting an overly prescriptive rule, but I

do think that the current Commission guidance is insufficient regarding this point and is really stymieing effective enforcement.

And I wonder if you might speak to a Wall Street Journal report

on July 22, when they indicated that many observers feel that,

‘‘there still is not an easy way for corporate whistleblowers to communicate directly with board members. ‘‘Even more troubling,’’ the

article went on to say, ‘‘many executives have set up hotlines to

take complaints from employees, investors, and others about ethical misdeeds, but executive often screen those confidential complaints before sharing them with directors.’’

Clearly, prescreening of the concerns does not comply with my

intent or, I believe, the intent of the Members in passing this. And

I am very concerned that some companies who are prescreening

would argue that they are complying because the rule at this point

is vague concerning that point.

The Wall Street Journal goes on to further confirm reports I have

heard from other sources, including a major accounting firm, that,

in fact, the rule is not being fully and effectively enforced. And so

17

I am sure you share the desire to have it fully and effectively enforced, so I would like to have you speak, first of all, to the report

that some executives are prescreening confidential submissions by

employees to their companies. Would you address that and whether

or not you believe that is appropriate?

Chairman DONALDSON. Thank you for 301, and thank you for

your concern. I think the Commission decided that, at least at this

juncture, it would be a mistake to have a one-suit-fits-all hard and

fast rule. I think that we decided to place within the audit committee the responsibility—and it can go beyond that if the overall

board wants it to—for structuring a whistleblower system or regime that was appropriate to that company. Companies are all different sizes. There are many, many different ways of skinning a

cat, if you will, in terms of having access to legitimate whistleblowing kinds of communication.

I think that this will be an area that we will continue to monitor

very closely. And, again, hopefully access by shareholders to the

board that we are putting forth in our proxy suggestions here

should give another venue to communicating with the board if the

whistleblowing procedures by individual corporations are not working. But as of right now, I think we wanted to give the flexibility

to arrive at the suit of clothes that fit the particular situation.

Senator STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but I also

know that without guidelines, without some more specific direction,

it will be unclear to monitor whether or not they are complying

with the law. And that is my concern, and I guess I would ask if

companies, in fact, have management engaged right now in confidential communications that are supposed to be going directly to

the audit committee, do you think that is appropriate?

Chairman DONALDSON. Well, I do not. I am glad to hear your

comments. You have heighten my interest in this area, and you can

be sure that when we come back to you at some point we will give

you a report on our appraisal of the whistleblowing effectiveness.

Senator STABENOW. I see that my time is up, but I would just

indicate I very much want to continue to work with you, and we

continue to work with those in the field, and the feedback we are

receiving is that it would be very helpful if the Commission were

giving greater guidelines, understanding different sizes of companies and different structures. But if we are, in fact, going to use

the knowledge of employees and have them feel they can come forward, as well as investors and others, to provide critical information, we have to be able to evaluate whether or not a company is,

in fact, conforming with the requirements of this section of the law.

I believe we have some work to do in order to make that happen.

Chairman DONALDSON. Let me offer to submit for the record a

more elaborate analysis of the current status of the whistleblowing

situation.

Senator STABENOW. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Senator Corzine.

18

COMMENTS OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE

Senator CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very

much your holding this hearing. I think it is one of those oversight

functions that we need to do on a pretty regular basis. I think a

lot of us agree that the real test of this legislation and its impact

will be through time, at times when people are a little less sensitive and markets are a little more robust; and time will be the

real test of whether much of this stands in good stead. I predict

that it will.

I compliment then Chairman Sarbanes, and Senators Dodd and

Enzi and the current Chairman for their leadership in this effort.

I think we have laid out a very strong framework.

I want to ask a couple of questions that I hear regularly tossed

around, although as the stock market goes up, I hear less of this.

There is a macro concern that Sarbanes-Oxley was somehow undermining the risk-taking taste of American business, that it had undermined the will of those to be entrepreneurial.

Have you, Mr. Chairman, seen any signs of that? Are there any

indications about diminished risk-taking in our corporate world

that are a function of this particular legislation?

Chairman DONALDSON. I, of course, hear those comments even as

you do.

Senator CORZINE. They seem to be diminishing as the Dow goes

up each 100 points or 50 points.

Chairman DONALDSON. I think that we have had a situation in

this country in which we have had a recession, major overcapacity

in particular industries, a major belt-tightening, and all of this

against a backdrop of concerns that anybody who is running a company has, concerns as to making capital expenditures, in terms of

working off the excess capacity before new expenditures are made,

concerns obviously about the international situation, whether it be

terrorism or Iraq. There are lots of reasons why business leaders

might be not quite as eager to make certain kinds of business decisions based on the business situation.

I do not believe that Sarbanes-Oxley is a major part of that. I

do not believe that this law has inhibited. I think businesses will

make business decisions if they are good business decisions, and I

do not think—again, there is a cost to Sarbanes in terms of the actual costs of implementing it, but in terms of——

Senator CORZINE. But obviously there are benefits that come

from greater transparency and security.

Chairman DONALDSON. Exactly. As I said before you were here,

I believe that ultimately people will recognize that business processes have been improved by Sarbanes-Oxley and businesses are

running better because of them.

Senator CORZINE. Thank you. I am quite obviously in total agreement with that point of view.

We have recently seen in nonpublic forums some rising concern

about governance of mutual funds within the context of some of the

activities and the use of fees and interlocking relationships to generate relationships.

Do you think this is one of those areas where the safe haven of

being a private enterprise since mutual funds interface with the

public so much that we may want to examine some of the governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
19

ance rules that Sarbanes-Oxley and reporting with respect to the

governance rules might also apply? Have you thought that

through? I suspect the Commission is concerned about some of the

reports we have heard, but is this another place where we should

examine governance and have some of the same requirements in

application?

Chairman DONALDSON. As you know, we have been in the field,

if you will, with a number of examinations in terms of some of the

practices of the mutual fund industry in terms of inducements to

sell their shares, inducements that are not known by the purchaser. This also has to do with the brokerage firms that sell the

shares. We are looking at a number of issues in the mutual fund

industry, and in many ways, that all tracks back to governance and

oversight, and I clearly believe that this is an area, particularly in

view of some recent developments, where the whole issue of oversight comes front and center.

Senator CORZINE. Thank you. I see my time is up. I have a number of questions——

Chairman SHELBY. You go ahead.

Senator CORZINE. —not unlike Senator Stabenow with Section

307, your early views with regard to the lawyer provisions and

whether you think the rules of reporting up the chain of command

are accomplishing the end. Have you had enough observation—

enough datapoint of observation—to understand whether it is effective and any general comments you have on it. I think it ultimately

could be one of the more important checks and balances that you

put into a system. And I know there is a lot of controversy about

who is representing who with regard to this. Lawyers see a lot of

the activities.

Do you have comments that you would like to make?

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes. You touch on a number of things

there. Clearly, in terms of the so-called reporting up, I think that

this has been clarified. I think it has been helped by some of the

recent rulings of the House of Delegates of the ABA in terms of flying in the face of traditional lawyer concepts of confidentiality.

As far as how well is it working, I think it is too early to tell,

but I think major progress has been made in terms of the acceptance of the reporting up issue.

Senator CORZINE. Are there empirical examples where you have

seen—or objective situations—that process work in a different way

than you would have expected it to prior to Sarbanes-Oxley?

Chairman DONALDSON. I really hesitate to make a judgment on

that right now. It is in place, and I just do not think we have had

enough experience with it.

Still unresolved is the issue of reporting out, so-called ‘‘noisy

withdrawal’’ and so forth; that is a much more complicated issue,

and we are thinking about it, but we have not addressed it yet.

Senator CORZINE. This is one of those areas, Mr. Chairman,

where I am sure I will ask questions in the future, because I think

it does have tremendous power in bringing discipline to the internal processes of checks and balances on behavior.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Senator Dodd.

20

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Chairman let me add my voice to others’ and

thank you for the hearing today. This is extremely worthwhile. I

do not know of anything that we have done in this area in the

number of years that I have been on the Committee that is as important as the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation.

Let me also commend my colleague from New Jersey. While he

sits at the end of the table here in terms of Senatorial seniority,

his contribution to the product that ultimately became SarbanesOxley was immeasurable, and his previous experience added a

great deal of value to the debate and discussion. And Mike Enzi as

well as my colleague from Maryland, played critical roles.

The wonderful thing is that no legislation is ever perfect, of

course, and this is no exception, but it has been remarkable for this

Senator, anyway, the tremendously favorable comments. Normally,

with something this radical in many ways, done in the period of

time in which we did it, considering how short a period there was

between basically February and July, I think it was, Paul, stunning the positive response I have received, anyway, from members

of the corporate community on how well this is working. Now, obviously, it is early yet in the process, but I fully expected far more

negative reactions to this, at least in the early phases of it, and I

am getting quite the opposite reactions.

I think we are also fortunate, Chairman Donaldson, to have you

heading the SEC, and I do not say that lightly. We have known

each other for a long time, but aside from that personal friendship,

I think you are the right person here at the right time and am very

grateful for your willingness to serve.

I just had a couple of quick questions I wanted to ask, but let

me preface the comments if I may about some concerns that I have.

One is the accounting industry—and this probably does not need

to be said with this audience here, but it is critically important—

obviously bears a tremendous burden for an awful lot of the problems that occurred with Enron and with WorldCom. But we also

need to make it clear that with the idea of capital formation in this

country, a healthy, vibrant corporate sector depends absolutely and

critically on a vibrant accounting industry. And sometimes I worry

that there are those who almost think that we can be better off

without an accounting industry, but it is going to be extremely important that we restore the confidence that this industry contributes to the restoration of confidence and that we do the same. It

is going to be absolutely essential.

I state that as a backdrop to a couple of questions about what

is going on. There have been some articles recently that indicate

there has been a surge in mergers occurring within the accounting

industry. I wonder if you might share with us your thoughts about

this, if you have any at this moment. Is this a positive or a negative thing?

A lot of it, we are told, at least in the articles I have read, is occurring as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley. Some firms are, of course,

applauding the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation as providing new opportunities for them. I note one article that caught my attention on

the subject matter, written for The Chicago Tribune by—and I hope

21

I do not mispronounce the name—Ameet Sachdev, a Tribune staff

reporter. It goes on and talks about since January, there have been

about 10 deals led by New Jersey-based J.H. Cohn acquisition of

the Videre Group. In the Midwest, there have been some smaller

transactions.

The article goes on to say it is not exactly merger mania of a few

years ago, but there are some clear trend lines that are occurring

in this area.

I will ask unanimous consent that this article be included, along

with my questions, so that people can get some sense of it here.

Chairman SHELBY. It will be made part of the record.

Senator DODD. But my question is, as I have stated already to

ask you, do you think these mergers will have a positive or a negative effect on the industry as a whole, and does the existence of

fewer accounting firms, which may be the end result here as we

are looking at it, indicate less competition as a logical outcome of

the mid-size firms expanding to compete with the Big Four accounting firms?

Chairman DONALDSON. I think that the challenges facing the accounting industry are considerable, and I think that we are lucky

to have the PCAOB in business and operating as it is, devoting the

resources to the oversight of the accounting industry, and in terms

of its standards, registering the participants, et cetera.

The challenges facing the accounting industry are considerable.

Number one has been the shrinkage down to four major firms and

the change in the structure that these firms have been faced with

in getting rid of their consulting activities and so forth. I think that

as a business, the accounting business has lots of challenges.

Number two is that our generally accepted accounting practices

are under considerable need for review, particularly as we move

into trying to reach an international standard, if you will, as we

become more globalized. And the tradeoffs between rules-based and

principle-based accounting are very difficult to reconcile in terms of

attitudes toward that, particularly in Europe and here. If you want

to go one step further, we are a post-industrial society, and we

have an accounting system that is based on a heavy industrial society. And they are not particularly pertinent or realistic in terms of

the service society we are in and the whole change of valuation of

human assets as opposed to plant and equipment.

So, I think there are tremendous competitive issues. I think the

fact that we have only four major accounting firms is a matter of

concern to me. I do not have an answer to that, but that is a problem for the Nation, I believe.

Senator DODD. Well, the merger issue is one; it goes to that point

of dropping of clients. I read here, if I could go back to this article,

that, ‘‘Ernst & Young LLP has parted ways with about 200 public

and private clients.’’ Some have left over fee disputes and so forth,

according to this article. But one of the purposes of having a hearing like this is to determine what is happening out there in the

marketplace, and I happen to have been a strong supporter of all

the provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation—although none of

us can guarantee there will not be unintended consequences. Obviously, there have been issues raised about the functions, the combination of functions, the consultative function in addition to the

22

traditional accounting function and the prohibition in those areas

that probably led to some of this.

What are the implications of that? Are you monitoring this? Are

you watching it? How is the accounting profession changing its

practices? We notice already, according to one survey here, that

prior to the adoption of Sarbanes-Oxley, audit committees were

meeting—they are now meeting more frequently with outside auditors. Before the Act, as determined by one accounting firm, only 15

percent of their corporate clients surveyed met at least six or more

times per year. Since the passage, that number has jumped to 60

percent, from 15 to 60 percent—obviously a very positive outcome.

What is going on? This is obviously an area that is critical, as

I said at the outset of my questions. We need to get this accounting

industry right. You are not going to function if it does not get right.

I am uneasy about a lot of mergers and acquisitions that could

even further limit the number of firms. A lot of firms are not taking on public clients at all, do not want to deal with public clients.

What are the implications of that?

That is the thrust of my question.

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes, it is a very legitimate question. I

think that one statement I would make is that I believe we have

very strong leadership now in the various government or quasi-government agencies having to do with the accounting industry. At the

FASB, the standard-setting organization, I think we have very

strong leadership there, facing up to a number of problems that

have not been faced up to. I think we have, as I mentioned before,

strong leadership in PCAOB in terms of not only oversight but also

constructive oversight.

I think we have a need on the part of the industry itself, the profession itself, to have a recognition of past failures or breakdowns

and internally what can be done about that. It is a group effort.

I think we are moving in the right direction, but, as I say, the

challenges are immense.

Senator DODD. Yes, I know that. You might keep an eye on this.

As I say, I realize all of that is from the regulatory and governmental standpoint, but watching what goes on at the marketplace

as a result of what we are doing here is also very much—I am interested in monitoring and following that and what sorts of behavior and changes in behavior—some are obviously very positive. You

only had 15 percent of the corporate clients who were meeting

more than six times a year as an audit committee—no wonder—

it amazes me we did not have more problems—maybe we did, we

just did not find them. In fact, that number has jumped from 15

percent to 60 percent. It is tremendously healthy and a very positive outcome.

I am not even sure that maybe more mergers and acquisitions

make sense. I am not even suggesting it is negative. I just want

to know what you think about it, or what the SEC thinks about

it, as to whether or not this is a trend line that should cause us

some pause or some concern, as we monitor the implications of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Anyway, we can stay in touch on this. I do not expect necessarily

a categorical answer today, but I would like to follow up on that,

Mr. Chairman, if we could, to keep an eye on that.

23

Chairman SHELBY. Sure.

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes.

Senator DODD. Thanks.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Schumer.

COMMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

Chairman Donaldson.

I want to follow up on some questions I asked you at your confirmation hearing on an issue that has been of concern to me all

along, and that is the balkanization of some of our laws and securities laws in particular; the need for, one, national securities regulation and two, how having State involvement affects that.

Obviously, you want all prosecution of wrongdoing done by no

matter who does it, but then, when there are settlements, those

tend to be on the borderline between punishment for a single act

and setting new rules. I was interested in the recent indictment by

the Oklahoma Attorney General of WorldCom executives. In the

past this would have been a national function, because each State

again could have its own rules, and there could be 20 different indictments. If there were ever a need for national markets, it is in

these kinds of things.

So the question is where is the balance. There have been some

articles suggesting that maybe things have tipped too far, and

frankly, some of them say that—I do not know if this applies to

WorldCom—but there has been a vacuum in the SEC, and that is

why State regulators have moved in, or State prosecutors have

moved in, to fill it.

I would be interested in your perspective now. We talked about

this early on, and you were aware that this was a danger. Now you

have been there for several months. Do you see a risk to our national system and a risk to national competitiveness from a balkanization of securities policy and enforcement?

How successfully have you been able to work with State prosecutors and State regulators that involve the securities industry as

they operate both within their States and at the Federal level?

Chairman DONALDSON. As I said before, and, now that I have

been in this role for a little bit longer, I do not think my opinions

have changed at all except to recognize that the SEC has had an

excellent relationship with the local State security regulators. We

have worked cooperatively with them. We need them. They operate

at a level that, for many reasons, we may not be able to get at in

terms of being on the ground locally and having the ability to get

into situations that may fly under our radar; so that we enjoy

working with them. And I think that the more cops we have on the

beat out there, the better.

On the other hand, when it comes to the solution, if you will,

when it comes to not only finding the bad things and so forth, but

also when it comes to what you are going to do about it, then I believe very strongly that we have to have a national securities regulatory mechanism, which we have in the SEC. And I think that we

cannot tolerate the balkanization of that. It would be intolerable to

have different rules in different States for how prospectuses should

read or whatever.

24

I think that, unfortunately, there has been a politicization, if you

will, of enforcement in some areas of the country, and I think this

is very dangerous. Let me cite the fact that both the civil and

criminal procedures here are very delicate, as you know very well,

and when you have people coming in from left field and not communicating with the people who are handling these procedures and

run the risk that the people who are guilty of something are going

to get away because of crossed wires, that is extremely dangerous.

To my knowledge, Oklahoma, to use a specific example, did not

consult with the authorities who were working on that case, did not

consult in New York with the U.S. attorneys. They certainly did

not consult with the SEC. And I think that that is not good.

In terms of the uncovering of certain securities law violations, I

think we really encourage that uncovering, and I believe that there

should be cooperation. I believe that, if a tip is given to a local regulator, it would be only natural for them to come and talk to the

SEC about it and try to work together on it. There should not be

competition for glory, if you will, or political whatever, and unfortunately, that does tend to creep in.

As our Director of Enforcement said the other day, relative to

your State, we commend the Attorney General for the announcement last week that he brought forward. We wish that he had

talked to us about it. We are working with him right now. But as

far as there being any problem with his doing that, we have none.

I think the only problem we have is in the structuring of the

marketplace, which cannot be balkanized.

Senator SCHUMER. You mention the marketplace, and I know

Senator Corzine mentioned this before I came in, and I would like

your judgment on this as somebody who represents New York and

represents a lot of the financial service people. You are beginning

to hear that because the rules, the goal lines are moving, that

there is a dampening of entrepreneurial spirit. And one thing that

has always been great about our markets is its entrepreneurial

vigor. We have always had two kinds of regulation—we have had

a banking industry where you put your money, and you want it to

be safe, and it has been far more regulated. We have had a securities industry where you might make a fortune. You might lose a

fortune. And obviously, the guidelines have been disclosure and

treating all investors, big and small, equally; but otherwise, you

are pretty much on your own.

Do you worry about a decline in the entrepreneurial vigor? What

some have gone so far to say is that we could push our securities

markets overseas to other places if this goes too far; that when

someone has a good idea or a potentially good idea that might have

a big down side, they are not going to launch it in the United

States anymore, and they might go overseas.

I have not heard any examples specifically of that happening, but

I have heard some talk about it. Could you give me your opinion?

I am not sure what is the right answer on that one.

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes. I think that businessmen—and particularly legitimate businessmen and women—have a right to expect that they are not going to be unwarrantedly attacked from all

angles by uncoordinated regulators. I think that they have a feeling that ‘‘the Government’’—Federal, State—is coming at them

25

from all directions in the securities industry. I understand that

feeling, and I think they have a right to demand that there is some

coordination, that there is some cooperation between the regulatory

authorities, and I think we can improve that. We are working to

improve that right now with the North American Securities Administrators Association. We have a project underway with them now,

working to set down some voluntary codes between us, which I

think will enhance the good relationship that we have had.

But I am sympathetic with those who feel that the uncoordinated

attacks are coming from all directions.

Senator SCHUMER. One final question if I might, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Go ahead.

Senator SCHUMER. A different issue—your views on the gap between a public company’s financial accounting, which is book income, and its tax accounting or tax income. The IRS statistics

showed that in 2 years, the difference between these two widened

from $92 to $159 billion, and most of that was in large companies

who have assets of more than $250 million.

There are clearly differences in the underlying rules, such as depreciation and stock options, but they do not explain the large difference. What you end up having is companies in their reports say,

‘‘Hey, we made all this money,’’ and to the IRS saying, ‘‘Oh, we did

not make much money at all,’’ and I think it is a problem.

I have drafted legislation that basically says, without exposing

any proprietary information that might help a competitor, that we

would require companies to reveal both, and that would have a prophylactic effect—it would not change any rules, but it would have

a prophylactic effect of decreasing the gap.

What do you think of that idea, just off the top of your head preliminarily?

Chairman DONALDSON. Off the top of my head, I think it is a

pretty interesting idea. I have a few experts here——

Senator SCHUMER. Well, do you know what? I think I am going

to quit while I am ahead, and I would ask you to respond in writing. But I think it is a very good idea, and I have been talking to

some of the regulators about this, and Mr. Chairman, I would just

ask unanimous consent that Chairman Donaldson be given a period of time to respond in writing to that one for the record.

Chairman SHELBY. That would be fine.

Senator SCHUMER. Great. Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Carper, you are just in time for the

first round if you have any questions.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, how are you?

[No response.]

Senator CARPER. I will say it again. Mr. Chairman, how are you?

Chairman DONALDSON. Great. Thank you.

Senator CARPER. You are not sure, are you? Welcome.

Well, you have had a while to settle in; how does it feel?

Chairman DONALDSON. I am sorry, I did not hear you.

Senator CARPER. You have had a while to settle in; how does it

feel?

26

Chairman DONALDSON. How do I feel? I feel pretty good, thank

you.

Senator CARPER. How do you feel about the team you have assembled?

Chairman DONALDSON. How do I feel about——

Senator CARPER. The team you have assembled. Some of them

are sitting right behind you.

Chairman DONALDSON. I feel very good about the team—and

again, I am going to define that not only as the people who have

come into the SEC while I have been there, but also I feel very

good about the people who were there. As mentioned earlier here,

I think they have done an incredible job in conforming to the dictates of Sarbanes-Oxley. I feel even better about the team that we

are starting to build now. As we build up, with new people coming

in and we are seeing some excellent candidates. I feel very good

about the team that has been built with the PCAOB and the leadership there.

So, I feel pretty good.

Senator CARPER. Good. When I was Governor of Delaware, I used

to make regular ‘‘customer calls.’’ I would call on the businesses in

our State, and I would ask them three questions. I would say:

‘‘How are you doing? How are we doing, our administration? And

what can we do to help?’’

I have already asked how you are doing. How are we doing on

the legislative side?

Senator SARBANES. A key question.

Chairman DONALDSON. I think you are doing just exactly what

you should do, which is to have a hearing such as this and get a

report and feedback from me. I think you should get it as you do

as part of your job, if you will, of being out there and listening to

people. I think you can provide good feedback for us.

We are working ourselves to listen. My role is to talk this morning, but I think we are trying to listen to what people are saying

and their legitimate concerns about what we are doing.

In terms of—if I may put in a plug here—I think the resources

that you have given us are really needed as we build this thing up.

I hope we are going to have the ability to stay with those resources

coming down the pike, because we cannot build this thing up and

move it back down again. The SEC has needed more resources that

we have now, so I thank you for that.

Senator CARPER. You and your predecessor both encouraged us

to provide those resources, and we have done that.

Chairman DONALDSON. You have done that.

Senator CARPER. And I am pleased to hear that they are proving

adequate.

What can we do to help?

Chairman DONALDSON. How can you help?

Senator CARPER. What can we do to help further, to enable you

to do your job better, and your troops to do your job better?

Chairman DONALDSON. I think that we are working as fast and

as hard as we can to address a number of issues. I think you have

been helped by understanding in terms of the people buildup we

have, that we are undergoing, that we are doing it carefully, that

we are not going to run out and spend this money ill-advisedly. So

27

we are going to build the new people in very carefully, and I think

an understanding on your part would be helpful to us.

We need to recognize that some of the rules and regulations that

we are contemplating now need to be put through a process. They

cannot be done overnight. We are trying to go about our work on

hedge funds. We are trying to go about our work on market structure, on a whole series of issues facing us, and we are trying to do

it carefully and brick-by-brick, and I know that there are some who

may feel that these things should be done more quickly, and some

feel they should not be done at all. And your support of what we

are doing—and I do not ask your support other than if you believe

testimony by me and others from the SEC that we are working as

hard as we can to get done what I think you want to have done.

Senator CARPER. Thank you.

A last question if I could, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Go ahead.

Senator CARPER. Just real briefly, what do you feel best about in

terms of your accomplishments so far, you and your team; and

what are some areas where it is really work in progress, that you

are working on it, but you are not there yet?

Chairman DONALDSON. Well—your microphone is just a little

garbled for me, but if I understood——

Senator CARPER. It is probably not the microphone.

Chairman DONALDSON. —but if I understand what you are saying, one of the things we have not talked about at all in terms of

projects yet to be completed is the structure within the SEC. I

mean, we are adding a lot of people, and we have a structure and

organization that we are trying to shift and change so that it will

be more anticipatory than it is now, so that we will be able to have

more communication between the divisions and more what I would

call looking around the corners and over the hill to try to anticipate

problems coming down the pike rather than just responding to stuff

coming in over the transom, and that is a work in process.

Also, and as I said before, we will make a terrible mistake, I believe, if we add people and simply have four people doing what

three used to do. That requires organization and structure change,

and we are working on that.

Senator CARPER. Unless maybe those three people did not have

a life before, and now they do because there is a reasonable number of people to help them do their jobs, and you are not losing

them or having the kind of turnover you were faced with before.

Okay, good. Thanks. Good to see you. Our best to you and your

team. Thanks for the work that you are doing.

Chairman DONALDSON. Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Donaldson, I am interested, as you know from our

past discussions, in this pay parity issue for your employees with

the other Federal financial regulators.

When we put that provision in the law, we also said ‘‘and benefits,’’ so it is not just salaries, it is also the benefits—in other

words, the entire employee package. And it is my understanding

that as yet, a system of full comparability with the other financial

28

regulatory agencies has not been achieved with respect to salary

and benefits—in other words, the total package.

We put that in because we were concerned about losing good personnel and about attracting personnel. We know we are not going

to reach the levels that people can reach by going into the private

sector, but at least we wanted to even the playing field as far as

the public sector was concerned.

Where are we on that issue?

Chairman DONALDSON. In terms of pay parity, I think we are

very far along. I think we have pay parity. In terms of the benefits

side of the equation, we are working right now with the unions. We

have similar benefits, but not exactly the same, and, as in any organization going through change, we are working hopefully with

those concerned to work at a benefits side that is consistent with

benefits elsewhere and also consistent with the dictates of running

an efficient organization.

Senator SARBANES. Sometimes, you know, the 401(k) provisions

or the supplemental health benefits, things of that type, can make

a very big difference in people’s calculation about their employment

situation, about the prospects of moving over to some other Federal

financial agency that provides those things, and I think it is important for the SEC—we constantly cite the SEC as the premier regulatory agency in the financial field—that the whole package, both

pay and benefits, be comparable to what is provided by the other

financial regulators. I urge you to continue to look at that matter

closely.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of questions that I could ask,

but I know the hour is getting late, and I want to take the balance

of my time—this is somewhat out of the ordinary—but I really

want to quote from Chairman Donaldson’s statement just to underscore it.

Chairman SHELBY. Go ahead. I agree with you this is an outstanding statement.

Senator SARBANES. Yes, yes, it certainly is.

Toward the end of it, you have the heading, ‘‘Honest Business in

the Current Environment.’’

Just as the Commission has been moving forward with implementation of the Act,

so too must American businesses. Corporate leaders are responding not only to the

Act’s mandates, but also to the movement toward increased transparency that

underlies Sarbanes-Oxley. However, I have become aware that some in the business

sector feel that they are under siege from new regulations, and the threat of additional litigation.

As I have mentioned before, good, honest companies should fear neither SarbanesOxley nor our enforcement efforts. Rather, they should recognize that the improved

standards that the Act mandates and smart and fair enforcement of the laws are

the right thing to do and help attract capital and investment. As William O. Douglas, then Commission Chairman and future Supreme Court Justice, pointed out in

a 1938 speech: ’’To satisfy the demands of investors there must be in this great marketplace not only efficient service but also fair play and simple honesty. For none

of us can afford to forget that this great market can survive and flourish only by

grace of investors.

End of Chairman Douglas’ quote, and resuming with Chairman

Donaldson’s statement:

Good corporate governance is not primarily about complying with rules. It is

about inculcating in a company, and all of its directors, officers, and employees, a

mindset to do the right thing. As I have said before, the focus on doing the right

thing should become part of the DNA of a company and everyone in the company

29

from top to bottom. For companies that take this approach, most of the major concerns about compliance disappear. Moreover, if companies view the new laws as opportunities—opportunities to improve internal controls, improve the performance of

the board and improve their public reporting—they will ultimately be better run,

more transparent, and therefore more attractive to investors.

I believe that this attitude is beginning to take hold in corporate America. During

my travels, and in my discussions with company officials, countless people have told

me that America cannot afford a return to the lax standards that preceded Sarbanes-Oxley. Many have added that while they initially questioned the merits of the

Act, they now see that it can help show the way to a brighter, more competitive

era in American business.

The success of a new era under the Act must involve a continued measures of the

risk-taking and entrepreneurship that are the hallmarks of honest American business. There have been suggestions, including in the press, that the recent crackdowns on corporations and executives by criminal and civil authorities, including

the Commission, have discouraged honest risk-taking.

I have a different perspective on recent developments. I believe the Act and the

other steps that have accompanied it will lead to an environment where honest business and honest risk-taking will be encouraged and rewarded. What should be discouraged, and what we are committed to stamp out, are the activities that some

have sought to disguise as honest business but that, in reality, are no such thing.

Transactions with no substance that are designed solely to assure increased earnings or cashflow in financial reports involve no risk and are not honest business.

Neither are transactions that are disguised as rewards for entrepreneurship or superior management but that in fact provide risk-free, excessive compensation or facilitate self-dealing for the benefit of insiders.

I hope we have learned some lessons from the era just passed—and I believe we

have. I also hope that America’s corporate leaders will not use Sarbanes-Oxley as

an excuse for putting off innovation and investment. Looking back 1 year, and also

looking forward, nothing in the law, its implementation, or in the Commission’s

agenda should make business fearful. Indeed, a period marked by the responsibility

and realism I have just discussed can provide the foundation for a new era of longterm growth and prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with that statement of yours, and I urge

you on in your endeavors.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Chairman Donaldson, I will try to wrap this

up if I can.

Sarbanes-Oxley, as you well know, provided the Securities and

Exchange Commission with increased enforcement authority regarding corporate fraud and created new criminal liability for principal executive officers.

There is a public perception that all too often, executive officers

escape liability despite their fraudulent and criminal acts. Can you

please describe—and you can do it for the record if you want to—

can you describe the enforcement actions that the Securities and

Exchange Commission and the Corporate Fraud Task Force have

taken based on Sarbanes-Oxley, and has Sarbanes-Oxley led to a

greater number of convictions and guilty pleas?

As I said, you can do it for the record if you want to.

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes. Let me give you a complete list here.

Chairman SHELBY. Sure.

[Pause.]

Chairman DONALDSON. In fiscal year 2003—and that is not yet

over—the Commission has already brought 60 more enforcement

actions than fiscal year 2001.

Chairman SHELBY. Did you say 60?

Chairman DONALDSON. More enforcement actions.

Chairman SHELBY. Sixty enforcement actions.

30

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes, 60 more enforcement actions than in

fiscal year 2001, which is the last year before Sarbanes-Oxley came

into effect.

In terms of cracking down on corporate wrongdoing, particularly

issuer financial fraud and reporting violations, a top priority—as of

August 20 in fiscal year 2003, the Commission has filed 543 enforcement actions of which 147 actions, or 27 percent of the total,

involve issuer financial fraud and reporting violations.

Further, during this period, the Commission sought to bar 144

offending corporate executive officers or directors from holding such

positions with publicly traded companies—nearly three times——

Chairman SHELBY. What was that last number—how many?

Chairman DONALDSON. That is 144.

Chairman SHELBY. One hundred forty-four.

Chairman DONALDSON. One hundred forty-four offending corporate executive officers and directors from holding such positions

with publicly traded companies. That is nearly three times the

number barred just 2 years ago.

The Commission has achieved these results without sacrificing

other areas of enforcement. Issuer fraud, insider trading, and misconduct by regulated entities and persons are all important program areas.

I can go through these statistics in detail——

Chairman SHELBY. You can furnish that for the record.

Mr. DONALDSON. —and I would be glad to provide them to you.

Chairman SHELBY. But you are making progress under this Act

is the message you are giving us right now; is that correct?

Chairman DONALDSON. Right. Well, let me stop there and say

that I think the trends are in the right direction, and we are

pleased with these results—not so pleased that we are going to let

up, but pleased with the results to date.

Chairman SHELBY. You are sending a strong message, aren’t you,

that you mean business?

Chairman DONALDSON. Yes. We are trying to do that.

Chairman SHELBY. We appreciate your appearance, and we appreciate what you are doing with your leadership at the SEC. Keep

it up.

Thank you.

Chairman DONALDSON. Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Prepared statement and additional material supplied for the

record follow:]

31

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE

It is truly remarkable when we compare this year’s business climate to the one

we were experiencing just 1 year ago. Last year seemed to bring almost daily revelations of corporate scandal that extended all the way up to the very highest officers

of some of our Nation’s largest corporations. The greed exhibited by a handful of

business leaders caused heartbreak for millions of Americans as pensions were lost

and stock prices fell dramatically. The end result was that while some companies

went out of business or struggled to regain their footing, the entire American economy underwent a grave crisis of confidence.

While our economy continues today on its difficult path to recovery, there is little

doubt that the recent scandals paved the way for valuable reforms. Most notably,

the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Accountability law has given us new confidence in

the financial statements of our businesses.

While I do believe there are steps that can be taken to further ensure true auditor

independence, we are seeing many positive results of the Act that President Bush

signed into law a little over a year ago. Because of the scope of the law as well as

its relatively recent implementation, I believe we must give the initiatives contained

in Sarbanes-Oxley a chance to fully take effect before we consider additional steps.

While Chairman Greenspan commented that he saw the expanded criminal penalties as the most significant portion of the bill, I would point as well to other important results of Sarbanes-Oxley. For instance, it has been reported that 2 years

ago only 1 percent of Wall Street analysts recommended that investors sell. Today,

that number is up to 20 percent. Honest assessments of a companies potential helps

investors and employees alike.

Of course, many of us still have questions as to how effective some of the initiatives in the law have been. That is why I want to thank Chairman Shelby for conducting today’s hearing—so we can hear from Chairman Donaldson of the Securities

and Exchange Commission about his agency’s perspective on the implementation of

the legislation. The SEC deserves special acknowledgement for their excellent work

on Sarbanes-Oxley, which they have taken on in addition to all of their normal duties. Chairman Donaldson, I thank you for taking the time to join us here today and

I look forward to your testimony.

I believe the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley marked a turning point in our Nation’s

economic history. While a few will still seek to manipulate financial statements for

short-term gains, we now have strong checks against such efforts and even stronger

penalties for those who perpetrate fraud on investors and employees. In addition,

we have in Sarbanes-Oxley a mechanism to return funds to defrauded investors.

This is a significant change in how corporations and the law will operate, and all

of America is better for it.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you have called this hearing to provide oversight on the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Although scandals like those that occurred at Enron and WorldCom are no longer

front page news, it is essential that we remain vigilant and that we ensure that Sarbanes-Oxley is having the intended effect of restoring investor confidence and leading to greater accuracy and transparency in the financial statements of publicly

traded companies.

I am particularly interested in examining today how a portion of the law that I

authored is being implemented. I am referring to Section 301’s whistleblower reporting mechanism.

I offered that language to the bill because it became obvious to me during our

10 Committee hearings on the subject that, people knew there were problems in

these companies and tried to speak up. Unfortunately, they were trapped in a corporate culture that silenced them. If their concerns had reached the proper people

early on, maybe some of these companies would have stopped their phony accounting practices and tens of millions of dollars in equity and thousands of jobs would

have been saved.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offered to Sarbanes-Oxley ensured

that, for the first time, every employee at these companies would have a mechanism

through which they could submit confidential and anonymous concerns about questionable accounting procedures directly to the public company’s audit committee. It

is the audit committee, after all, that is ultimately responsible.

I was disappointed to learn that the Commission opted not to craft a clearer and

more extensive rule implementing this portion in the law. The rule language that

32

the Commission ultimately adopted closely mirrors the law itself without sufficient

additional guidance.

While I would not have supported an overly proscriptive rule, the current Commission guidance is insufficient and this is styming its effective enforcement.

Indeed, as The Wall Street Journal reported on July 22, many observers feel that,

‘‘there still isn’t an easy way for corporate whistleblowers to communicate directly

with board members.’’ Even more troubling, the article goes on to state that: ‘‘Many

executives have set up hotlines to take complaints from employees, investors, and

others about ethical misdeeds. But executives often screen those confidential complaints before sharing them with directors.’’

Prescreening of these concerns clearly does not comply with my intent nor the intent of the greater Congress in passing this accounting reporting mechanism. But

I fear that some companies who prescreen can and will argue that they are complying because the rule is too vague.

This Wall Street Journal article only further confirms for me reports I have heard

from other sources, including the head of a major accounting firm, that the rule is

not having the full effect intended.

That is why I decided to wrote Chairman Donaldson last month about the need

to clarify the rule. I ask that a copy of my letter and his reply be included as a

part of this hearing.

In my letter, I articulated seven key actions that the SEC should be taking to

make the corporate whistleblowing mechanism more effective. This list included: (1)

instructing companies to make information about the reporting mechanism widely

available to employees and shareholders; (2) requiring audit committees to examine

ALL submissions, without interference or editing by company management; (3)

keeping all submissions for at least 7 years; (4) interpreting the definition of ‘‘employees’’ for purposes of the rule to have a broad meaning, and, (5) moving to implement the rule more quickly.

I am strongly committed to seeing this rule implemented effectively and I hope

that Mr. Donaldson and I will have the opportunity to discuss this further today.

I truly believe that this reporting mechanism is essential to restore investor confidence and avert any number of Enron-like scandals in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this hearing today, and I

look forward to working with you, Senator Sarbanes, and our other colleagues to ensure that our securities markets can remain strong and vibrant.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR MICHAEL B. ENZI

It does not seem so long ago that we would find ourselves back in the days of

a seemingly endless list of corporate scandals. Almost every day we heard story

after story of big corporations that had serious and severe financial problems and

accounting staffs that had failed to live up to their responsibilities.

As the only accountant serving in the Senate, I was very concerned about my profession and the very large black eye it received—and justifiably so—from the activities it had pursued over the years. I believe that we took the right step in passing

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to put the corporate governance system on the right track.

At the events marking the first anniversary of the law, Chairman Donaldson, you

remarked that, ‘‘There is much, much work still to be done—many miles to travel.’’

I fully agree with you. While the SEC has finished nearly all of its regulatory tasks

the true work and effects of the law are just being realized.

Now that we have passed the first anniversary of President Bush’s signing of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law, we have witnessed broad changes in the marketplace

and in overall corporate governance. We also have witnessed the placement of independent directors and effective auditors who are now an integral component of corporate oversight.

As we now move into the next phase of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, I urge the SEC

to be vigilant in ensuring that small auditors and small publicly traded companies

do not incur a disproportionate regulatory effect of the law. The growth of our small

business community is vital to the health of our capital markets, and therefore, vital

to our economic growth.

The passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was but the starting point of returning

regulatory control back to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Another important step came with the enactment of the Accountant, Compliance, and Enforcing

Staffing Act of 2003 that the President signed into law on July 3. This law provided

the Securities and Exchange Commission with the much needed authority to hire

33

1The Commission has issued five studies as required by the Act. The Commission is preparing

one remaining study and report required by Section 401(c) of the Act on special purpose entities.

The Act also mandated other studies, such as those to be conducted by the General Accounting

Office on consolidation of public accounting firms (Section 701), mandatory rotation of accounting firms (Section 207), and investment banks (Section 705). The Act also called for reviews of

Federal Sentencing Guidelines by the U.S. Sentencing Commission (Sections 805, 905, and

1104).

accountants just as the Agency could then hire attorneys. This demonstrates the importance of accountants as an integral part of a strong regulatory system.

In addition, the establishment of the Public Company Oversight Accounting Board

has begun to make a difference in the auditing world. As Chairman McDonough

continues to bring the Board up to speed, we will see the public company auditors

providing financial accounting oversight on a much higher level.

Just as important as it was to improve the corporate governance structure in the

public markets, it now appears that we need to improve the corporate governance

structure of the regulators of our securities markets. Recently, you sent a letter to

the New York Stock Exchange on its corporate governance practices. I am very interested in the Exchange’s response and would greatly appreciate if you would share

it with me. I strongly believe that the regulators of our securities markets should

not permit themselves to be held at a much different standard than we require of

the companies that they regulate.

Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Donaldson for taking such quick and firm

control of the reins as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and

for working with the Congress to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act is done with investor respect and confidence in mind. I also

would like to recognize all of the hard work of the SEC Commissioners and staff

who have made the implementation of the law possible.

Chairman Donaldson, I look forward to your testimony today.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DONALDSON

CHAIRMAN, U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee,

thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the Securities and Exchange

Commission concerning implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss this important matter with you.

Introduction

It has been just over a year since Congress passed and President Bush signed the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law. Sparked by dramatic corporate and accounting scandals, the Act represents the most important securities legislation since the original

Federal securities laws of the 1930’s. The Act effects dramatic change across the

corporate landscape to reestablish investor confidence in the integrity of corporate

disclosures and financial reporting. Your backing of the Act and the efforts to implement its sweeping reforms, along with the strong support of your counterparts in

the House and our authorizing committees, demonstrates convincingly that the Congress is dedicated to ensuring the financial integrity and vitality of our markets.

The first year of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has produced an impressive record of

accomplishments in an incredibly short period of time. The Act set ambitious deadlines for more than 15 separate rulemaking projects by the Commission to implement many of the Act’s provisions. The Commission provided a number of opportunities for public input on its proposals, and we carefully studied thousands of letters

of public comment in crafting final rules. The bulk of the required rulemaking was

required by January 26, 2003, and this past January was the busiest month of rulemaking in Commission history. The Act also called for several mandated studies on

particular aspects of the capital markets.1

Because of the dedicated efforts of the Commission and the select corps of professionals who work at the SEC, I am pleased to say we have met all of the mandates

and challenges set out by the Act, and in record time. Moreover, we met these deadlines without sacrificing our other work or obligations—including our robust enforcement program and numerous regulatory initiatives unrelated to Sarbanes-Oxley.

The Act also provided welcome new enforcement tools to combat corporate fraud,

punish corporate wrongdoers and deter fraud with the threat of stiffer penalties.

The Commission, both on its own and in conjunction with the President’s interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
34

agency Corporate Fraud Task Force, is moving decisively to utilize these new tools

to expose and punish acts of corruption, improve corporate responsibility, and protect America’s investors.

For the fiscal year through August 20, 2003, the Commission has filed 543 enforcement actions, 147 of which involve financial fraud or reporting violations. During this period, the Commission has sought to bar 144 offending corporate executives and directors from holding such positions with publicly traded companies. Further, we are holding accountable not just the companies who engage in fraud, but

also the other participants. For example, recent actions signify the Commission’s

willingness to pursue directors who are reckless in their oversight of management.

And we have increasingly designed strategies that take advantage of the creative

provisions of the Act to return funds to investors who have suffered losses rather

than merely collect those funds for the Government.

I am pleased to report that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a

cornerstone of the Act, is up and running under the strong leadership of its new

Chairman, William McDonough. We will continue to crack down on malfeasance,

and thanks to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act we have the tools and resources we need to

tackle this task. The rules mandated by the Act are in place and companies, their

boards and executives, and other ‘‘gatekeepers’’ to our capital markets are proceeding to implementation. These are landmark rules. They will require hard work

and significant expenditures in the short-run. But the short-term costs of compliance, particularly efforts to improve internal control over financial reporting, should

be viewed as an investment. In the long-term, the reforms realized from the Act will

result in sounder corporate practices and more reliable financial reporting. Moreover, the spirit of the Act and its requirements are sinking into corporate America.

Companies should, as I have said before, make the approach of doing the right

thing—in disclosure, in governance, and otherwise in their businesses—part of their

companies’ DNA.

The Commission has been and will remain vigilant in the implementation of these

and other provisions of the Act and will consider further action as appropriate in

furtherance of its objectives. And beyond Sarbanes-Oxley, we will continue pressing

ahead on multiple fronts in the months ahead, including addressing such critical

areas as shareholder access to the director nomination process, the mutual fund and

hedge fund industries, the structure of our securities markets, and the many issues

embedded in the need for improved corporate governance.

In these and other endeavors, I look forward to continuing and building on the

strong and cooperative relationship that our agency has developed with you in the

past as we move forward with fulfilling the promise of the Act. This is a critical

time for our capital markets and the Agency, and the way we address the challenges

before us will determine not only where we go tomorrow, but also for years to come.

Before reporting in more detail on the Commission’s achievements in implementing

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to date, I would first briefly put the Act in perspective.

Events Leading to Sarbanes-Oxley

The specific events leading to passage of the Act are now well documented. The

mid-1990’s saw the beginning of the full flourish of the so-called ‘‘new economy’’ in

America. The stock market reflected the enormity of the changes taking place in the

economy. Stock averages rose at increasing rates from the mid-1990’s through early

2000. New entrants undertaking IPO’s in the market were among the biggest

gainers, especially those that symbolized the ‘‘dot.com’’ sector of the economy. Communications, the explosion of information technology, and changes in the culture of

equity investing, including the shift to more self-directed retirement accounts,

brought millions of individuals with their savings into our stock markets for the

first time.

Starting in the second quarter of 2000, the bubble burst. Stock prices plummeted.

Investors fled the markets. The IPO market disappeared. As happened after the

crash of 1929, the falling market that began in 2000 led to other revelations. Starting with the unfolding of the Enron story in October 2001, it became apparent that

the boom years had been accompanied by fraud, other misconduct, and a serious

erosion in business principles. The low points in this story are now household

names—not just Enron, but also WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, and others. There was

other serious misconduct as well, including in the once-celebrated IPO market,

which in too many cases lacked both fairness and integrity. The cost of this cornercutting to investors has been enormous. While thankfully we have not witnessed the

same intensity of human suffering that came with the Depression of the 1930’s, the

most recent downturn in the market directly affected many more investors than the

1929 market crash, because many more individuals had much more of their savings

invested in the stock market.

35

In addition to the grossest displays of greed and malfeasance, there were other

more subtle but still pernicious developments. During the boom years, corporate

America increasingly emphasized a short-term focus, fueled by an obsession with

quarter-to-quarter earnings. In some cases this focus was sharpened by the temptation that inherently resulted from massive amounts of stock options granted to corporate insiders. Analysts, some tainted by conflicts of interest, became cheerleaders

for the game of ‘‘hitting the numbers.’’ Winning that game, rather than creating the

conditions for sound, long-term strength and performance, became the primary goal.

Finally, the perception that uninterrupted earnings growth was the hallmark of

sound corporate progress caused too many managers to adjust financial results with

the purpose of meeting projected results—in ways that were sometimes large and

sometimes small, but, especially given the purpose, in all cases unacceptable.

To address the widespread collapse of investor confidence and the recognition that

something had gone seriously awry in segments of corporate America, Congress approved and the President signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. At the East Room

signing ceremony, the President promised, ‘‘to use the full authority of the Government to expose corruption, punish wrongdoers, and defend the rights and interests

of American workers and investors.’’

Implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley

The sweeping reforms in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act address nearly every aspect and

actor in our Nation’s capital markets. The Act affects every reporting company, both

domestic and foreign, as well as their officers and directors. The Act also affects

those that play a role in ensuring the integrity of our capital markets, such as accounting firms, research analysts, and attorneys. The overarching goals of the Act

are far-reaching and include restoring investor confidence and assuring the integrity

of our markets. Within these goals, the principal objectives addressed in the Act can

be grouped into the following themes:

• To strengthen and restore confidence in the accounting profession;

• To strengthen enforcement of the Federal securities laws;

• To improve the ‘‘tone at the top’’ and executive responsibility;

• To improve disclosure and financial reporting; and

• To improve the performance of ‘‘gatekeepers.’’

RESTORING CONFIDENCE IN THE ACCOUNTING PROFESSION

A strong central focus of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is to enhance the integrity of

the audit process and the reliability of audit reports on issuers’ financial statements.

As discussed below, the Commission has taken the actions directed by the Act and,

when appropriate, pursued additional measures with the goal of restoring public

confidence in the independence and performance of auditors of public companies’ financial statements.

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

A centerpiece of the Act is the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB. In 1 year, the joint efforts of the Commission and PCAOB

turned what was an outline on paper into a proactive organization that already is

accepting accounting firm registrations, operating an independent funding mechanism, actively developing inspection and disciplinary programs, and writing new auditing and attestation standards, starting with those related to auditors’ reports on

companies’ internal controls over financial reporting.

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Commission, among other things, appoints

PCAOB members, approves all of the PCAOB’s rules and professional standards,

and the PCAOB annual budget and support fee, acts as an appellate authority for

PCAOB disciplinary actions and disputes related to PCAOB inspection reports and

generally oversees the PCAOB’s operations. Accordingly, the Commission has appointed the PCAOB, approved the PCAOB’s bylaws, registration system for public

accounting firms, funding rules, interim auditing and other professional standards,

annual budget and support fee, and has in process a review of the PCAOB’s ethics

code and various proposed rules related to the PCAOB’s standards-setting process

and inspection program.

We were extremely pleased when William McDonough, formerly the President of

the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, assumed the Chair of the PCAOB last June.

Prior to his appointment, Charles Niemeier, then the PCAOB Acting Chairman, and

PCAOB members Kayla Gillan, Dan Goelzer, and William Gradison developed the

infrastructure necessary for the Commission to determine in April that the PCAOB

was appropriately organized and had the capacity to carry out the requirements of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Under Chairman McDonough’s leadership, we expect the

PCAOB to continue to grow and to implement reforms that will restore investors’

36

2 In addition, to assist companies and the auditors of their financial statements in implementing the auditor independence rules, the Commission staff recently published on the Commission’s website a list of Frequently Asked Questions about those rules. The FAQ’s clarify the

application of certain rules related to nonaudit services, partner rotation, audit committee

preapproval of services, auditor communications with an issuer’s audit committee, the disclosure

by an issuer of fees paid to the auditor of its financial statements, and other matters. 3The criteria include, among other things, being a private entity; having, for administrative

and operational purposes, a board of trustees that serves the public interest; being funded as

provided in the Act; having procedures to ensure prompt consideration, by majority vote of its

members, of changes to accounting standards to reflect emerging issues and changing business

practices; and considering the extent to which international convergence of accounting standards

is necessary or appropriate in the public interest.

confidence in the audit process and in the integrity of the audited financial information that investors use every day to make investment and voting decisions.

Auditor Independence

Auditor independence is at the heart of the integrity of the audit process. As directed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and under the Commission’s general rulemaking

authority, the Commission strengthened its rules regarding auditor independence

last January. The principal thrust of the revisions is to:

• Expand the nonaudit services that, if provided to an audit client, impair an auditor’s independence;

• Require an issuer’s audit committee to preapprove all audit and nonaudit services

provided to the issuer by the auditor;

• Require that certain partners on the audit engagement team rotate off the engagement after either 5 or 7 years depending on the partner’s role in the audit;

• Establish a ‘‘cooling off’’ period between participation on the team auditing an

issuer’s financial statements and assuming certain functions as a member of that

issuer’s management;

• Require the auditor to report certain matters to the issuer’s audit committee; and

• Require certain disclosures to investors of information related to audit and

nonaudit services provided by, and fees paid to, the auditor.

The Commission also adopted rules stating that an accounting firm would not be

independent with respect to an audit client if certain partners on the audit engagement receive compensation based on their procuring engagements with that client

for services other than audit, review, or attest services.2

Improper Influence on Auditors

On April 24, 2003, the Commission adopted a provision pursuant to Section 303

of the Act prohibiting officers and directors of an issuer, and persons acting under

their direction, from taking any action to coerce, manipulate, mislead, or fraudulently influence the auditor of the issuer’s financial statements if that person knew

or should have known that such action, if successful, could result in rendering the

issuer’s financial statements materially misleading. These rules, in combination

with other Commission rules, prohibit officers and directors from subverting the

auditor’s responsibilities to investors to conduct a diligent audit of the issuer’s financial statements and to provide a true report of the auditor’s findings.

Retention of Records Relevant to Audits and Reviews of Financial Statements

On January 22, 2003, the Commission adopted rules pursuant to Section 802 of

the Act that, for the first time, require auditors to retain certain records relevant

to their audits and reviews of issuers’ financial statements. These records, which are

to be retained for 7 years, include an accounting firm’s workpapers and certain

other documents that contain conclusions, opinions, analyses, or financial data related to the audit or review.

Recognition of the Financial Accounting Standards Board

Section 108 of the Act sets forth criteria that must be met by an accounting standard-setting body in order for that body’s standards to be considered ‘‘generally accepted’’ for purposes of the securities laws.3 In April, the Commission announced its

determination that the Financial Accounting Standards Board and its parent organization, the Financial Accounting Foundation, meet the criteria in the Act and that

FASB’s pronouncements would be considered to be ‘‘generally accepted’’ and must

continue to be followed in the preparation of financial statements filed with the

37

4The Commission’s determination was premised on an expectation that the FASB would address certain issues announced by the Commission and that the FASB would continue to serve

the public interest and protect investors.

Commission.4 Subsequently, as required by Section 109(e) of Act, we reviewed the

FASB support fee for 2003 and found that it is consistent with the Act.

Study on Principles-based Accounting Standards

In enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Congress recognized that accounting standards that contain too many exceptions, interpretations and bright-line percentage

tests might have contributed to efforts by managements and accountants to structure transactions that provide a desired accounting result and yet allow the company to avoid clear disclosure of the economic consequences of those transactions in

its financial statements. Congress, therefore, mandated in Section 108(d) of the Act

that the Commission study whether a system of ‘‘principles-based’’ accounting standards should be adopted in the United States. The Commission staff released its

study in July.

After considering the issue, our staff found that standards reflecting only a stated

principle of accounting (principle-only standards) would present enforcement difficulties because they would provide little guidance or structure for exercising professional judgment in applying that principle. The staff also found that accounting

standards that are too detailed (rules-based standards) often provide a vehicle for

circumventing the intention of the standard.

As a result, the staff indicated that the best approach would be to develop accounting standards that:

• Are based on a conceptual framework;

• Clearly state the accounting objective of the standard;

• Provide sufficient detail and structure so the standard may be applied on a consistent basis;

• Minimize exceptions from the standard; and

• Avoid the use of percentage tests that allow financial engineers to achieve technical compliance with the standard while evading the intent of the standard.

The staff’s recommendation is consistent with the approach currently being developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

STRENGTHENING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS

The Act also has helped the Commission to restore investor confidence in the capital markets by strengthening enforcement of the Federal securities laws. The Act

added a number of new weapons to the Commission’s enforcement arsenal to better

deter would-be securities wrongdoers and compensate injured investors. It also required the Commission to undertake studies of enforcement actions and report to

Congress. These studies contain important recommendations to further strengthen

the Commission’s enforcement program.

New Enforcement Tools

With the Act, Congress provided the Commission a number of new tools with

which to further our enforcement mission. The Act strengthened the Commission’s

ability to obtain meaningful remedies and expanded our authority to return funds

to harmed investors. Significant new enforcement tools include:

• Authority, in certain cases, to distribute civil money penalties to harmed investors, under the ‘‘Fair Funds provision;’’

• Authority, during an investigation of a public company or its officers, directors,

or others, to seek a temporary order from a Federal district court to escrow extraordinary payments;

• A more appropriate standard for the Commission to obtain an officer and director

bar in an injunctive action;

• Authority to seek officer and director bars, under the new standard applicable in

injunctive actions, in cease-and-desist proceedings;

• Authority to censure or restrict brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and associated persons, who are subject to certain final State, Federal banking agency, or

National Credit Union Administration orders;

• Access to audit workpapers of foreign audit firms that issue an audit opinion or

perform material services upon which a registered public accounting firm relies

in issuing an audit opinion; and

• Authority to seek penny stock bars in injunctive actions.

38

5Section 703 of the Act directed the Commission to study securities professionals who violated

the Federal securities laws, and Section 704 of the Act directed the Commission to study enforcement actions to identify areas of issuer financial reporting that are most susceptible to

fraud, manipulation, and inappropriate earnings management. Both studies were submitted to

Congress on January 24, 2003.

Use of Sarbanes-Oxley Enforcement Tools

This fiscal year, the Commission has used the new tools to facilitate maximum

return of funds to harmed investors. For example, the Commission has twice invoked Section 1103 of the Act, which provides that during an investigation of a public company or its officers or directors, the Commission may seek a temporary order

from a Federal court to escrow ‘‘extraordinary payments’’ if it appears likely the

company will make such ‘‘extraordinary payments’’ to an officer or director. Section

1103 helps ensure that company insiders do not receive unusual rewards during the

course of an SEC investigation that may uncover misconduct by those individuals.

This ‘‘preventive measure’’ helps to address one of the toughest challenges facing the

Commission—finding, recovering, and returning funds to defrauded investors—by

securing funds before they are provided to alleged securities-law violators.

In its most recent use of Section 1103, the Commission successfully petitioned the

court to place in escrow for 45 days, a $37.64 million payment intended for two

former officers of Gemstar-TV Guide International. This allowed our Enforcement

staff to advance its investigation, and the Commission to file securities fraud

charges against the two former Gemstar officers in Federal court, without permitting the officers to receive, and then dissipate, funds that allegedly belong to the

company and its investors.

Section 308(a) of the Act, the ‘‘Fair Funds’’ provision, has also quickly become an

important tool. Before the Act, by law, all civil penalties were paid into the U.S.

Treasury, and, as a result, kept out of the hands of defrauded investors. Now, however, the Commission has authority, in certain circumstances, to use civil penalties

to help make defrauded investors whole. In just over 1 year, the Commission has

used the Fair Funds provision to designate over $1 billion in penalties for distribution to defrauded investors. A significant example of the effectiveness of the Fair

Funds provision is in the Commission’s case against WorldCom, Inc., where the

company has agreed to satisfy its civil penalty obligation by paying $500 million in

cash and $250 million in stock to defrauded investors. Thanks to the Fair Funds

provision, all of this amount can be made available to harmed investors.

Studies and Reports

The Act required the Commission to conduct several enforcement-related studies.

Section 308(c) directed the Commission to review and to analyze its enforcement

actions in which disgorgement and penalties were sought to determine how such

proceedings may best be utilized to provide recompense to injured investors. The

principal findings of the Commission’s study were set forth in a report submitted

to Congress on January 24, 2003.

This enforcement study, along with others conducted pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley,

made several recommendations intended to bolster the Commission’s collection program, strengthen its enforcement efforts generally and provide more compensation

for defrauded investors.5

These recommendations included:

• Permitting the Commission, under the Fair Funds provision, to use penalty moneys for distribution to investors even if no disgorgement is ordered;

• Removal of State law impediments to the Commission’s collection of judgments

and administrative orders;

• Expressly authorizing the Commission to hire private attorneys to conduct litigation to collect its judgments;

• Expanding the Commission’s access to grand jury materials;

• Providing nationwide service of trial subpoenas; and

• Facilitating cooperation by preserving the privilege of information produced voluntarily to the Commission by a person or entity under investigation.

These recommendations provided a basis for several provisions of a bill, H.R. 2179,

now pending in the House of Representatives.

IMPROVING THE ‘‘TONE AT THE TOP’’ AND EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

Another critical purpose of the Act was to improve the ‘‘tone at the top.’’ This important theme dates back to President Bush’s ten-point plan of March 2002, even

before passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The tone set by top management is the

most important factor contributing to the integrity of the financial reporting process.

39

6The Act’s provisions complement previous actions by the Commission regarding executive

certifications. Before enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, the Commission had previously published

proposals to require CEO and CFO certifications for Exchange Act reports. See Release No. 34-

46079 (June 17, 2002). In addition, the Commission required written statements, under oath,

from the CEO’s and CFO’s of the 947 largest public companies regarding the accuracy of their

companies’ financial statements and their consultation with the companies’ audit committees.

See File No. 4–460: Order Requiring the Filing of Sworn Statements Pursuant to Section

21(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (June 27, 2002). 7For example, the rules adopted by the Commission pursuant to Section 302 require a company’s CEO and CFO each to certify that:

• They have reviewed the report;

• The report does not contain an untrue statement or fail to state a material fact;

• The financial statements fairly present in all material respects the financial condition and

results of operations of the company;

• They are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures

and internal control over financial reporting for the company and have:

• Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the company is made known to them;

• Designed such internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance

regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements;

• Evaluated and reported on their company’s disclosure controls and procedures; and

• Disclosed any material change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting;

and

• They have disclosed to the auditors and audit committee:

• All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal

control over financial reporting; and

• Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who

have a significant role in internal control over financial reporting. 8 Companies are required to provide the new disclosures regarding codes of ethics in annual

reports for fiscal years ending on or after July 15, 2003.

Executive Certification of Company Reports

The Act contains two different executive certification provisions, Sections 302 and

906, each of which requires CEO’s and CFO’s of reporting companies to certify the

financial and other information in their reports filed with the Commission.6 On August 27, 2002, the Commission adopted rules to implement Section 302 of the Act.

Section 906 of the Act, which contains a separate certification requirement subject

to specific Federal criminal provisions, is self-operative and became effective immediately upon enactment. On May 27, 2003, the Commission adopted amendments to

its rules under Section 302 in connection with its implementation of the internal

control reporting requirements of Section 404, and also mandated that the certifications under Sections 302 and 906 be submitted as exhibits to Commission reports

to aid investors and regulators in locating these statements.

These certifications affirm senior executive responsibility for financial reporting.7

An important aspect of the certifications is the CEO’s and CFO’s responsibility for

establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures. In addition to the

required certification regarding these controls and procedures, the Commission included an express requirement in its rules that reporting companies must maintain

disclosure controls and procedures. These are controls and other procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed is recorded, processed,

and accurately reported within the required time frame. The combination of the certification requirements and the requirement to establish and to maintain disclosure

controls and procedures has been to focus appropriate increased senior executive attention on disclosure responsibilities and has had a very significant impact to date

in improving financial reporting and other disclosure.

Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers

To further focus attention on honest and ethical conduct, the Commission adopted

rules on January 15, 2003 pursuant to Section 406 of the Act. These rules require

a reporting company to disclose annually whether the company has adopted a code

of ethics for the company’s principal executive officer and senior financial officers.8

If a company has not adopted such a code, the company is required to explain why.

The rules also require a company to disclose on a current basis amendments and

waivers relating to the code of ethics for any of those officers. The Act required disclosure only of the applicability of the code of ethics to senior financial officers.

Given the role of the CEO in setting the ‘‘tone at the top,’’ the Commission also included a company’s principal executive officer in its final rules.

40

9This limited relief focuses on limited categories of transactions where the insider does not

select the date of execution. For these transactions, the reports must be filed within two business days after the insider receives notice of the transaction, but the notification date may be

no later than the third business day after the transaction is executed. 10These changes became effective on June 30, 2003, 1 month ahead of the statutory deadline. 11The Commission’s rules, which implement both the trading restrictions and the black out

notice requirements of Section 306, became effective on January 26, 2003. 12Since 1993, larger depositary institutions or their bank holding companies have been subject to similar requirements under the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA). In addition,

the Commission has twice, in the past, proposed an internal control report requirement. A

mandated internal control reporting requirement also was one of the recommendations of the

National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting, also known as the Treadway Commission, in its landmark 1987 report. 13Section 404(b) of the Act. See also Section 103(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, which directs the

PCAOB to write an auditing standard that requires an auditor to describe in the audit report

the scope of the auditor’s testing of the company’s internal control structure, as required by Section 404(b), and to present (in such report or in a separate report): (1) the findings from such

testing, (2) an evaluation of whether the company’s internal control structure (a) includes maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and

dispositions of assets of the company, and (b) provides reasonable assurance that transactions

are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures are being made only

Disclosures of Insider Transactions

Section 403 of the Act effected two important changes that will result in earlier

public notification of insiders’ transactions in their company’s securities and wider

public availability of information about those transactions.

First, on August 27, 2002, the Commission adopted rules to implement the accelerated filing deadline applicable to change of beneficial ownership reports. The Act

accelerated these deadlines to the second business day following the execution date

of such transactions. As provided for in the Act, the Commission provided limited

relief for certain transactions only where the two business day period is not feasible.9

Second, on April 24, 2003, the Commission adopted rules to implement Section

403(a)(4) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires electronic filing of insider transaction reports and Internet accessibility of such reports. To facilitate the implementation of this requirement, the Commission created a new online filing system for

these forms.10

Prohibition on Insider Trading During Pension Fund Blackouts

On January 15, 2003, the Commission, after consultation with the Department of

Labor, adopted rules implementing Section 306 of the Act. Section 306 prohibits any

director or executive officer of a company from purchasing or selling any equity security during a pension plan black out period that prevents plan participants and

beneficiaries from engaging in transactions involving those securities. Section 306

equalizes the treatment of corporate executives and rank-and-file employees with respect to their ability to engage in transactions involving company equity securities

during black out periods.11

IMPROVING DISCLOSURE AND FINANCIAL REPORTING

Apart from increasing focus on executive responsibility, the Act takes several important steps toward improving disclosure and the financial reporting process. Accurate and reliable financial reporting lies at the heart of our disclosure-based system

of securities regulation and is critical to the integrity of our securities markets. Investors need accurate and reliable information to make informed investment and

voting decisions. Investor confidence in the reliability of this information is fundamental to the liquidity and vibrancy of our markets.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The impetus for reform that culminated with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act helped coalesce widespread support for extending internal control reporting requirements to all

public companies.12 On May 27, 2003, the Commission adopted rules to implement

Section 404 of the Act, which requires public companies to file an annual internal

control report as part of their annual reports. This report will address management’s responsibility to establish internal control over financial reporting and will

require management to evaluate the effectiveness of internal control over financial

reporting.

In addition, the Act requires the auditor of the company’s financial statements to

attest to, and report on, management’s assessment of the company’s internal control

over financial reporting in accordance with standards established by the Public

Company Accounting Oversight Board.13 In this regard, the Commission’s Director

41

as authorized by management or the board of directors, and (3) describes material weaknesses

in, and material noncompliance with, those controls. 14 As the Commission emphasized in its release implementing Section 404, the design, implementation, documentation and testing of internal control over financial reporting, as well as documentation of that testing, are responsibilities of management. See Release No. 33–8238 (June

5, 2003). 15Larger companies subject to our accelerated filing deadlines must comply with the new

rules as of the end of their first fiscal year ending after June 15, 2004. All other companies,

including small business and foreign issuers, must comply beginning with their first fiscal year

ending after April 15, 2005. 16 Companies are required to comply with these new disclosure requirements in Commission

filings that include financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after June 15, 2003. 17See, for example, Release 33–8056 (Jan. 22, 2002) (Commission cautionary advice on offbalance sheet transactions); Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 45 (Nov.

2002); and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 46 (Jan. 2003). 18The Commission’s rules on this topic became effective on March 28, 2003. Like Congress,

the Commission also had been concerned with the use of non-GAAP financial information. Most

recently, in December 2001, the Commission issued cautionary advice regarding the use of such

Continued

of the Division of Corporation Finance and our Deputy Chief Accountant recently

participated in a PCAOB Roundtable on internal control attestations. Roundtable

participants included representatives of institutional investors, public companies,

Federal and State regulators, accounting firms and others. The PCAOB intends to

consider the information and views provided at the Roundtable as it develops a new

standard on auditor attestations of an entity’s internal control over financial reporting. There will be an opportunity for public comment before the PCAOB finalizes

its standard, and this standard, like all PCAOB rules, will be subject to Commission

approval before it becomes effective.

For many companies, the new rules on internal control reports will represent the

most significant single requirement associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The establishment and maintenance of internal control over financial reporting has always

been an important responsibility of management.14 An effective system of internal

control over financial reporting is necessary to produce reliable financial statements

and other financial information used by investors. By requiring a report stating

management’s responsibility for internal control over financial reporting and management’s assessment regarding the effectiveness of such control, investors will be

better able to evaluate management’s stewardship responsibilities and the reliability

of a company’s disclosure. The required annual evaluation of internal control over

financial reporting will encourage companies to devote adequate resources and attention to the maintenance of such control. Additionally, the evaluation should help

to identify potential weaknesses and deficiencies in advance of a system breakdown,

and may help companies detect fraudulent financial reporting earlier and perhaps

thereby deter financial fraud or minimize its adverse effects.

In light of the substantial time and resources needed to properly implement the

rules and the corresponding benefit to investors that will result, our final rules provide for a transition period based upon the type of reporting company.15 The additional time also will permit the PCAOB to develop revised attestation standards.

Off-Balance Sheet Transactions

One of the revelations of the recent corporate accounting failures was the abuse

of off-balance sheet transactions. On January 22, 2003, the Commission adopted

amendments to implement Section 401(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires

each annual and quarterly financial report filed with the Commission to disclose all

material off-balance sheet transactions, arrangement, and obligations.16 The Act’s

mandate complements efforts of both the Commission and the FASB in this area,17

and the Commission’s final rules also require most companies to provide an overview of certain known contractual obligations in an easy-to-read tabular format.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

On January 15, 2003, the Commission adopted rules implementing Section 401(b)

of the Act to require that any public disclosure of a non-GAAP financial measure

by a public company (referenced as ‘‘pro forma financial information’’ in the Act)

must be presented in a manner that:

• Does not contain an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the non-GAAP financial measure, in light of

the circumstances under which it is presented, not misleading; and

• Reconciles the non-GAAP financial measure with generally accepted accounting

principles (GAAP).18

42

information. See Release No. 33–8039 (Dec. 4, 2002). See also In the Matter of Trump Hotels

& Casino Resorts, Inc., Release No. 34–45287 (Jan. 16, 2002). 19These rules became effective March 28, 2003.

In addition to defining the category of financial information that is subject to the

mandate, the Commission took a two-step approach to regulating the use of nonGAAP financial information. First, the Commission adopted new Regulation G,

which applies whenever a company publicly discloses or releases material information that includes a non-GAAP financial measure. This regulation prohibits material

misstatements or omissions that would make the presentation of the material nonGAAP financial measure misleading and requires a quantitative reconciliation of the

measure to GAAP (by schedule or other clearly understandable method). Second, the

Commission adopted rules that address the use of non-GAAP financial measures in

filings with the Commission. These amendments apply to the same categories of

non-GAAP financial measures covered by Regulation G, but contain more detailed

requirements than Regulation G.

Authorizing a ‘‘Real Time’’ Disclosure System

Each investor should have prompt access to critical information. Section 409 of

the Act obligates public companies to disclose ‘‘on a rapid and current basis’’ information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations of the

company as the Commission determines, by rule, is necessary or useful for the protection of investors and the public interest. This authorization is consistent with the

Commission’s ongoing mission to modernize the public reporting system and improve the usefulness of these reports to investors.

For example, on September 5, 2002, the Commission adopted amendments to accelerate the filing deadlines for quarterly and annual reports by nearly one-third for

larger, seasoned reporting companies. The deadlines for these reports were last

changed over 30 years ago. In part to accommodate the implementation of other provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the changes to filing deadlines will be phased in

over 3 years.

On January 15, 2003, the Commission adopted amendments to require public

companies to furnish to the Commission their earnings releases or other announcements disclosing material nonpublic information about completed annual or quarterly fiscal periods.19 These amendments will not require the issuance of earnings

releases or similar announcements; however issuing such releases and announcements will trigger the new requirement. Bringing these disclosures into the formal

reporting system will provide widespread and uniform access of this information to

investors. Special accommodations were made to address presentations made orally,

telephonically, by webcast, or by similar means.

Current Commission proposals to expand dramatically the list of significant

events requiring prompt disclosure between reporting periods are also consistent

with the mandate of Section 409. These proposals go a long way toward implementing a ‘‘real time’’ disclosure system. Specifically, the proposals would:

• Require current disclosure of 11 new items or events; • Move two items that are currently required only on an annual or quarterly basis

to disclosure on a current basis; • Augment several existing items that are required to be disclosed on a current

basis; and • Accelerate the deadline for reporting all of the items required on a current basis.

I expect the Commission will revisit these proposals in the coming months.

IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF ‘‘GATEKEEPERS’’

In addition to addressing auditors and the accounting profession, as discussed

above, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and our new rules require better focus by other gatekeepers in our capital markets on their proper roles. The effective operation of these

gatekeepers is fundamental to preserving the integrity of our markets. Revelations

from the recent corporate and accounting scandals revealed that these parties did

not always fulfill their proper responsibilities.

Audit Committee Listing Standards

Recognizing that financial statements, financial reporting, and the audit itself is

the bedrock upon which full and accurate disclosure is built, and also recognizing

the importance of the audit committee in these processes, Congress in Section 301

of the Act called for, and on April 1, 2003 the Commission adopted, rules directing

the Nation’s exchanges to prohibit the listing of any security of a company that is

not in compliance with the audit committee requirements established by Section

301. Under the new rules, listed companies must meet the following requirements:

43

20The affected markets were required to submit proposed listing rules by July 15, 2003, and

all of them met that deadline. Final listing rules must be approved by the Commission by December 1, 2003. The vast majority of listed companies must comply with the new rules by the

earlier of their first annual shareholders meeting after January 15, 2004 or October 31, 2004.

This time frame was selected to coincide with a company’s next annual shareholders meeting

to facilitate any elections for new audit committee members that may be necessary to meet the

rule’s independence requirements. Given that foreign issuers and small business issuers were

previously not subject to rules of this type, they were given additional time (until July 31, 2005)

to comply.

• All audit committee members must be independent; • The audit committee must be directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of a company’s outside auditors, and the outside

auditors must report directly to the audit committee; • The audit committee must establish procedures for the receipt, retention, and

treatment of complaints regarding accounting and auditing matters, including

procedures for the confidential, anonymous submission of concerns by employees;

and • The company must establish funding for the audit committee, including the

means to retain and compensate independent counsel and other advisors, as the

audit committee determines necessary to carry out its duties.

The new rules apply to both domestic and foreign companies that list in the

United States. Based on significant input from and dialogue with foreign regulators

and foreign issuers, several provisions, applicable only to foreign issuers, were included in the final rules to address potential conflicts with foreign legal requirements where consistent with fulfilling the investor protection mandate of the Act.

These provisions include accommodating foreign ‘‘co-determination’’ requirements,

allowing shareholders to select or ratify the selection of auditors consistent with requirements in many foreign countries and allowing alternative structures, such as

boards of auditors, to perform auditor oversight functions where such structures are

provided for under local law.

We are continuing our work with the Nation’s markets to implement these

requirements into their listing rules, and the Commission established ambitious

deadlines in its final rules for the Nation’s markets to implement the new listing

standards.20 These efforts complement reform efforts previously instituted by our

Nation’s markets at the Commission’s request to strengthen corporate governance

listing standards for publicly traded companies. In particular, the proposals by the

New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq, which will both be finalized within the

next few weeks, will increase board independence and effectiveness by, among other

things, mandating that boards be composed of a majority of independent directors,

requiring executive sessions outside the presence of management, and requiring

strong audit, compensation, and nominating/governance committees composed of

independent directors. We have already approved changes to listing rules to require

shareholder approval of equity compensation plans.

These are significant changes that should have a lasting impact on improving responsibility and accountability in our markets. They also have focused attention on

corporate governance reforms by the private sector. Many companies already are

moving to adopt the new requirements. In addition, leading private sector organizations have been hard at work studying ways to increase corporate governance. In

May, the Conference Board released its report, Corporate Governance Best Practices:

A Blueprint for the Post-Enron Era, in which it suggested numerous corporate governance best practices. Similarly, the Business Roundtable has issued its own Principles of Corporate Governance suggesting further best practices.

Research Analysts

On July 29, 2003, the Commission approved rules proposed by the NYSE and

NASD that satisfy Section 501 of the Act, which directed the Commission to adopt,

or to direct the SRO’s to adopt, rules designed to further address research analyst

conflicts of interest. The Commission worked closely with the SRO’s to conform their

rules to meet the directives of the Act.

Some of the Act’s requirements were satisfied by NASD and NYSE rule provisions

existing at the time of enactment. Others necessitated amendments, such as to limit

the compensatory evaluation of analysts to officials not engaged in investment banking activities and to further define periods during which a member firm engaged

in a public offering of a security as an underwriter or dealer may not publish research on such security. The new rules also require analysts and members to disclose specified conflicts of interest to the extent that the member or analyst knows

or has reason to know, including whether the member or any affiliate received any

44

compensation from the issuer that is the subject of the research report; and whether

that issuer has been a client of the member firm and, if so, the types of services

provided.

As urged by commenters, to clarify the scope of information about which the analyst or member would be deemed to have reason to know, the SRO rules set forth

two mechanisms by which analysts and their firms can satisfy the requirement that

they disclose noninvestment banking compensation that was received from the

issuer by an affiliate of the member. The rules provide that the disclosure requirement will be deemed satisfied if the member, on a quarterly basis, discloses affiliate

noninvestment banking compensation that it has identified as having been received

from the issuer. In the alternative, the rules provide that a member or analyst

would be presumed not to have a reason to know of noninvestment banking compensation received by an affiliate, if the member has in place informational barriers

designed to prevent the analyst or any influential employee from receiving such information from the affiliate.

Also of note, in the compensation disclosure provision, the Act explicitly authorized the Commission to permit an exception for material nonpublic information regarding specific potential future investment banking services transactions of the

subject company. The SRO rules also apply that exception to the client disclosure

provision. We believe that providing this exception in the client disclosure provision

is consistent with the Act’s compensation disclosure provision, and fulfills the Act’s

mandates that rules be adopted that are reasonably designed to provide disclosure

of broker-dealers’ clients and client services, while appropriately addressing concerns related to the potential dissemination of material nonpublic information.

Standards of Conduct for Attorneys

On August 5, 2003, the Commission’s rule implementing Section 307 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act became effective, setting ‘‘standards of professional conduct for

attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission in any way in the representation of issuers.’’ The rule, adopted last January, requires an attorney to report evidence of a material violation ‘‘up-the-ladder’’ within the issuer to the chief

legal officer of the company. It also requires an attorney, if the chief legal officer

does not respond appropriately to the evidence, to report the evidence to the issuer’s

audit committee, another committee of independent directors, or the full board of

directors.

In addition to requiring up-the-ladder reporting, the final rule allows an attorney,

without the issuer’s consent, to reveal confidential information related to his or her

representation to the extent the attorney reasonably believes necessary: (1) to prevent the issuer from committing a material violation likely to cause substantial financial injury to the financial interests or property of the issuer or investors; (2)

to prevent the issuer from committing an illegal act; or (3) to rectify the consequences of a material violation or illegal act in which the attorney’s services have

been used.

At the same time as the Commission adopted its final rule, it approved an extension of the comment period on the so-called ‘‘noisy withdrawal’’ provisions of the

original proposed rule and put out for comment an alternative reporting out rule

that would require the issuer to report to the Commission its attorney’s withdrawal

from representation. The Commission has not decided how it wishes to proceed with

respect to ‘‘noisy withdrawal.’’

Rating Agencies

On January 24, 2003, the Commission submitted to Congress and the President

a report on the role and function of credit rating agencies in the operation of the

securities markets in response to the Congressional directive contained in Section

702 of the Act. The report was designed to address each of the topics identified for

Commission study in Section 702, including the role of credit rating agencies and

their importance to the securities markets, impediments faced by credit rating agencies in performing that role, measures to improve information flow to the market

from credit rating agencies, barriers to entry into the credit rating business, and

conflicts of interest faced by credit rating agencies. The report also addresses certain

issues regarding credit rating agencies that go beyond those specifically identified

in the Act, such as allegations of anticompetitive or unfair practices, the level of due

diligence performed by credit rating agencies when taking rating actions, and the

extent and manner of Commission oversight of credit rating agencies.

In preparing the report, the Commission pursued several approaches, both formal

and informal, to conduct a thorough and meaningful study of credit rating agencies.

These efforts included informal discussions with credit rating agencies and market

participants, formal examinations of credit rating agencies and public hearings

45

21 Companies are required to provide the new disclosure in annual reports for fiscal years ending on or after July 15, 2003. Small business issuers will be required to provide the new disclosure in annual reports for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2003.

where market participants were given the opportunity to offer their views on credit

rating agencies and their role in the capital markets.

To further address issues raised in the report, the Commission published a concept release on June 4, 2003 seeking comment on a number of issues relating to

credit rating agencies, including whether credit ratings should continue to be used

for regulatory purposes under the Federal securities laws, and, if so, the process of

determining whose credit ratings should be used, and the level of oversight to apply

to such credit rating agencies. The comment period for the concept release ended

on July 28, 2003, and the Commission received 42 comment letters from a wide

range of interested persons. The staff is currently preparing an analysis of the comment letters to assist the Commission in determining what further action may be

appropriate.

Audit Committee Financial Experts

On January 15, 2003, the Commission adopted rules pursuant to Section 407 to

require a reporting company to disclose annually whether it has at least one ‘‘audit

committee financial expert,’’ and if so, the name of such expert and whether the expert is independent of management. A company that does not have an audit committee financial expert will be required to disclose this fact and explain why it has

no such expert. These disclosures will improve transparency to investors in evaluating the experience of the audit committees of companies in which they invest.21

In response to public comment, the final rules broadened the categories of experienced individuals with accounting and financial expertise that could meet the definition of ‘‘financial expert’’ from our original proposals, while still incorporating all of

the considerations for the definition set forth in Section 407. The rules also provide

several limited safe harbors to address concerns that being designated as an audit

committee financial expert would dissuade qualified candidates from board service.

Investment Companies

We also have fully implemented the requirements of the Act with respect to mutual funds and other registered investment companies (funds). With few exceptions,

the Act did not draw any distinctions between operating companies and funds, and

the rules that we have adopted generally apply with equal force to both. In some

cases, this has required us to adapt the requirements of the Act to address the

unique circumstances of funds, such as the fact that, unlike most operating companies, funds are typically externally managed by an investment adviser. For example,

in implementing the statutory requirement that an issuer’s audit committee

preapprove permissible nonaudit services provided by its auditing firm, we applied

the preapproval requirements not only to services provided to a fund, but also to

certain fund-related services provided to the fund’s adviser and other entities in a

fund complex. The positive effects of our rules under the Act with respect to funds

will be reinforced as we continue to vigorously pursue other initiatives to improve

the disclosure that funds provide to investors, particularly with respect to fees and

expenses.

Moving Forward After Sarbanes-Oxley

COMMISSION OPERATIONS

Section 601 of the Act authorized substantial additional appropriations for the

Commission. I believe that the efficient functioning of the SEC is as much a part

of investor protection as ushering in new rules and regulations. I am committed to

ensuring that every penny of the new money granted to the Commission is spent

wisely. We will bring on the people we need to help us fulfill our mission, and not

simply to increase our head-count. I have been working with senior staff of the

Agency to determine appropriate changes to address both our internal and external

needs. As an illustration of the seriousness with which we view this part of our responsibilities, I recently reorganized the Office of the Chairman to include three

managing executives, one of whom is the Managing Executive for Operations and

works full-time on the SEC’s efficiency and operational effectiveness.

On February 20, 2003, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, providing the Commission with a fiscal year 2003 appropriation of

$716 million, which is $278 million more than our fiscal 2002 appropriation. A portion of these funds will be used to hire 842 new staff to:

• Implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including the review of each registrant’s financial statements every 3 years;

46

• Enhance our enforcement program so we can bring more investigations and complete them sooner; • Review investment advisers and investment companies more frequently, based on

risk criteria; and • Conduct more broker-dealer branch-office examinations.

Without the Accountant, Compliance, and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003, many

of these initiatives would be in jeopardy due to our difficulties hiring additional professional staff in a timely manner. We are extremely grateful for the support of the

Congress and the President in quickly addressing our personnel and operational

needs.

With the addition of a substantial number of accountants to our Division of Corporation Finance, we will strive to achieve the 33 percent annual review level mandated by Section 408 of the Act. The Division also will continue its focus, also mandated by Section 408, on the largest companies and other companies where review

is most important. In addition, the Division has modified its selective review process

in a manner that will allow it to focus on companies and on disclosure that appear

to be critical to an understanding of each company’s financial position and results.

The Division will continue to refine this process to allow it to efficiently use its resources and review material disclosure issues in a broad range of companies.

Through increased staffing and focused reviews, the Division will strive to complete

either a full, financial, or other review of the filings of one-third of the reporting

companies each year.

THE AGENDA BEYOND SARBANES-OXLEY

Implementing Sarbanes-Oxley has been a tremendous accomplishment in its own

right. I also want to touch on some of our other areas of progress, as well as our

ongoing priorities, which reflect our desire to restore investor confidence while helping America’s financial markets to continue allocating capital effectively and sparking job creation.

For example, we are continuing to build on the July 15 report of our Division of

Corporation Finance, which recommends improved disclosure and greater shareholder access to the director nomination process. We have already issued proposals

on improved disclosure, and the Commission will consider proposals in the shareholder access area as soon as this month.

We are examining the mutual fund industry, and its impact on investors, looking

at everything from how fund companies do business to the fees they charge and the

information they disclose to their customers. We are also in the process of reviewing

the hedge fund industry, given its extraordinary recent growth, to ensure that investor protection remains paramount. Recommendations from the SEC staff in this

area are likely to be issued in the near future.

We also are taking a comprehensive look at the complex issues involving the

structure of our securities markets—including their regulation, the balance between

competition and fragmentation, and the use of market data—all in the context of

our global marketplace and its impact on investors. These market structure issues

are among the thorniest the Commission faces, but also among the most important.

Revolutions in technology and communications and the unrelenting pace of

globalization make it imperative that we revisit on a comprehensive basis the

framework of our system for regulating markets.

We will continue to monitor areas that may merit future attention and whether

there are particular items, regulatory burdens or unintended consequences that

should be addressed. For example, the Commission staff has issued Frequently

Asked Questions on implementation of the non-GAAP financial measure rules and

the auditor independence rules. In addition, we have attempted to reduce the compliance burdens on smaller public companies where appropriate and permitted by

the Act. While initial concerns that the costs of the Act would drive many public

companies to go private have not played out, we intend to continue to review the

effects of the new requirements on smaller public companies.

Similarly, we will continue to pay attention to possible unintended consequences

of the Act for foreign issuers. The Commission and its staff have had extensive consultations with foreign regulators and members of the foreign community, and have

considered ways to accommodate foreign requirements and regulatory approaches,

while safeguarding the investor protection objectives of the Act. This approach

should preserve the attractiveness of the U.S. markets to foreign investors.

HONEST BUSINESS IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT

Just as the Commission has been moving forward with implementation of the Act,

so too must American businesses. Corporate leaders are responding not only to the

Act’s mandates, but also to the movement toward increased transparency that

47

underlies Sarbanes-Oxley. However, I have become aware that some in the business

sector feel that they are under siege from new regulations, and the threat of additional litigation.

As I have mentioned before, good, honest companies should fear neither SarbanesOxley nor our enforcement efforts. Rather, they should recognize that the improved

standards that the Act mandates and smart and fair enforcement of the laws are

the right thing to do and help attract capital and investment. As William O. Douglas, then Commission Chairman and future Supreme Court Justice, pointed out in

a 1938 speech, ‘‘To satisfy the demands of investors there must be in this great marketplace not only efficient service but also fair play and simple honesty. For none

of us can afford to forget that this great market can survive and flourish only by

grace of investors.’’

Good corporate governance is not primarily about complying with rules. It is

about inculcating in a company, and all of its directors, officers, and employees, a

mindset to do the right thing. As I have said before, the focus on doing the right

thing should become part of the DNA of a company and everyone in the company

from top to bottom. For companies that take this approach, most of the major concerns about compliance disappear. Moreover, if companies view the new laws as opportunities—opportunities to improve internal controls, improve the performance of

the board, and improve their public reporting—they will ultimately be better run,

more transparent, and therefore more attractive to investors.

I believe that this attitude is beginning to take hold in corporate America. During

my travels, and in my discussions with company officials, countless people have told

me that America cannot afford a return to the lax standards that preceded Sarbanes-Oxley. Many have added that while they initially questioned the merits of the

Act, they now see that it can help show the way to a brighter, more competitive

era in American business.

The success of a new era under the Act must involve a continued measure of the

risk-taking and entrepreneurship that are the hallmarks of honest American business. There have been suggestions, including in the press, that the recent crackdowns on corporations and executives by criminal and civil authorities, including

the Commission, have discouraged honest risk-taking.

I have a different perspective on recent developments. I believe the Act and the

other steps that have accompanied it will lead to an environment where honest business and honest risk-taking will be encouraged and rewarded. What should be discouraged, and what we are committed to stamp out, are the activities that some

have sought to disguise as honest business but that, in reality, are no such thing.

Transactions with no substance that are designed solely to assure increased earnings or cashflow in financial reports involve no risk and are not honest business.

Neither are transactions that are disguised as rewards for entrepreneurship or superior management but that, in fact, provide risk-free excessive compensation or facilitate self-dealing for the benefit of insiders.

I hope we have learned some lessons from the era just passed—and I believe we

have. I also hope that America’s corporate leaders will not use Sarbanes-Oxley as

an excuse for putting off innovation and investment. Looking back 1 year, and also

looking forward, nothing in the law, its implementation or in the Commission’s

agenda should make business fearful. Indeed, a new period marked by the responsibility and realism I have just discussed can provide the foundation for a new era

of long-term growth and prosperity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me again thank you for your important leadership and support

in the initiative to reestablish and strengthen investor confidence and integrity in

our Nation’s capital markets. Throughout the massive directed rulemaking project

under Sarbanes-Oxley, the goals of the Commission and its staff have been to protect investors and restore confidence in our securities markets. While it may be a

bit too early to judge the impact of all of the various provisions of the Act, the Commission will monitor carefully the implementation and effects of the new rules and

requirements, and we will take actions as appropriate to ensure that the objectives

of the Act are achieved. We will continue our strong tradition of cracking down on

corporate wrongdoing. And thanks to the Act and your efforts, we have the tools

and resources we need to carry out these important objectives.

Thank you again for inviting me to speak on behalf of the Commission. I would

be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

48

Michael Schroeder

The Wall Street Journal

Cleaner Living, No Easy Riches

Critics Say Sarbanes-Oxley Law Hobbles Stocks, Chills Risk Taking, But Upshot Is

Far Less Dramatic

JULY 22, 2003

Washington—Critics blame the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for everything from slowing

the stock-market recovery to draining the pool of corporate-board directors to undermining capitalism itself.

But the real-world effect of the year-old legislation that ushered in sweeping new

accounting and boardroom rules hasn’t been so dramatic. ‘‘A lot of urban myths,’’

dismisses Patrick McGurn, vice president at Institutional Shareholder Services, a

research firm that advises large mutual funds. ‘‘There is little substance behind the

complaints.’’

Warren Neel, director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Corporate Governance, says the center is preparing to evaluate the bill’s impact, but so far has

found a dearth of data largely because major parts of the bill’s 68 sections aren’t

even in effect yet.

That data gap hasn’t kept the critics quiet.

William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, argued at a recent

forum that the accounting changes have caused so much uncertainty that investors

have shunned the stock market.

His evidence? ‘‘My remark that Sarbanes-Oxley delayed the recovery of the stock

market by about 6 months was strictly a conjecture, without any study or directly

relevant quantitative evidence,’’ Mr. Niskanen acknowledges. His criticism springs

from Cato’s view that government regulation is largely unnecessary.

Top executives have been wringing their hands about Sarbanes-Oxley’s potential

to create a shortage of candidates to fill board seats. Boards now must have more

independent directors who work a lot harder; audit committees are expected to have

at least one member with professional financial expertise. ‘‘A supply crunch is

emerging as boards attempt to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley,’’ says Tom Neff, head

of Spencer Stuart, a large executive-search firm. The law has been good for his company. Mr. Neff says Spencer Stuart is now looking for candidates to fill some 300

board seats, up 50 percent from a year earlier.

Still, there seems to be no shortage. The National Association of Corporate Directors has a registry of 2,000 potential candidates for board seats. The Financial Executives Institute also has a list of 300 corporate financial officers qualified to serve

on audit committees.

Others predict permanent economic damage. Robert Elliott, former partner of

KPMG LLP and former head of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, says Sarbanes-Oxley has resulted in ‘‘the criminalization of [corporate] risk

taking, which is the same as criminalizing capitalism.’’

When companies are discovered cooking the books, directors and management no

doubt will feel more heat, including stiffer criminal penalties. As a result, Mr. Elliott contends that a wrong bet on an acquisition or new product that prompts a

write-down of an investment could trigger a flood of class-action lawsuits or an investigation by an overzealous prosecutor.

Treasury Secretary John Snow offers a blunt defense of the new rules: ‘‘Nothing

in Sarbanes-Oxley changes the fundamental norms of good corporate governance.’’

As for the notion that management will become timid, he chides, ‘‘the management

team is entrusted with a critically important function in our society: to take risks.’’

He adds, ‘‘You are never going to bat 1.000. It is the nature of uncertainty.’’

J.T. Battenberg, chief executive of Delphi Corp., the largest auto-parts supplier,

with $27.4 billion in sales, says the increased liability from the legislation won’t affect his company’s investment strategy. ‘‘Does that inhibit you from making good,

tough decisions?’’ he said. ‘‘No. It may slow you down a bit. It may cause you to

probe a little deeper.’’

One point of universal agreement: Thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, fees for director and

officer insurance as well as lawyers and outside auditors are on the rise.

Audit fees represent the lion’s share of added expense. A survey by Johnsson

Group, a Chicago-based auditing consultant, found that fees for outside auditors are

tripling this year for companies with at least $3 billion in sales. The typical $2 million expense is now $6 million. For companies whose sales exceed $15 billion, fees

are expected to skyrocket to $8 million from $2 million.

49

‘‘Price gouging!’’ declares Johnsson Group Chairwoman Marge Johnsson, who

traces the problem to opportunistic accounting firms. ‘‘I am upset about the exploitation of the legislation for the benefit of four companies I thought were supposed

to be getting their hands slapped,’’ she says of the Big Four accounting firms who

audit most public companies.

William Ezzell, AICPA chairman, says ‘‘the law requires additional work, responsibilities and obligations on the part of the outside auditor, management and the

audit committee’’ to meet the goal of increasing investor confidence.

To be sure, Sarbanes-Oxley sets high hurdles for small, publicly traded companies. Securities and Exchange Commission member Cynthia Glassman said, ‘‘We

have heard that some companies—especially smaller companies, including small

banks—are avoiding public offerings or going private, to avoid having to comply’’

with Sarbanes-Oxley.

Still, there is no sea change. Of roughly 15,000 public companies, only 83 went

private in 2002, 63 percent more than the year earlier—but slightly fewer than the

89 companies in 2000, according to Thomson Financial, which compiles market and

investment data for corporate clients.

So far this year, 41 companies have announced plans to revert to private ownership. ‘‘Sarbanes-Oxley is not even among the top 10 reasons’’ that Lillian Vernon

Corp., the big direct marketer based in Rye, N.Y., is going private, says spokesman

David Hochberg. Similarly, Susan Hauke, vice president of finance at

InvestorsBancorp of Waukesha, Wis., says Sarbanes-Oxley did not weigh heavily in

the decision to go private. Instead, the chairman wants to buy the thinly traded

bank, which has $178 million in assets, Ms. Hauke says, adding that the move will

save $115,000 in annual SEC financial-reporting expenses.

The seeds of Sarbanes-Oxley were sown in mid-2001—before the spectacular accounting scandals piled up one after another—by House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley (R., Ohio), who began holding hearings into whether Wall Street

research analysts were really independent.

A few months later, with Enron Corp. and its auditor, the now-defunct Arthur Andersen LLP, engulfed in an accounting scandal, lawmakers in the House and Senate

were up in arms, pushing for broad legislation to force Wall Street and corporations

to clean up their acts. But by the spring of 2002, Capitol Hill was preoccupied with

terrorism, anthrax and Afghanistan, leaving corporate-overhaul efforts stalled.

In April, the House passed a modest bill sponsored by Mr. Oxley. But a stronger

version offered by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Paul Sarbanes (D., Md.)

bogged down until a wave of scandals—Global Crossing Ltd., Tyco International

Ltd., WorldCom Inc. and others—propelled it out of the legislative doldrums.

Fearing a backlash in 2002 midterm elections from voters who had lost their nest

eggs as the market plunged, Republicans embraced the Senate measure’s tough line

on business. As he requested, President Bush had legislation on his desk before

Congress’s August recess. A first step required companies to certify each quarterly

financial report.

But Sarbanes-Oxley hasn’t been the last word.

State politicians have been jumping on the bandwagon—so much so that John

Olson, a securities lawyer at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, says companies are exasperated.

California and Connecticut have already adopted additional certification requirements, and 35 states have approved or are considering legislation to regulate corporate accounting and other behavior, according to the North American Securities

Administrators Association, which represents state securities regulators.

***

Fighting Conflicts With a Pen: What Has Changed?

Below, some major provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which aims to

reform accounting firms’ practices, corporations’ boards and Wall Street stock analysts.

Better Governance: Companies must disclose whether a board’s audit commitee

has at least one ‘‘financial expert’’ and if not, the reason for the absence. In a subsequent rulemaking, the Securities and Exchange Commission said companies must

disclose the financial expert’s name, define his qualifications and state whether the

expert is independent of management.

Independence Day: It will be generally ‘‘unlawful’’ for an accounting firm to provide any major nonaudit service (bookkeeping, for example) to a client while completing that company’s audit.

50

Taking Responsibility: The CEO and CFO must swear to the accuracy of the

company’s quarterly and annual financial reports. An officer who certifies a report

that does not conform to the act’s requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley faces a fine of

not more that $1 million and a sentence of not more than 10 years in jail or both.

Watchdog: The act established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board,

or PCAOB—quickly nicknamed Peekaboo. The board of five ‘‘financially literate’’

members answers to the SEC.

Cleaning Up Wall Street: New rules separate Wall Street’s stock analysis from

its deal-making side—and punish companies who ‘‘retaliate’’ against analysts who

criticize them.

Jail Threat: Makes tampering with corporate records a crime. Maximum penalty

for mail and wire fraud increased from five to 10 years.

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Ameet Sachdev

Chicago Tribune

New Rules No Bar to Mergers in Accounting

Consolidation for a Sector in Flux

AUGUST 11, 2003

Accountant Dan Fensin feels like he has a target on his back in more ways than

one.

For the past year, the managing partner of Chicago firm Blackman Kallick

Bartelstein LLP has had to deal with public outrage over the profession’s role in

the massive financial scandals that pummeled investors.

But the litany of new regulations and increased scrutiny hasn’t stopped some accounting firms from growing through acquisitions, putting a bull’s-eye on Blackman

Kallick, one of the city’s largest locally owned firms.

But so far the numbers do not add up for Fensin and his 28 partners.

‘‘We are not interested in joining any of these groups,’’ he said. ‘‘We are happy

with our position in the marketplace.’’

Still, the growing interest in consolidation reminds him of the mid-1990’s, when

financial-services powerhouses like American Express Co. targeted markets like

Chicago for acquisition blitzes of midsize firms. The consolidators were interested

in finding new small-business customers for their financial products and services,

from retirement planning to investment advice.

This time around, regional accounting firms have expanded to neighboring cities

or beefed up existing services—like tax consulting or internal audits—to attract new

clients. The Big Four could be vulnerable amid the industry upheaval.

Since January, there have been about 10 deals, led by New Jersey-based J.H.

Cohn’s acquisition of the Videre Group to create a Northeast firm with about $100

million in revenue, the largest merger since March 2001, according to Public Accounting Report.

In the Midwest, there have been some smaller transactions, such as Indianabased Crowe Chizek and Co.’s purchase of Kruse & Associates of Nashville.

It is not exactly the merger mania of a few years ago when four major

consolidators acquired more than 100 firms, but the tide is building, industry experts said. Now, there are approximately 65 midsize firms, which average 20 to 25

partners, that 10 to 15 larger regional firms could be eyeing for acquisition.

‘‘As bad as the publicity has been for the accounting industry, merger prospects

are bullish,’’ said Alan Koltin, chief executive of PDI Global Inc., a consultant to accounting firms. ‘‘That is the No. 1 topic right now.’’

The deals are happening against the backdrop of the most dramatic changes in

the accounting industry in decades. Last summer’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act created an

entirely new system for regulating accountants in an attempt to transform them

into better watchdogs who could prevent the kinds of massive financial fraud that

occurred at Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc.

The four largest firms, which audit about 78 percent of all U.S. public companies,

have responded by increasing auditor training, enhancing fraud-detection techniques and setting tougher standards for accepting and retaining clients.

During the past year, for instance, Ernst & Young LLP has parted ways with

about 200 public and private clients. Some left after fee disputes—fees have risen

as much as 20 percent in some cases. In other cases, the major firms have stopped

working with some clients voluntarily because of the law. Sarbanes barred auditors

from performing technology consulting work and from doing internal audits for clients.

Whatever the reason, regional firms say the climate has never been friendlier for

competition in audit and consulting services.

‘‘Traditionally, clients have been afraid to go to someone other than the Big Four,’’

said Jim Smart, managing partner of Smart and Associates, a Philadelphia firm

that last fall entered Chicago by purchasing small CPA firm Glenn Ingram & Co.

‘‘Now, I think the marketplace is looking for new players.’’

He added with a bit of glee: ‘‘Sarbanes is a wonderful thing from our perspective.’’

But Smart is not looking to add any public companies as audit clients. In fact,

his firm does not audit any public companies.

Indeed, smaller firms like Smart’s face significant barriers to break into the audit

market for multinational public companies, according to a U.S. General Accounting

Office study on competition in the public accounting industry released last week.

61

Among the barriers the study found: a lack of staff and technical expertise, and increased litigation risk and insurance costs.

Despite the industry forces working against them, Smart and other regional firms

are gunning for consulting work from clients who have conflicts with their auditor

and work from larger private companies. To do that, they figure they need to bulk

up and are finding some willing suitors, especially smaller firms where the partners

are nearing retirement age and may be looking to cash out.

Crowe Chizek, one of the nation’s top 10 public accounting firms, acquired Kruse

last month in an attempt to build a national practice advising building contractors

and other construction-related companies, said Chief Executive Mark Hildebrand.

The expansion in Nashville also allows the firm to market its expertise in auditing

and consulting with midsize manufacturing companies.

Midwestern regional firms, such as Virchow Krause & Co. of Madison, Wis., and

BKD LLP of Springfield, Mo., have made no secret of their desires to blow into the

Windy City. So far, they have found slim pickings.

Many of the local midsize accounting firms were swept away during the consolidation wave of the 1990’s. For instance, Friedman, Eisenstein Raemer & Schwartz,

which had $40 million in yearly revenue, sold out to H&R Block Inc. in 1998.

The remaining independent firms, including Blackman Kallick, have shunned

their more recent advances. But Blackman Kallick’s managing partner left the door

open, albeit slightly.

‘‘There is always somebody calling up,’’ Fensin said, ‘‘and the fact of the matter

is, I will eat lunch with anybody.’’

62

63

(65)

IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT AND

RESTORING INVESTOR CONFIDENCE

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, at 10:02 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of

the Committee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY

Chairman SHELBY. The hearing will come to order.

I would first like to welcome today’s first witness. We will have

a second panel that we will introduce later. Our first witness is

Chairman William McDonough of the Public Company Accounting

Oversight Board. That is a mouthful, as we know.

Accurate financial reporting and disclosure are the foundations of

our capital market system. And in order for our markets to operate

fairly and efficiently, investors must have faith that a company’s

audited financial information is reliable, accurate, and timely.

Without this trust, investors will abandon the markets for fear that

they will be the unknowing victims of a financial scheme.

Following the collapse of Arthur Andersen and the announcement of billion-dollar restatements, investors quickly lost faith and

confidence in the accounting profession. Many investors regarded

the auditors as co-conspirators in corporate schemes and believed

that auditors simply rubber-stamped the financial statements that

management prepared. Revelations about companies’ purchasing

millions of dollars of nonaudit services from their auditors

furthered the perception that the accounting industry was rife with

conflicts of interest, and that auditors were profiting at the investors’ expense. Although the corporate scandals of the recent past

tarnished the image of the accounting profession, the industry is

now presented with an opportunity to rehabilitate its reputation,

reassuring investors that auditors are carefully reviewing corporate

books without conflicts.

A primary focus of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is to restore confidence in the accounting profession by improving the integrity of

the audit process and financial reporting through vigorous oversight of audit firms and new rules defining auditor independence.

The Act creates the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

to supervise the accounting firms that audit the books of public

66

companies. Audit firms are now accountable to a regulator rather

than operating within a self-regulatory structure. The Oversight

Board is tasked with registering accounting firms, developing inspection and disciplinary programs, and drafting new auditing and

attestation standards.

Under Chairman McDonough’s leadership, the Oversight Board

has successfully begun the process of registering domestic and

international accounting firms and started inspections of the Big

Four accounting firms themselves. Although the Oversight Board is

in its infancy, investors should feel confident that it will continue

to grow and implement reforms that will restore integrity to the

audit process.

While creating a new regulator for the accounting industry, Sarbanes-Oxley also mandates new rules establishing greater independence between auditors and their clients. Prior to the Act, many

accounting firms treated audit services as a loss leader for securing

more lucrative consulting contracts, and many audit partners were

compensated for procuring engagements for consulting services.

Concern existed that auditors are all too often willing to overlook

questionable accounting practices in order to retain profitable consulting business for the firm. The Act addresses these conflicts by,

among other rules, prohibiting a company’s auditors from performing certain nonaudit services, requiring a company’s audit

committee to preapprove all audit and nonaudit services that the

company receives, and mandating audit partner rotation. These

rules were necessary to address conflicts of interest that caused investors to doubt the credibility of auditors and the accuracy

of financial reports.

Sarbanes-Oxley has laid the foundation for the accounting industry to earn back the trust of investors. By cooperating with the

Oversight Board and complying with the auditor independence

standards, audit firms can prove to investors that they are

committed to reinvigorating the audit process and restoring faith

in financial reports. Accounting firms must also demonstrate that

they will force public companies to comply with proper accounting

rules, even after the focus on reform has diminished. By ensuring

that public companies maintain adequate internal controls and

sound audit committee practices, audit firms can further serve the

investors who rely on them to serve as financial gatekeepers.

As the Oversight Board continues to develop, it must stand

strong in the face of industry criticisms and remind both the accounting firms and the investors that there is a new watchdog for

the industry. Chairman McDonough and his team have a difficult

task ahead of them, one that is crucial to restoring investor confidence in our markets. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to your testimony here this morning.

Senator Enzi.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL B. ENZI

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman McDonough, for being with us today to discuss the Public

Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB. And I think you

have come up with a word for that, some way to say that in

one——

67

Mr. MCDONOUGH. ‘‘Pea-cobb,’’ but it does not seem to be selling

well, Senator.

Senator ENZI. Oh, okay. I am sorry to hear that. At any rate, I

am anxious to hear about the implementation, and I appreciate all

of the people that are testifying today for getting their testimony

in so that we would have an opportunity to read that in advance,

and probably much fuller than you will be allocated time to be able

to present that information.

I know that you and your staff have accomplished a great deal

in a short period of time. Last week, Chairman Donaldson of the

SEC testified that the primary rulewriting phase of the SEC is virtually complete and that now the primary focus of the rulewriting

and implementation of the law will be on PCAOB. I will try and

help promote that name.

While the Sarbanes-Oxley Act established a new regulatory oversight body for the auditing industry with registration and enforcement authority, I believe the single most important mission for the

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is establishing the

auditing standards for the industry. The future of our securities

markets are dependent on how these standards are developed, how

they are implemented, and how the auditing firms put them to use.

And we are having a little deviation from how it used to be done,

and I am certainly hoping that AICPA will be a voice in helping

with that.

It is my understanding that PCAOB intends to work in an open

process with a broad cross-section of the accounting, financial, and

investing communities to develop these standards, and I applaud

you for that.

Another area of concern for me is the ability for small auditors

to stay in the business of conducting audits for small, publicly traded companies. One key question on the passage of the SarbanesOxley Act was whether the small-auditing community would be

able to weather the increased regulatory climate and the increased

administrative requirements. Now, the recent GAO study on consolidation in the accounting industry was inconclusive on this; however, it may be that the study was too premature to capture the

full effect of the law on the industry.

The survival of small auditors is important not only for the community but also for the small companies that strive to reach those

public markets, and we have had quite a decline in IPO’s being

filed. Mr. Chairman, I know that you have been a strong supporter

of the small auditor, and we have had conversations about it, and

I look forward to hearing how the PCAOB is working with the

small accounting industry.

I would personally like to thank you for taking such quick and

firm control of the reins as Chairman of PCAOB and for working

with Congress to ensure the implementation of the provisions of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and that is done with investor respect and

confidence in mind. I congratulate you for your efforts.

Thank you, Chairman Shelby.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Dodd.

68

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Senator DODD. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me begin

by commending you once again for—this is our second hearing now

on looking back at Sarbanes-Oxley, and this is very worthwhile. I

spoke to a group in Boston yesterday and spent a good bit of time

just talking about this in the Q and A period. This was with some

of the leaders in the financial services sector in Boston, and I was

interested in how they thought things were working. And I had a

tremendous response. They were very upbeat and very positive on

how this was working so far. Obviously, they are monitoring it

carefully and watching it closely from their perspective. But I think

having oversight hearings like these really helps us take a look

back, since we did enact this legislation rather rapidly, much more

rapidly than one would have anticipated given the sweep of this

legislation. And so having this oversight is tremendously worthwhile.

We have done this in the past, but it deserves being repeated.

Certainly our colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, Mike

Enzi as well—who deserves a great deal of credit for being a principal author of Sarbanes-Oxley. His name does not appear when

the name gets said, but history should record that he and Jon

Corzine played a tremendous role in this. And it would not have

happened without their leadership, and so I thank them for their

work.

And I am delighted Bill McDonough is here. He has been an old

friend for many, many years, someone whom I have a high regard

for, enjoyed working with him on numerous occasions on a variety

of issues, not only from obviously financial services issues, given

his background, but also on Latin America, in which we share a

strong common interest.

He speaks wonderful Spanish, Mr. Chairman, by the way.

We are very lucky and fortunate that you agreed to take on this

responsibility, and we thank the Chairman of the SEC for imploring you to do this and for your willingness to take it on and for

your family’s willingness to take it on. So we thank you very, very

much for taking it on.

I keep on asking, how do we pronounce this thing? And I have

just listened to Mike Enzi, and since he is a principal author of the

bill, I am going to ask—PCAOB, is that what it is? It sounds like

some rare fruit that you have here. But thank you for taking on

that responsibility.

Obviously, our Nation’s first securities laws enacted in the 1930’s

established the foundation, Mr. Chairman, by which our Nation’s

free markets function, and that foundation that is built on rules,

rules that give investors worldwide the confidence that investing in

America is safe and secure. In my almost 24 years now on this

Committee, and in almost that length of time being either the

Chairman or the Ranking Member of the Securities Subcommittee,

that has been the byword, ‘‘investor confidence.’’ And that is why

the world comes here. There is always a better deal someplace else

in the world. If you are looking for a fast buck, there are plenty

of other places around the world that will offer you a potentially

greater return on your investment. But the reason the world comes

here is because we are fair. The rules are fair. It does not guarVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
69

antee you a great win, but you know that when you invest your

money, it is fair. There are rules and we operate by them. And

when that gets shattered for any reason at all, then it is a great

loss to our Nation and a great loss obviously to our economy.

And so it is critically important that we do everything possible

to restore investor confidence, and we are very hopeful that this

legislation, particularly the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, will lend itself to that result. We need

rules that uphold the basic principles of any market competition,

credibility, responsibility, and honesty, and rules that have helped

make our economy the strongest and the most vibrant one the

world has ever seen. Sarbanes-Oxley is one of those defining rules,

and I believe it will have a lasting positive impact on our financial

reporting system.

The creation of PCAOB as prescribed in the bill with a new regulator for the accounting profession has already restored, I think,

some of that integrity lost in the recent accounting scandals. And

it is my fervent hope that we are on the path to restoring greater

investor confidence in both the accounting profession and our system of financial regulations. By nearly all accounts, the establishment of PCAOB has gone exceptionally well. I am anxious to hear

what our witnesses have to say about that this morning and getting a status report.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have been a part of this effort as well over the last number of months, and again, thank you

for holding these hearings, and I look forward to hearing from our

witnesses.

Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Senator Reed.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR JACK REED

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,

Mr. McDonough. And Senator Dodd said it very, very well. I will

not repeat it. But I, too, want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

holding these hearings. I think it is important after we pass landmark legislation like this that we continue to revisit it and to make

sure that we have taken the right steps and we make improvements where necessary.

Again, I would also like to commend Senator Sarbanes for his efforts and Senator Enzi, my colleague, classmate, whatever, who

was instrumental in doing this and brought great wisdom from his

own experience as an accountant to the process.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. McDonough, your written testimony will be made part of the

record in its entirety. You proceed as you wish. Welcome to the

Committee.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. McDONOUGH

CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC COMPANY

ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Thank you, Chairman Shelby. Gentlemen, I

am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of PCAOB. I think

70

we could say New Englanders would say it ‘‘pea-COBB’’ and Midwesterners would say it ‘‘PEA-cobb.’’ But, at any rate, it is a great

improvement over anything else that has been heard.

Senator DODD. Irving Berlin.

Senator REED. No. Cole Porter.

Senator DODD. Cole Porter. Thank you.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. This is the first appearance of a PCAOB member before the Committee. On behalf of the Board, I would like to

begin by commending the extraordinary leadership of this Committee in response to the crisis to public confidence brought on by

some devastating failures in financial reporting and in auditing.

The legislation—now law—that you worked so hard on is a landmark reform of corporate governance, financial reporting, and auditing, and you should be proud.

I am both proud and humbled to appear before you today as

Chairman of one of the products of your hard work. Among the

many reasons I was willing to take on this job were my own strong

convictions about the need for an aggressive response to the corporate scandals and the lack of leadership in the private sector. It

is an honor to have the opportunity to act on those convictions by

helping to build an organization, in the form envisioned by you, to

restore the linchpin of the American financial system—trust in the

integrity of financial reporting.

When I joined the PCAOB on June 11, I found four outstanding

colleagues, all as dedicated as I am to the Board’s mission. Those

colleagues—Acting Chairman Charlie Niemeier, Bill Gradison,

Kayla Gillan, and Dan Goelzer—had already made tremendous

strides in writing the unprecedented new rules that are required

by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We have a rapport and a collective will

to maintain that momentum and fulfill the mandate you gave the

PCAOB to protect the interests of investors and the public in the

preparation of informative, fair, and independent audit reports for

public companies. The Board started from scratch in January. We

are now up to 84 full-time professional staff.

As provided in the Act, the Board received an advance from the

U.S. Treasury to fund its start-up expenses. Yesterday, we repaid

the advance in full, $20,300,000. Fees assessed on public companies

will fund our operations going forward as we perform the four primary functions that the Act set out for us: Registration, inspection,

enforcement, and standard setting. Let me start with registration.

Under the Act, any accounting firm that audits a company whose

securities trade in U.S. markets and any firm that plays a substantial role in those audits must be registered with the Board in order

to continue that work. Under the law, they must be registered with

us by October 22. We have received almost 500 registration applications from U.S. accounting firms. The Board approved the first

38 of those applications last week, and we will continue our review

of the remaining applications.

The Board also voted to require non-U.S. accounting firms to register if they audit companies whose securities trade in U.S. markets. And we recognize the special issues that arise with that requirement, so the deadline for non-U.S. firms to register is well

into next year. In addition, we have begun a dialogue, a fruitful

one, with our counterparts in other jurisdictions in order to find

71

ways to coordinate in areas where there is a common programmatic

interest. Registration is not only a prerequisite for accounting firms

to continue their work as auditors of public companies, but it is

also the foundation for us to perform the important functions of inspection and enforcement.

With the cooperation of the four largest firms, we have already

begun limited inspection procedures at those firms in advance of

registration. Going forward, our inspection staff, made up of experienced, skilled audit professionals, will annually inspect each accounting firm that audits more than 100 public company clients.

Smaller firms will be inspected every 3 years.

The fundamental goal of our inspection program is to assess and

thoroughly test whether they are improving the quality of the

firm’s audit work. We will review selected audits, but we will also

look closely at firm-wide policies and practices that bear on integrity and judgment.

We will look at what we call the tone at the top. We want to

know the nature of the communications coming from the highest

levels of a firm. We want to know that the leaders of the firm and

of audit teams get the message that Sarbanes-Oxley sends about

the firm’s responsibilities. We want to know that the message is

reaching the firm’s rank-and-file. We want to know what kinds of

work the firm rewards through its compensation system. And we

want to know how a firm decides to fire a client.

Registered accounting firms are subject to PCAOB inspections,

and they are also subject to our enforcement authority. We are empowered to investigate possible violations of our rules, securities

laws, and professional standards. If we conclude that a firm has

violated the rules, we have the authority and the responsibility to

impose sanctions, even to the point of revoking a firm’s registration

or barring an individual from participating in audit work.

The Board has proposed rules for investigation and disciplinary

hearings that are intended to implement our authority in a fair

way, preserving all appropriate rights for the persons subject to our

jurisdiction. We expect to adopt final rules next week.

And, finally, I want to outline our progress with respect to audit

standards. The Act charged the Board with establishing auditing

and related attestation standards, quality control standards, ethical standards, and independence standards. The Act gave the

Board the option of setting standards on its own or designating any

professional group. Before I joined the Board, the decision was

made that the Board would do it itself, and I firmly support that

decision.

To assist the Board in developing standards, we have begun recruiting a talented in-house staff of professional auditors. Because

of our access to information from our inspections and investigations

programs, the Board and our standard-setting staff will be in a

unique position to understand and head problems in practice. We

will also tap the expertise of standing advisory group and ad hoc

task forces made up of experts from a variety of fields.

The first standards to come from the Board will be those prescribed by the Act relating to auditors’ attestation to management’s

assessment of internal controls. We held an excellent public roundtable discussion on internal controls in late July, and we intend to

72

have final rules in place by early 2004, in time to meet the SEC’s

June 15 deadline for management to begin filing internal report

forms. We will hold another roundtable next week to discuss audit

documentation as we prepare to set standards in that area.

With your vision in establishing authority for independence

standard setting, registration, inspection, and discipline, you have

given PCAOB the responsibility and the tools to build a new future

for auditing. I have faith that our staff and my fellow Board members will live up to your expectations.

I have not been shy about telling members of the accounting profession that we expect a lot from them and that they will have to

work harder than they could have imagined before Sarbanes-Oxley.

Through a succession of scandals, the entire profession came to be

judged harshly. But you and your colleagues, through the Act, did

not merely judge them; rather, you gave them a meaningful shot

at redemption.

In my mind, facilitating that redemption, and not just punishing

miscreants, is a key objective, one that the Board must not lose

sight of even when we are, as we will need to be, tough on the

profession.

As we look forward to that objective, my fellow Board members

and I look forward to a long and constructive relationship with the

Committee, and I do like the idea, Mr. Chairman, of coming up to

see you periodically to tell you what we have been doing.

Chairman SHELBY. I think that is a good idea.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, can you please describe briefly the process to the

Committee for addressing some of the concerns raised by European

governments and companies concerning the application of the Oversight Board’s registration and oversight rules?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Thank you, Senator. It is very clear that the

sense of Congress, even though the Act itself said that we could

have exempted the audit firms outside the United States, that it

was the intent of Congress—and two Members, Senator Corzine

and Senator Dodd, wrote a letter to the SEC making it very clear

the intent of Congress—that foreign firms should be registered. I

think they should be.

The question is: What are we trying to achieve under SarbanesOxley, and can we achieve that so that it, in fact, spreads the Sarbanes-Oxley philosophy worldwide?

We are trying to protect investors in securities sold in our markets. Many of the people whom we are protecting are not Americans. They are foreigners. At the same time, there are a lot of

Americans who invest in securities issued by and sold in foreign

markets. So what we have been trying to do is to reach out to other

entities—the European Community beginning with, the Canadians,

the Japanese, beginning the conversations with the Swiss—and

saying it is required under the Act that registration take place. But

the Act does not say that the registration has to be exclusively with

us. We could have a joint registration, for example, in which a firm

could register with its local authority and us. With all that Sarbanes-Oxley requires, we get everything we want, but the home

country also has the dignity of the process including them.

73

As I pointed out, registration is just the beginning. It is how you

get started. It has taken on a bit too much of a life of its own in

the discussions abroad and some of the reactions.

Once we actually get the registration past us, then I think we

would look at what if a foreign PCAOB wanted to have an inspection of one of its auditing firm’s activity in the United States. Well,

I would volunteer to say we will do it for you, just tell us what you

want done.

We think that in jurisdictions where there is really up-to-snuff

inspection capability, rather than send 15 Americans who speak

wonderful English over to a country where that might not be the

local language, if we could have a combined inspection where a lot

of the work would be done by the local people, as long as I could

assure you we are enforcing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act just as much

through that process as we are in the United States, I would suggest we would have reached a point where 2 plus 2 equals lots

more than 4. That is what we are working on.

Chairman SHELBY. But, after all, it is the substance you are

after, not just the form.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Precisely.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, beyond rulemaking, regarding

oversight of accounting firms’ attestation standards, what issues do

you think that the Oversight Board will address in the next year?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mainly what we are hoping to achieve, to be

most generic, is to restore the faith of the American people in the

accounting profession. And everything I am hearing from sensible

people in the accounting profession is they want that at least as

much as I do.

Now, their interest is in improving the quality of their own profession and its reputation, and improving their own firms. I represent the public interest. PCAOB represents you, represents the

American people. If they are doing a very good job, we can work

hand in glove with them. If they are not doing a very good job, we

will push and prod, and do what is necessary. That is, I think, the

biggest challenge.

Chairman SHELBY. But it is in their best interest to do that, and

I think most of them know that.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I think so.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, we are down to four big audit

firms with the demise of Andersen. There has been some concern

regarding market concentration because of this. Are you concerned

about this consolidation? And do you see a role for the Oversight

Board in facilitating competition?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, there was a very good, highly

realistic report by the GAO that I think leads one to the conclusion

that there are four big accounting firms and there will continue to

be four big accounting firms. It is very difficult to see exactly how

you get number five, six, or seven—in fact, number five is represented on your second panel—up to that size. I would love to

have it happen if it took place because I would like to have more

than four. But I think we must be realistic.

Something I think the PCAOB can do, however, is to nurture and

cherish the firms, the small and medium-sized audit firms, because

they audit the small and medium-sized companies. My whole theVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
74

ory of economic development is small and medium-sized companies

is what makes America great. The creative construction of a market economy comes from small and medium-sized companies. We

want them to have good auditors who are helpful and cost-conscious so we are not pricing these small and medium-sized companies out of business. We are enforcing Sarbanes-Oxley but with a

very high degree of common sense governing how we apply it.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Senator Reed.

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,

again, Mr. McDonough.

When the legislation was being considered, many small accounting firms in my community, perhaps with one or two public clients,

expressed some concern about the requirements. Could you comment on the receptivity of the industry, not the Big Four but the

smaller firms around the country, to the changes?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. It is really a little bit early to tell. A lot of the

foreign small and medium-sized firms have registered. Some of

them have groaned very loudly because the registration form is

pretty much set out in the statute, and although we tried to make

it kinder and gentler, there was very little we could do about it.

So it is a pretty elaborate form for a small or medium-sized auditing firm to fill out, but they filled it out.

We have a very busy time between now and October 22 because

of all these registrations that the Board has to look at. But as soon

as that is behind us, and then by that time we will also have some

visitors from other countries to continue the dialogue, but I see October 22 as Freedom Day for Bill McDonough to do what he likes

to do, which is to go out around the country and start meeting,

probably with the help of, say, in your case, the Rhode Island overseer of public accountants or their version of the certified public accountant group and ask them to organize a meeting, and then sit

down and just listen and talk and learn and see how I can be most

helpful.

Senator REED. Part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act calls for a study

of a principle-based system of accounting, and I know that the SEC

has completed their study on July 25, and they recommended the

approach. The FASB has also I think taken an endorsement of that

approach. Can you comment, your views, and also will in fact

PCAOB take a position with respect to this issue?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I am not sure, Senator, that PCAOB-cum–

PCAOB has to take a position, but I will.

I think that the study that was done by the SEC is really very

good indeed because it says that rules-based accounting has gotten

to a point where it is really very questionable as to whether it is

doing the right job. The most infamous one is the literature on

hedges and derivatives which has 800 pages of prose. But the theory is that you are supposed to find anything that you want in the

800 pages, but if you are devious you can also find a way to do anything you want to in the 800 pages. That is not good. The pure

principles based, ‘‘thou shalt not steal,’’ that is very easy to understand, but as an accounting principle it is a little hard to be that

clear.

75

I think what the SEC is suggesting is that you would have something pretty straightforward like ‘‘thou shalt not steal,’’ but then

you would have some explanatory language which would say to a

reasonable person what does that mean, so that maybe the 800

pages of prose on hedge and derivatives might be replaced by 25,

30, 35 pages, but at least that is an enormous step in the right direction. I think that as a very good piece of work and a very good

place to start, the SEC study is really first class.

Senator REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A final question. The issue of auditor independence. Are you considering additional functions that you would proscribe for auditors

and with respect to certain tax services and other issues? That is

an ongoing inquiry by PCAOB?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. It is an ongoing area of interest to us. I think

however when we are trying to reform the U.S. private sector,

which is what Sarbanes-Oxley is all about, we do not want to keep

changing the ground rules. The SEC, early this year, came out with

what I thought was a very balanced statement repeating their traditional view that accounting firms can in fact do a considerable

amount of tax work. A lot of it really just flows right out of the

audit, and if you had somebody else that had to come in and do

it, without any question, it would increase costs and I am not sure

what you benefit.

The very most important thing is the role of the audit committee

and the time-honored test of auditor independence. Once you get

to the highly creative end of how you can reduce your taxes to very

little or zero, I really kind of question whether auditors should be

doing that work anyway, but certainly you could not be doing that

work for an audit client, because without question you would break

independence by auditing your own work. I think short of that

there is a lot of tax work that can be done, and although we have

not formally considered it, I believe I speak as the consensus of the

Board, that it is very likely that we will say that that which the

SEC decided is the right decision.

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Chairman Shelby.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Enzi.

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the effort that you have made with the small auditing firms, and I understand that we have 500 auditors registered

as of last week, and then your staff made telephone calls even to

remind them of the need to register, and you even have an electronic register system. I am interested if there are any problems

you are having with that electronic registering system. I also appreciate the fact that you did town hall type meetings with industry representatives. Again, along this line of the small auditors, are

you going to be holding any of those for small auditing firms to

cover some of the problems?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Senator, in response to the last question, as I

mentioned in response to Senator Reed, I do really plan, and I am

sharing this with my staff right now, that we will be getting out

to the territories to see as many people as we can.

I am really very worried about the undesirable and unintended

consequences of having Sarbanes-Oxley get too expensive in its apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
76

plication. We have to really make sure that that which is done

needs to be done and is not done just for the sake of having bells

and whistles, which might make all the sense in the world for General Electric but does not make a whole lot of sense for a smaller

company. When we get into internal controls that will certainly

apply.

I think that auditors have to question not can I justify testing

everything in sight, or is there a level of reason at which I have

tested enough to form an opinion? The idea of cost effectiveness we

have to get out there, and I think that is best done by just going

out and talking to people. If you are bouncing back and forth as

I do between New York and Washington, one is deprived of all the

wisdom in the rest of America, and I am really looking forward to

getting out there.

Senator ENZI. Good. Rhode Island is real close. Wyoming is a

long way away. We will look forward to hosting you out there.

One of the concerns of the auditing industry is how the SEC and

PCAOB will conduct investigations, and they are worried a little

bit about whether there will be two separate investigations, one by

PCAOB and one by the SEC, when there is a single enforcement

incident. Can you explain to me how this joint authority will work?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I think, Senator, there we are back into the

rule of common sense. We have an excellent working relationship

with the SEC at all levels. The Chairman of the SEC is the man

who convinced me that I should be in front of you today, and I

think that just working together. It would be really unfortunate if

we were doubling up both the resources from the SEC–PCAOB,

and then one might say with some trepidation, wasting the time

of the entity being investigated by just having too many people

crawling around the premises. So we will make every effort to

avoid that.

Senator ENZI. I appreciate that answer and look forward to seeing it in action. A final question here. When PCAOB adopted the

rules that established the criteria for the advisory group, they announced that it was putting together an advisory group with a

broad cross-section of accounting, financial, and investing communities, and you have explained a little bit about the status of the

advisory group. I guess what I am interested in is how the Board

and the advisory group would seek professional guidance from the

AICPA. That was a major concern when we were drafting the bill.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Since we have not yet formed the advisory

group, Senator, it could very well be that one or more people associated with the AICPA could be on it. I think it is very important

for us to work with the AICPA. We have taken over an important

part of what used to be their responsibility because we set the

audit standards for public companies. Since private companies not

infrequently become public companies, one would hope that the

audit standards for public companies have a great similarity with

the audit standards for private companies. I would hope that without duplicating effort and therefore costing the accounting industry

unnecessary expense, that the PCAOB and the AICPA could work

together. We have had a number of meetings. It is certainly my intention to avoid having them take over some of the responsibility

that you in fact gave PCAOB. If I were they, I would think that

77

a pretty neat thing to do, but we cannot let it happen. At the same

time they have a very noble purpose of lots of other things to do,

and I am hopeful that as adults we can figure that out and have—

my favorite statement to say again—if you can ever have 2 plus 2

equal more than 4, that is the way to go. That is what we will try.

Senator ENZI. I appreciate all the effort that you are putting into

it and have a lot of confidence based on your leadership. Of course,

one of our concerns was the potential trickle-down effect into the

private companies of having some excessive things, but I am confident that you will watch out for that and I thank you for the answers and this opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Corzine.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE

Senator CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome Chairman McDonough. It is great to see you again.

I am going to take a little bit of step toward overall assessment

of Sarbanes-Oxley. I was interested to read a Business Week review

that went through the various groups. I do not know whether you

are familiar with it. It gave regulators high marks and CEO’s not

such good marks, and most of the others in between. Also, it did

assign the view that the accounting industry has been quite cooperative in the process of working with the PCAOB and others in moving to accomplish the audit of auditors and fulfilling its responsibility. I want to get on record, your clear view that you are generally seeing the kind of cooperation that anyone would reasonably

expect in this whole process of implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. The cooperation, Senator, that we are getting

from the accounting profession so far is even better than I had

hoped it would be. The Big Four firms voluntarily agreed to be inspected before they were registered. They could easily have told us

that, ‘‘You have no business in our premises until we are registered.’’ They did not do that. I thought that showed good judgment. But there was no twisting of arms or anything else. We just

said: Is that agreeable? And they said yes. That is a big positive.

The other firms throughout the profession with whom we have

been in contact are taking a very similar attitude. I think part of

the reason for that is I have been as explicit as I can. If X number

of years from now the American people think that the accounting

profession is the great thing that everybody thought accountants

were when I was a kid, that will be wonderful, and if the PCAOB

has not hanged anybody in public in the meantime, that is great.

We really want to achieve something and the more the accountants

can figure it out that they are going to do it themselves with

PCAOB watching and making sure it is happening, that is best for

the American people. So far their record is just fine.

Senator CORZINE. Let me flip that. It gets at the issue of internal

controls, which I think is one of the more difficult rubs in Sarbanes-Oxley, at least in the minds of the private sector. I hear a

lot of complaints about it, and then I also hear and see surveys

that show CEO’s are overwhelmingly thinking that this is a boxchecking exercise as opposed to an exercise in moving forward and

78

putting in place the disciplines and the checks and balances that

I think was intended by the legislation.

Is there any evidence that there is that same element of cooperation going on broadly in public companies to embrace this as a constructive element that I think we see in the accounting industry?

I am sure there are highs and lows among different institutions.

Why are we seeing so much resistance to putting in place a framework that was designed actually to put in checks and balances? Internal controls actually are good things for companies, and even

though there is nothing going wrong at a given point in time that

does not mean 2 years from now or 5 years from now something

will not come up that actually would damage a company. We have

seen that with the New York Stock Exchange and other things.

Why is this resistance continuing to exist in your view?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Senator, I think it is extremely difficult to understand because it simply makes no sense. Any firm that does not

have good strong internal controls should have them, and if the

heads of those firms are complaining that it is expensive to have

them, I think the answer is, well, you should have had them a long

time ago. We do not feel sorry for you that you have to invest in

them now. I cannot imagine being a CEO of even an 85-member

gang like PCAOB without having some very good internal controls.

One of the things I think that may be happening is that I believe

there are a great many CEO’s that are being advised by counsel

that you have to be very careful in saying that you did not have

it quite right before you can say, and I am going to fix it, because

they are concerned about litigation. It would seem to me that the

sensible thing to do would be to say, it is my intent, because of Sarbanes-Oxley and running my company very well, that I am going

to do the following things. I do not think you have to refer to the

past and be contrite about it. There might be a little of that included, and it might be very appropriate. But I do think that it is

important for the American business leadership to say: The American people passed Sarbanes-Oxley by vast majorities through the

Congress of the United States because the American people were

angry with the private sector with very good reason, and it is now

time for the private sector leadership to get itself together and lead

the way to restore the faith of the American people in our economic

system, and it is not going fast enough.

Senator CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

apologize, but the roads are flooded all over the place this morning.

It was difficult getting in. I want to take some moments of my

question period to in effect give a statement that I would have

made when I first came in.

Chairman SHELBY. Go ahead.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES

Senator SARBANES. I want to thank Chairman Shelby for these

oversight hearings on the implementation of last year’s legislation.

We have already heard from SEC Chairman Donaldson, and next

week we will be hearing from representatives of the corporate community and other interested parties.

79

Today’s subject is the ongoing changes in the way U.S. companies are audited and how those changes affect the confidence of the

U.S. investing public. Markets cannot function without accurate

and trusted financial information. Markets depend on investor confidence, and of course the whole purpose of last year’s legislation

was to alter the system in such a way that we could contribute to

the restoration of investor confidence.

Mr. Chairman, I believe a strong team is now in place to address

these issues: SEC Chairman Donaldson; William McDonough, who

is with us this morning, the Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; and Bob Herz at the Financial Accounting Standards Board. They are all making good progress, and are

moving I think on a fast timetable.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board now has responsibility for registration, inspection and investigations, and disciplinary proceedings involving auditors of public companies. I am

looking forward to hearing about its work. The Board has met its

statutory deadlines, has already received, as I understand it, online

registration applications from just under 500 accounting firms, and

has begun its inspection programs.

I am looking forward to the testimony we will hear this morning

from the representatives of the accounting industry. Public company auditors are now subject to outside oversight for the first time

through the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Public

company auditors are also facing basic changes in their relationships in many instances with their audit clients. They will be hired

by and report to independent board audit committees rather than

management, and their nonaudit activities for audit clients will be

limited and reviewed.

SEC Chairman Donaldson told the Committee last week that

true change is less about complying with rules than about building

into companies the mindset to do the right thing. I am prompted

to recognize what Senator Corzine was just talking about. Auditors,

in a truly effective independent audit system, obviously must have

the same mindset.

Finally, I am pleased that we are going to hear from representatives of the large institutional investors through which savings of

ordinary Americans are invested. Institutional investors have been

in the forefront of calls for change in the framework for auditor

oversight, auditor independence, and corporate governance. The

perspective of the Nation’s institutional investors on the extent of

our progress in restoring investor trust is especially important because of the pool of savings for which they have responsibility.

I want to close my statement by repeating a unanimous Supreme

Court decision some 30 years ago, an excerpt from it, about the role

of auditors in our free market system. The Committee actually

made reference to this last year in considering the legislation, and

I now quote the Supreme Court again.

In certifying the public reports that collectively depict a corporation’s financial

status, the independent auditor assumes a public responsibility. That auditor owes

ultimate allegiance to the corporation’s creditors and stockholders as well as to the

investing public. This ‘‘public watchdog’’ function demands that the accountant

maintain total independence from the client at all times and requires complete fidelity to the public trust.

80

That summary provides the best single statement of the mindset

we are all seeking to put into place as we deal with the problems

that we were confronted with in recent times.

If I have time, I would like to ask Chairman McDonough——

Chairman SHELBY. Go ahead.

Senator SARBANES. You may have already done this, but could

you just lay out for us a little bit the issues that you see ahead of

you in the next year or two, the work program of the oversight

board, how quickly you will be up and in, ‘‘full operation,’’ so we

have some sense of what lies ahead.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Senator, we are sufficiently, even with 85 people, we are sufficiently staffed now to be able to go in to the four

big firms and to do a limited inspection this year, which is going

very well, by the way.

Senator SARBANES. By this year you mean this calendar year?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Yes Senator, 2003. And by December we will

have I think a good feel for whether the four big accounting firms,

not just at the top—they are definitely saying the right things at

the top—but whether the troops are getting the message. That is

I think the single most important thing to look at. Although we

will not comment on what we saw at individual firms, we will have

something to say publicly on that.

By 2004, we have the requirement to inspect annually in a much

deeper inspection any firm that audits more than 100 public companies. There are seven such firms. Other firms we look at every

3 years, but we will have to get started with some of those next

year as well. I expect to be able to be up to do that fully.

In the auditing standards area we have adopted the AICPA

standards. As I mentioned earlier, we will be putting out the internal control attestation standard, a very important one, early next

year, well in time to have it implementable in mid June.

I discussed at some length, before you came in, the ongoing negotiations that we have with some of the European community, the

Japanese, the Canadians. Those are going quite well, and my test

will be, which you among others have made sure I understand is

the test, that we will have to be fully applying Sarbanes-Oxley,

have no negative effect on the application domestically, but rather

I think what we can have is the spreading of the philosophy of Sarbanes-Oxley internationally. There is quite a lot of receptivity to

that. I really think we can make that a win-win.

Senator SARBANES. Where are you on putting the fee structure

into place, and the assessments on the public companies, in order

to provide the monies for your budget and for the budget of FASB?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. The system is running very well. It brought in

enough money that we were able to repay the U.S. Treasury in full

yesterday. It was a monumentally complicated——

Senator SARBANES. That is an opportune question for me to ask.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Yes. Monumentally complicated information

technology challenge, which we managed very successfully, so that

the money is coming in for both—it is coming in very well to finance both FASB and the PCAOB this year. In both cases, FASB

and the PCAOB has to have budgets approved by the SEC before

81

the end of the year, and then from that we can figure out what the

assessment has to be for next year.

Senator SARBANES. Does the PCAOB set the assessment?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. It is set in relation to the budget of FASB and

the PCAOB. By and large everybody pays both except since the

FASB budget is smaller, there is a cutoff, so there are a relatively

small number of companies that just pay us but not them. There

are two bills sent out. FASB has asked us to be their agent in the

collection process, but somebody gets two bills and sends in two

transfers.

Senator SARBANES. So the system is up and running now?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Working beautifully.

Senator SARBANES. And you no longer have to draw advances

from the SEC?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Correct.

Senator SARBANES. I want to just ask a question—do I have

time?

Chairman SHELBY. Yes, sir.

Senator SARBANES. On the convergence of standards. There is an

attempt of course to produce convergence of U.S. GAAP and International Accounting Standards, and that is something that FASB

and the IASB are working on. Have you been approached about a

convergence project with respect to auditing standards? As one

thinks about that, I just want to raise this question. It strikes me

it might be a little more difficult because the International Auditing Standards are still promulgated by a board that is part of the

industry.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Yes.

Senator SARBANES. Whereas the IASB, the International Accounting Standards Board is separate and apart, has an independent status, as does FASB. So you have two independent

groups working there in order to get the convergence of standards.

We do not yet have the same structure with respect to auditing

standards. Do you have any thoughts on that question?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I do, and I think that you explained the issue

very well. If there were a PCAOB International, that is, not within

the profession but at a Government-approved level, I think actually

as a technical matter it would be easier to agree on audit standards than on accounting standards. However, as you know, I spent

about 3 days in Brussels a couple of weeks ago working with the

European Commission. That is very much a work in progress.

Senator SARBANES. Let me just interject right there. Senator

Shelby and I were there in August, and of course every time they

asked a hard question, we would say to them, ‘‘Just wait. Chairman McDonough will be here very shortly.’’

[Laughter.]

Mr. MCDONOUGH. That was very kind of you gentlemen.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MCDONOUGH. But I think we are working in a direction in

which, by 2005, the European company law could evolve—I am not

saying it will—but it could well evolve in the direction of having

standard setting in the auditing area in a PCAOB look-alike. And

that I think would be a step very much in the right direction.

Senator SARBANES. That would be very helpful.

82

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your appearance. We know you are going to be coming back and working with

us, and we also appreciate your meetings with a lot of us on the

Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, myself and you have a lot

of work to do, but we believe you and Chairman Donaldson are up

to the task. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. We have a second panel. We will go ahead

and call them up. We have on the second panel Mr. Sam DiPiazza.

He is a CEO of PricewaterhouseCoopers. I might add he is a native

of Birmingham, Alabama and a distinguished graduate, Senator

Sarbanes, of the University of Alabama, and of course we are proud

of what he has achieved as the CEO of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Mr. Ed Nusbaum, CEO and Executive Partner, Grant Thornton,

LLP; Mr. Sean Harrigan, President, CalPERS Board of Administration; and Ms. Sarah Teslik, Executive Director, Council of Institutional Investors.

We welcome all of you as our second panel, and we appreciate

your patience here this morning. All of your written testimony will

be made part of the Banking Committee’s record in its entirety,

and we will hope you would sum up your testimony as briefly as

possible. I must tell you, we are in session in the Senate, and we

are expecting a vote a little later, and at that time we will have

a recess so Senator Sarbanes and I can vote and return.

Sam, we will start with you.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL A. DiPIAZZA, JR.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

Mr. DIPIAZZA. Thank you, Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member

Sarbanes, and the Members of the Committee. Good morning.

My name is Samuel DiPiazza, Jr., and I am the Global CEO of

PricewaterhouseCoopers. On behalf of the many thousands of

PricewaterhouseCoopers professionals in the United States and

around the world, it is a real honor to be here on behalf of the profession discussing the implications of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The Act laid the foundation for significant improvements in corporate governance and accountability, and it has also reinforced

confidence in the U.S. capital markets. I applaud Congress for its

actions. The Act created three fundamental areas of change for

those responsible for protecting the interest of investors.

First, there has been a very beneficial shift of power and governance from the executive suite to the boardroom and, notably, to the

audit committee. This has significantly enhanced the audit process

because the audit committee is much more attuned to investor protection and in turn supporting the efforts of the audit firm. Second,

and most importantly, auditors who perform public audits, like

PwC, are now regulated with Government oversight, rather than a

self-regulatory system. Third, public entities and auditors are now

more transparent in the information they disclose.

The challenge for all of the market participants now is to implement the necessary reforms in the interest of the investor above all

else. Therefore, in addition to complying with the letter of the law,

we must be especially diligent in implementing the spirit of the

83

law. My comments today will be how PwC has embraced this

changed environment, the impact of future requirements, and

maybe some issues out to the future.

We, at PwC, are sincerely embracing the call for renewed focus

around the interested investing public. We are changing the culture of the firm, and that starts with me, right at the top of our

organization. My dialogue with our people is about our responsibility and accountability to the public, about our audit quality and

our central role in the capital markets. At the same time we have

developed new policy systems and methodologies to comply with

both the letter and the spirit.

For example, we have improved our audit methodology and procedures to help detect fraud. We have employed forensic and technology specialists on audits to determine whether there is a higher

risk of fraud, and we have placed greater emphasis on controlled

environment. We have made significant investments in upgrading

our compliance and independent systems. We have resigned or refused to take on high-risk clients, clients with an overly aggressive

management of business model or an absentee board. To date, we

have terminated relationships representing over 250,000 audit

hours. We have enhanced our communication with audit committees. We now test the information that management uses to run its

business and we reconcile that information with external reports to

test transparency, and we have realigned our partner compensation

system to ensure their appropriate behavior. We have made significant investments around training to change cultural change and

increase the knowledge of our people, and to address questions concerning the Act and regulations we have been aggressive with

webcasts, white papers, articles, both internally and externally.

The impact of the new requirements have been significant. Our

audit procedures have expanded. Audit committees are asking us

to do more. Our senior people are spending more time on complicated accounting issues. Audit scope increases and an increased

emphasis on fraud detection and clear and transparent disclosure

has increased the time on engagement. All of this adds additional

cost, but I am confident that the benefit greatly outweighs the cost.

We need to get it right the first time to protect investors.

The provision of tax services to audit clients continues to be a

focus in the market. There is a continuing drumbeat that auditors

who provide tax services to audit clients are not independent even

though Congress and the SEC considered the issue and concluded

to the contrary. As a result our U.S. tax practice has experienced

a decrease of over 20 percent. I believe that tax services are an integral part of the services provided by an accounting firm and better audits are performed when tax professionals are involved with

complex and difficult judgments around tax. It is also important to

note that our liability costs have now become our second largest

cost, second only to compensation of our people.

In terms of regulatory oversight, we fully support and are committed to the success of the PCAOB. Our profession is at a critical

juncture. We can no longer count on a proud history to speak for

its importance. We must stand up and be counted, and in doing so

establish a professional reputation that ensures we are recognized

84

as leaders in the capital markets. Our integrity must be beyond

question.

In addition to conducting business in an appropriate manner, a

number of other matters must be addressed. Our firm must have

the right tone at the top and a commitment to quality, excellence,

and restoring investor confidence; recruiting, attracting, and retaining the best and the brightest; converging, auditing, and accounting systems; and making sure our business model balances

risk.

In conclusion, Benjamin Franklin once said, ‘‘That which hurts

instructs.’’ Undoubtedly, our profession has learned from painful

lessons of the last few years, and we have engaged and returned

wiser and invigorated.

Thank you for inviting me to speak.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Nusbaum.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, could I just interject?

Chairman SHELBY. Sure.

Senator SARBANES. I understand Mr. Nusbaum’s train from New

York was flooded out at Landover, and he left the train and took

a cab in order to get here, and we appreciate that extra effort.

Chairman SHELBY. You were traveling parallel routes to get

here, through flooded roads in Maryland.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD NUSBAUM

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GRANT THORNTON, LLP

Mr. NUSBAUM. Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes,

and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today concerning the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important subject with you.

We have seen the effects of the Act firsthand and our chief conclusions are, number one, that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has had a

positive influence on corporate America, financial reporting, and

the accounting profession. Grant Thornton congratulates you on

having had the courage and foresight to adopt this Act. Number

two, a principles-based approach is necessary for the successful implementation of the Act. Number three, there is more that needs

to be done. Grant Thornton and other accounting firms must work

with the PCAOB to improve the audit process. The business reporting model and the quality and transparency of information used by

investors and creditors needs to be improved.

Before I get started, a quick word about Grant Thornton. Since

our founding in 1924, Grant Thornton has focused on providing

audit and tax services to mid-size companies, generally those with

revenues between $25 million and $2 billion, although we have clients both larger and smaller. Grant Thornton International is the

world’s leading accounting, tax, and business advisory organization,

primarily dedicated to mid-size companies. Through our network of

585 offices in 110 countries, including 50 offices in the United

States, partners of the member firms of Grant Thornton audit multinational companies by providing personal attention and seamless

service delivery to public and private clients throughout the world.

I believe that the tone of an organization starts at the top. As

I wrote in Chief Executive magazine this past year, which was cited

in the House Committee on Financial Services’ recent publication

85

on the Act, the role of the CEO has taken on new dimensions as

numerous new responsibilities and potential for penalty for corporate wrongdoing, including prison, now stop directly at the desk

of the CEO.

In the past many CEO’s did not worry about the state of their

internal control systems. Many CEO’s, absent a specific regulatory

mandate, came to believe that their control system was adequate

even though they had no way to prove that to be the case. Today,

because of Sarbanes-Oxley, CEO’s must back up that fact with a

signature and actual evidence. The increased role of the CEO in financial reporting has been, based on our experience, a positive

step.

The Act has clarified and, in some cases, strengthened the role

and responsibility of boards of directors and audit committees.

Boards can no longer blindly rubber-stamp the actions of management. They must now work side-by-side with the auditors to ensure

that the shareholders’ interests are protected. Audit committees

must be more independent and expert in carrying out their vital

duties. Again, our experience has been that most audit committees

and boards of directors have increased the number and quality of

meetings, and the members of most audit committees and boards

appear to be taking their role more seriously since the adoption of

the Act.

The Act is forcing public companies and their auditors to make

sure that the financial statements are clean. Restatements, as you

know, have jumped 30 percent over the past year.

Thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, the quality of information provided to

investors from corporations has improved. We also believe that

changes mandated by the Act prohibiting auditors from providing

consulting services, such as consulting, to their public audit clients

has helped in restoring trust in the accounting profession. In fact,

a recent Gallup poll found that the image of the accounting profession has significantly improved over the past year, more than any

other profession tested.

We believe that accounting firms must not only cooperate with

the PCAOB, but also act as thought leaders to improve the audit

process. Likewise, the PCAOB should not only monitor and discipline accounting firms, but also should work with the firms to improve audit quality. This cooperation between the new board and

the accounting firms should result in further improvements in the

quality of financial information.

Although there have been several well-publicized allegations of

accounting misdeeds and auditing failures, there are many more

instances where auditors have properly discharged their professional responsibility.

I am proud to say that in February 2002 we issued a five-point

plan to restore the public’s trust, and three of the five of our proposals were included in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. We are one

of the first global accounting firms to advocate the need to a principles-based approach to accounting standards. And that same

principles-based approach should be used in adhering to SarbanesOxley. There are areas in the legislation that are clear, and some

of them might be interpreted differently by others, but the guide

86

in the gray areas should be the spirit of reform and protection of

investors that you, the bill’s authors, intended.

Last month, Grant Thornton became the first and only one of the

six global accounting organizations to go on the record publicly and

prohibit services for its public audit clients related to the documenting of internal controls. Consistent with our guiding principles, we will not provide these services because we believe to do

so violates the spirit of Sarbanes-Oxley. On the other hand, we

have developed tools and trained our people to independently test

the internal controls designed and documented by management.

Going forward, there must be a renewed effort to improve the

current business reporting model. In December 2002, the AICPA

formed a special committee on enhanced business reporting,

chaired by our managing partner of strategic services, Mike Starr.

This committee will establish a consortium of investors, creditors,

regulators, management, and other stakeholders to improve the

quality and transparency of information used for decisionmaking.

Working as a team, Grant Thornton and the other accounting

firms, together with regulators and standards setters and leaders

of the business and financial community, can continue to improve

the quality and transparency of information used by creditors and

investors.

In 1933, Congress passed the Securities Act that led to the creation of the SEC, designed to restore investor confidence in our

capital markets. Now, 70 years later, Sarbanes-Oxley has further

protected American investors. I know that I speak not only for

Grant Thornton and the other accounting firms, but also for many

Americans in thanking you for the countless hours spent in bringing this landmark legislation to fruition, resulting in improvements

in our financial reporting system in the past year and for many

years to come.

Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Harrigan.

STATEMENT OF SEAN HARRIGAN

PRESIDENT, BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CalPERS

Mr. HARRIGAN. Good morning. Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to

be here today to discuss Sarbanes-Oxley. It is a topic that is of extreme importance to investors.

My name is Sean Harrigan. I am President of the CalPERS

Board of Administration. CalPERS has been a strong advocate for

corporate governance for more than a decade now. When we recognized the depth and magnitude of the financial crisis in recent

years, we were one of the first investors to embark upon a financial

market reform initiative.

Now, almost 2 years later, we have accomplished what I believe

is a great deal. The primary vehicle for reform has been SarbanesOxley. We know that the full implementation of the Act is a longterm goal, but I think it is safe to say that this historic legislation

was an excellent first step toward restoring investors’ confidence

and improving the credibility of our financial markets.

It is to this Committee’s credit, and Senator Sarbanes in particular, for whom we have the utmost respect, that we have this

87

Act. On behalf of CalPERS and its members, I want to thank Senator Sarbanes and each of you for your courage and leadership on

this most important issue. We are proud to have supported this effort with you.

Today, I want to offer one perspective on the effectiveness of the

Act. I would also like to offer some suggestions for the next steps

that are critical to completing the job, restoring the public’s trust

and confidence in our financial markets.

We believe the Act accomplished three important reforms:

First, auditor independence. Without question, the independence

of the auditors in corporate America is returning.

Second, it provided accounting industry oversight. A new independent body was created to oversee audit firms so structurally we

will never be as bad off as we were before. The Public Company

Accounting Oversight Board is up and operating. I think it is making progress toward its inspection and disciplinary programs. I am

especially pleased that the Board is preparing its own auditing

standards and standards related to the signing off on a company’s

financial statements.

Third, the Act strengthened the enforcement of Federal securities

laws. It provided a number of enforcement tools to strengthen the

ability of the SEC to regulate the securities market and compensate injured investors.

Let me turn to what I believe are some of the next steps. Please

do not get me wrong, there are many other provisions of the Act

that have helped investors. The three I have mentioned are the

ones that paved what I believe was new ground.

Where should we go from here? We need to strengthen even

more auditor independence. The Act does not address two significant types of nonaudit services. Auditors may still under certain

circumstances be paid providing tax planning and consulting services as well as certain information technology consulting.

We feel that an outright ban on nonaudit services is necessary.

We analyzed proxy disclosures and found approximately 50 percent

of the total revenue to audit firms was nonaudit related. About 40

percent can be attributed to consulting, advisory, or planning services that include tax-related work. This is a deeply troubling situation that has significant potential to impair the objectivity of the

so-called independent auditor. We have taken steps to communicate our concerns directly to companies in which we invest. In

fact, during the 2003 proxy season we withheld our votes for audit

committee members when they used their auditors for nonaudit

services. We plan to do the same in the upcoming proxy season.

We urge you to pursue tougher rules through the Securities and

Exchange Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to address this important issue. Let me return to the

accounting industry oversight. We need internal controls over financial reporting. We do not accept the criticism by some in the

business community that the focus of PCAOB in this area is misplaced or that the cost for improving internal controls is not worth

it. We rely on financial statements, and we believe controls are

critical.

Next, I think strengthening the enforcement of the securities

laws is in order. We urge you to study whether the SEC should

88

have additional authority to ban individuals when it is proper to

do so from serving as officers or directors at public companies convicted of misconduct. You may also want to study additional authority for the SEC to claw back gains from executives that are in

any part attributable to misconduct.

Large payouts that follow corporate failure due to poor financial

performance adds insult to injury for damaged investors. This is especially true in any portion of the gain realized by an executive can

be attributable to malfeasance.

Next, I think it is time to examine the role of market participants. The SEC, as well as other organizations, are continuing to

conduct analysis of the role of various industries within the financial system. The audit industry, and many other industries, has a

role in maintaining the market’s integrity. Some industries have

significant structural conflict that are contrary to the interests of

investors and the markets, such as firms that provide investment

banking and equity research.

We urge you to continue to examine all industries that can have

conflicts. We ask you to balance their needs to operate in an effective manner with the public’s need for integrity in the financial

markets. Greater focus has to be placed on increasing the resources

for the SEC, but that is only half the problem. To ensure that the

SEC can be an objective market regulator and continue to build a

sustainable and consistent program, it should have a greater degree of independence from the Federal budget process. Investors

need open access to the proxy. This is the crown jewel of reform.

At the heart of many problems that face investors, is the lack of

accountability of board members to the owners of the corporation.

The root cause of problems like abusive executive compensation,

lack of oversight that helps permit fraud, and plain old poor financial performance, is the lack of accountability of board members to

their owners. A reasonable and balanced approach to providing investors with greater access to management’s proxy statement will

directly address this problem.

Last, but not least, is the topic of NYSE reform. Today, we stand

on the verge of transforming the New York Stock Exchange into

the world’s best model of corporate governance. I hope that they

will find a permanent chairman with impeccable credentials who

can meet the needs of the New York Stock Exchange ultimate consumer, the investors. We believe we need to form a much smaller

and accountable NYSE Board made up of 50 percent from the investor community. Once that is done, the New York Stock Exchange needs to adopt a permanent corporate governance structure

that will serve as a model for the world’s financial markets, and

include independent nominating committees and transparency,

transparency in compensation, and transparency in financial statements. I think they will need all of our support.

Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Members of

the Committee, I would like to once again offer my sincere gratitude for all that Sarbanes-Oxley has done for investors. You have

done more to restore investor confidence with your act of courage

than you might well imagine. We need your help. We need your

leadership. Working Americans who rely on the financial markets

for their retirement benefits will benefit from your leadership, and

89

they will count on it for decades into the future. Together, we have

achieved some early successes with Sarbanes-Oxley. I hope you will

build upon this landmark accomplishment, known as SarbanesOxley.

And on behalf of the 1.3 million members whose retirements

have become safer as a result of your leadership, I want to say

again, thank you very much.

Chairman SHELBY. Ms. Teslik.

STATEMENT OF SARAH TESLIK

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF

INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS

Ms. TESLIK. I realize that as the last speaker on the last panel,

what you mainly want from me is an executive summary. I think

the executive summary for this hearing about the status of a bill

passed 14 months ago, was actually stated a few decades ago during Nixon’s historic trip to China. As you, I am sure, are very familiar with this story, when Kissinger at a state dinner asked the

legendary Cho En Lai what he thought of the French Revolution,

Cho En Lai paused for a moment and said, ‘‘Too early to tell.’’

Although I think it is genuinely way too early to tell how Sarbanes-Oxley will affect business worldwide, there have nevertheless

been an awful lot of people whining loudly, and I suspect that is

one of the reasons we are here today, about how this Act is stifling

corporate ingenuity. It is making it impossible to fill board seats,

which is a really funny allegation when you think about it. And it

is requiring American companies to reincorporate on the Moon to

avoid incredibly astronomical compliance costs.

In fact, one of my favorite legal memos that came out right after

the bill was passed and circulated to many American companies,

told them that it was now illegal to have corporate credit cards because Sarbanes-Oxley bans loans to executives, and credit cards

are, of course, a loan. I got a call from a CEO who got the memo

when I did, and he asked what I thought, and I said, ‘‘Ditch the

firm, keep the cards, and get a grip.’’ I think a lot of the hysteria

that we are seeing over the bill comes from that kind of thinking

or lack thereof.

There is no question that there are a number of new costs incurred because of Sarbanes-Oxley, but I think there are five things

to keep in mind. First, whenever you change a system from one to

another there will be change-over costs. If the U.S. adopted the

metric system, we would have costs changing over, and that does

not mean the metric system is a bad system, it means we are

changing systems.

Second, a lot of the costs come from conflicting advice that has

nothing to do with the bill. I asked the chairman of a major oil

company on Friday what his main costs were because of SarbanesOxley, and he said different law firms are giving us different bits

of advice, and we are paying $700 an hour for them to contradict

each other. I think that kind of thing will sort itself out as people

figure out that you can have corporate credit cards despite what

advice you are given.

Third, I think a lot of the costs that are being incurred are potentially unnecessary. I asked the head of a major pharmaceutical

90

company last week what their major problem was, and he said,

well, actually, law firms, consultants, and accounting firms are trying to sell us elaborate packages that we need to adopt, and the

fact is we do not need to adopt them, because of internal controls

that we have. Good internal controls should not cost any more because to divide up functions does not mean you duplicate functions.

It means you separate them. So, I think as the hysteria dies down,

there will be companies recognizing they do not need to spend what

they have been told and still comply fully with the letter and the

spirit of the law.

Fourth, I think that most people are forgetting to talk about how

most of the provisions in Sarbanes-Oxley entail almost no changeover costs. It does not cost any more for the board to hire the auditor than it does for management. It is just a different group. It

should not cost much more for the PCAOB to do its job than the

entities that did it before, it is just that it will be more independent. There is an entire list I could go through, but I will not.

And fifth, it is good that some new costs are being incurred. As

was mentioned before, if a company does not have internal controls

and it needs to learn to get them, then I am happy to spend that

kind of money and I am sure all Americans are.

Finally, I think the whining fails to take into account the fact

that there are already measurable benefits from Sarbanes-Oxley,

and that is remarkable because Sarbanes-Oxley is basically an effort to strengthen safety nets. So you have to wait a period of time

before enough bad behavior that might otherwise have occurred

gets caught before you can, in fact, measure the net effect. But I

should remind the Committee that in the 2 years leading up to

Sarbanes-Oxley, if you look only at the thousand largest firms that

lost 75 percent or more of their value, $66 billion of that money

went into the executives’ pockets of those companies. It was not

money just lost because someone made a dumb decision, it was

value transferred from shareholders to insiders, and that $66 billion is not being repeated since Sarbanes-Oxley.

I think it is also important to note in closing the more important

long-term value of Sarbanes-Oxley which was alluded to earlier but

I think not specifically enough. Everyone likes to say that our markets are the best in the world, and for the past several decades it

has been true. It will not necessarily always stay true. The reason

people invest here is that our markets are perceived to be cleaner

and more efficient.

Both of those two things can change and change quickly, particularly when special interests have an ability to come to you, the regulators, and get favors when the average Americans, who we represent, cannot.

I think the importance of Sarbanes-Oxley was that it was a

statement to the rest of the world that we will do a great deal, including standing up to some terrific pressure—and let us not pretend that did not exist—to say that we are going to take some actions that keep our markets more efficient and cleaner, and unlike

any other industry in which America is dominant, markets can

flow overseas almost instantly. I think for that reason alone, which

affects all Americans, including Americans who do not have pensions because actually our jobs, our houses, our entire democratic

91

system depends on the wealth generated by these markets, Sarbanes-Oxley was a major step in the right direction.

Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. I understand that the Oversight Board has

already initiated its annual inspection of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Could you describe this process and provide for the Committee the

perspective of the Oversight Board’s inspection procedures?

Mr. DIPIAZZA. Yes, Senator Shelby. The process has begun, and

I think as the Chairman of the PCAOB said, it has been very constructive at this point. We began with a discussion around the tone

at the top of our organization. The inspection included a review of

our communications, our policies from the top of the organization

to our partnership. Beyond that, interviews, extended interviews

with our leadership are ongoing at this point. Then in October/November, there begins a process of a review of specific engagements.

I can only second Mr. McDonough’s comments. I think the

PCAOB is bringing a high level of professionalism, and I am very

confident that this process will make us better as a firm. So far,

so good.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Harrigan, pension funds lost millions of

dollars in the recent corporate scandals over several years. Would

you give us your perspective of the state of corporate governance

and whether you have observed any renewed investor confidence

because of corporate governance changes, or is it a work in

progress?

Mr. HARRIGAN. I think it is still a work in progress. Obviously,

I think there has been some restored confidence in the financial

markets, and then all of a sudden something happens like the

problem with Mr. Grasso’s compensation at the New York Stock

Exchange, and I think it takes a turn downward.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the most important reform—and

Sarbanes-Oxley was important and I think it did make a difference

and will continue to make a difference—but the most important reform is the reform that the Securities and Exchange Commission

is reviewing right now and that is access to the proxy. It is time

for the managers of America’s corporations to be accountable to the

owners. The only way that that can occur is through access to the

proxy. I think that if we want to effectively deal with the problems

that have been evident in this market over the last several years,

we have to create more accountability, more transparency, and I

think that is the one reform that I would urge the Members of this

Committee to be supportive of because I think it can make a huge

difference in terms of the integrity of America’s corporations.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Nusbaum, we recognize that accounting

firms have had to expend greater costs and resources like it was

alluded to, to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley because there has been

a change. Could you describe the compliance costs that Grant

Thornton has absorbed or passed on or both during the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley?

Mr. NUSBAUM. We have taken several steps to make sure that

we are not only complying with the actual Act but also the spirit

of the Act. We have certainly improved our quality throughout our

entire organization. We have added professional standards personnel to help ensure that quality. We have increased the number

92

of people that are in the quality control process. We have already

adopted the auditing standards for fraud. We have revised our

audit approach to ensure that we do a better job detecting fraud

going forward.

In addition, we have spent a considerable amount of money, as

I alluded to earlier, on tools to test and audit the internal controls

of corporations. We have developed new software and conducted

training for all of our audit personnel to make sure that they know

how to test internal controls that are designed and documented by

management. And that has been quite an endeavor, but one we are

proud of and pleased with the results.

And while it is additional cost, some of which we will certainly

absorb, unfortunately, and maybe some of which we can pass on to

clients—it will be a blend, I am sure. But, regardless of who absorbs the cost, it is a positive step in the right direction, and I

think it benefits corporate America.

Chairman SHELBY. Ms. Teslik, as time moves on following the

enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, are you convinced that reform efforts

will continue if we have a bull market?

Ms. TESLIK. Memories are short, and I think that some of the

changes which have occurred in corporate boardrooms, among other

places, have occurred not necessarily because of the Act, but because these people do not want to see their names in the papers

the same way as the Enron directors, and those memories fade.

And so, I think it is not appropriate to let one’s guard down. I

do not know that any additional legislation is needed, even in a

bull market, although the regulatory follow-up that Mr. Harrigan

mentioned is important.

Chairman SHELBY. Ms. Teslik, what do you see as the prospect

of reforms coming in the next 12 to 18 months internally?

Ms. TESLIK. I think there are two very important ones. SarbanesOxley was passed in a very short period of time, in a lot of heat

and with frauds happening every week. I think there are two main

areas left unaddressed.

One is that the first line of defense against fraud and against

mismanagement is the board of directors, and the ability of shareholders to elect the board is critical to the board’s being effective.

The SEC is currently addressing that.

The second area, which is being addressed but needs to be addressed more broadly, is that for some reason, some decades ago

it was considered a wise thing to take Government regulatory authority and delegate it to a number of private sector companies.

Obviously, that was reversed in Sarbanes-Oxley with respect to the

accountants when the PCAOB was established. It was reversed by

Sarbanes-Oxley with respect to FASB by giving it independent

funding. It has not yet been addressed with respect to the stock exchanges, and they do have a lot of rules which affect our capital

formation process.

I think those two things easily trump everything else.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know there is a

vote on.

First of all, I want to thank all members of the panel for their

testimony. We appreciate it very much.

93

Before I ask this question, I want to observe that there are a

number of efforts to raise standards that are taking place separate

and apart from the legislation itself. First of all, the SEC has now

been given resources which would better equip it to carry out its

various authorities, which are quite extensive when one examines

the statutes.

But the exchanges are introducing new requirements, although,

of course, the New York Stock Exchange itself is now in the spotlight with respect to its own governance. Clearly, that is another

arena in which we may succeed in getting improved standards.

Then there are a number of efforts going on within the business

community for best practices, and I want to focus on one of them.

The Conference Board’s Commission on Public Trust and Private

Enterprise recommended in January, ‘‘Against public audit firms

performing services that put it in an advocacy position such as

proffering novel and debatable tax strategies and products that involve income tax shelters and extensive offshore partnerships or affiliates.’’

Now, this was an issue we wrestled with when we did the legislation. The legislation, of course, does not prohibit tax activities,

and the argument was very strongly made to us that there is a

range of normal tax activities that has always been a part of accounting activities. In a sense, we were not in a position to draw

the line with respect to these activities that I just mentioned,

which were not the whole range of them. I repeat it again, ‘‘advocacy positions such as proffering novel and debatable tax strategies

and products that involve income tax shelters and extensive offshore partnerships or affiliates.’’

Now, there is authority in the PCAOB to address this question,

and my question to the members of the panel is: Is this a matter

which you think needs to be addressed? Mr. DiPiazza, why don’t

we start with you and we will come right across the panel.

Mr. DIPIAZZA. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Let me begin by

stating that I am a tax partner in our firm. I have served 20 to

25 years serving clients throughout the country, gaining an understanding of their business, and being deeply involved in the audit

process in turn of doing that.

Tax is a central piece of an accounting firm. It is traditional. It

is a very important part of the quality of an audit. And, in fact,

it has enhanced my career and my ability to serve as an auditor

and as a tax partner.

Today, you have board preapproval for any transaction involving

tax consulting. You have full disclosure in the public domain. The

discussion of tax shelter has been one that has had a forefront in

governance issues. And I do believe that, frankly, exotic tax shelters, the question is really one of policy. Should anybody, whether

it is accounting firms, auditors, lawyers, investment banks, be promoting exotic tax shelters?

We exited that business as a firm because we did not see it as

a moral place to be, long before Sarbanes-Oxley. I think the debate

has been had. I do believe boards today understand it and we get

it. So, I think today the landscape is pretty clear on the point?

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Nusbaum.

94

Mr. NUSBAUM. Well, I am an audit partner, not a tax partner,

but like Mr. DiPiazza, I agree that tax is an integral part of what

accounting firms do, an important service that should continue to

be provided. However, like Mr. DiPiazza, we have also exited the

sale of these abusive tax shelters and exotic strategies.

So, I think there is a question that should be addressed here and

something that more research should be done to define exactly

what should be banned, and if appropriate, I would support and I

think we would certainly support the banning of these. We certainly do not offer these to our publicly traded audit clients, and,

in general, do not offer them at all. So, I think that it is something

that should have a little further research to make sure we do not

cross over into general tax services. But as long as we can draw

that line, I would support the action completely.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Harrigan.

Mr. HARRIGAN. My prepared comments, I think, addressed exactly where CalPERS is. We do not believe any nonaudit-related

services should be allowed. As I mentioned, about 50 percent of the

revenue generated by audit firms is based on nonaudit services,

mainly in the tax area and the IT area. We believe that it does create a conflict and that it should be prohibited.

Senator SARBANES. Ms. Teslik.

Ms. TESLIK. I can only speak for the Council, and we do not have

a policy, and members are not of one mind on this subject.

Senator SARBANES. If I could ask one quick question, and then

we have to go.

Chairman SHELBY. Go ahead.

Senator SARBANES. I know we have to go vote.

The GAO recently reported to the Committee about the extent of

concentration in the U.S. audit industry. Very quickly, how serious

a problem is this? And if it is a serious problem, how might it be

addressed? Very quickly.

Mr. DIPIAZZA. You have to reflect on how we got here. When

there were eight firms, they simply did not have the coverage and

the depth around the world to provide the audit quality that the

investor needed. And that went from eight to six to five. Going

from five to four was the tragedy. We did not need that to happen.

There is plenty of competition in the marketplace, and there is

capacity in the marketplace. I think the GAO study said it well.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Nusbaum.

Mr. NUSBAUM. I disagree with those comments, and I disagree

with the GAO report in this particular area. The report is very

long, and I support the vast majority of the report.

We certainly believe that there are many accounting firms, obviously Grant Thornton and other international firms, that can audit

multinational companies and have the capability, skill set, and resources to do that. In fact, I believe we have the capability to audit

the vast majority of public companies out there. And, again, it is

not just Grant Thornton, but if you look at the AICPA major firms

group, there are probably at least 25 and maybe more accounting

firms that should be encouraged to audit public companies. We

think that consolidation is an issue and that the PCAOB as well

as the Government should do everything it can to promote smaller

CPA firms to audit publicly traded companies.

95

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Harrigan.

Mr. HARRIGAN. I would agree with those comments. I think that

it is becoming a problem and that we should do everything that we

can to promote the opportunity for smaller firms to participate in

the audit process.

Senator SARBANES. Ms. Teslik.

Ms. TESLIK. A number of our corporate members have complained that there is no place else to shop, and they believe that

the cost of an audit, which has skyrocketed, has gone up in part

because the competition has gone down.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. I have one observation. All these firms had

to grow from something, did they not, over time? And so if we

grow, if it is Grant Thornton or someone else who continues to

grow—and I hope they do—more competition is good for everybody,

is it not?

Mr. NUSBAUM. Absolutely.

Mr. HARRIGAN. Yes, it is.

Chairman SHELBY. We appreciate your appearing here today. As

Senator Sarbanes has just reminded us, we do have a vote and we

hope to make it. Thank you.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Prepared statements supplied for the record follow:]

96

1P.L. No. 107–204 (2002).

2Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 101(a).

3Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 101(c).

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. McDONOUGH

CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee, I

am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the Public Company Accounting

Oversight Board (PCAOB or the Board). This is the first appearance of a PCAOB

member before this Committee. On behalf of the Board, I would like to begin by

commending the extraordinary leadership of this Committee in response to the

crisis in public confidence brought on by some devastating failures in financial reporting and auditing. The legislation—now law—that you worked so hard on is a

landmark reform of corporate governance, financial reporting, and auditing and you

should be proud.

I am both proud and humbled to appear before you today as Chairman of one of

the products of your hard work—the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Among the many reasons I was willing to take on this job were my own strong convictions about the need for an aggressive response to the corporate scandals and the

lack of leadership in the private sector. It is an honor to have the opportunity to

act on those convictions by helping to build an organization, in the form envisioned

by you, to restore the linchpin of the American financial system—trust in the integrity of financial reporting.

Introduction

A little over a year ago, the Congress passed and the President signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Act).1 The Act, of course, established the PCAOB and

charged it with ‘‘oversee[ing] the audit of public companies that are subject to the

securities laws, and related matters, in order to protect the interests of investors

and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, fair, and independent audit reports for companies the securities of which are sold to, and held

by and for, public investors.’’2

To carry out this vital charge, the Act gives the Board significant powers. Specifically, subject to the oversight authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission

(the Commission), the Board’s powers include authority——

• To register public accounting firms that prepare audit reports for issuers; • To conduct inspections of registered public accounting firms; • To conduct investigations and disciplinary proceedings concerning, and to impose

appropriate sanctions where justified upon, registered public accounting firms and

associated persons of such firms; • To enforce compliance by registered public accounting firms and their associated

persons with the Act, the Board’s rules, professional standards, and the securities

laws relating to the preparation and issuance of audit reports and the obligations

and liabilities of accountants; and

• To establish or adopt, or both, by rule, auditing, quality control, ethics, independence, and other standards relating to the preparation of audit reports for issuers.3

Overview of the Board’s Organization

Since the initial Board members took office in January, the Board has taken a

number of administrative steps to position it to carry out its core programs.

Staffing

Like any other start-up, much of the Board’s effort has been devoted to creating

an organizational structure and hiring staff members in a manner that will foster

our long-term success. One of the Board’s objectives in this regard is to foster a

working environment marked by enthusiasm for the Board’s mission and by commitment to integrity. Starting from scratch in January 2003, the Board has grown

to 84 full-time professional staff. While the staffing effort is still underway, most

of the top positions have been filled. In addition, our inspections group, which ultimately will be the Board’s largest division, has grown to some 21 inspectors.

Office Space

The Board has leased space and opened offices in Washington, DC and New York

City, as well as an information technology center in Northern Virginia. The Board

anticipates that the space it has secured will be adequate to meet the anticipated

growth of the organization for several years.

97

4 Under the Act, the Board is a private body with the powers of a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation. 5On April 25, 2003, the SEC designated the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)

as the authoritative standard-setter under Section 19(b). The PCAOB is serving as the FASB’s

collection agent for purposes of assessing and collecting its accounting support fee. In addition,

a smaller portion of the Board’s budget is to be recovered through fees assessed on registered

public accounting firms, based on the estimated costs associated with processing and reviewing

the firms’ registration applications and periodic reports. 6PCAOB Release No. 2003–003 (April 18, 2003).

7Pursuant to the Board’s rules, issuers with average monthly market capitalization of less

than $25 million (and investment companies with net asset values, or market capitalization, of

less than $250 million) are not subject to the accounting support fee. 8 In approving the Board’s registration rules, the Commission stated:

Title I of the Act assigns the Board the formidable task of designing and implementing a registration and oversight system within a relatively short period of time. The investor protection

Continued

Bylaws

To govern its operations and decisionmaking process, the Act contemplates that

the Board, like other private corporations,4 will adopt bylaws. The Board adopted

its initial bylaws at its first meeting on January 9, 2003, and amended them on

April 25, 2003. The Board’s bylaws were approved by the SEC on July 23, 2003.

Ethics Code

The Act also requires the Board to establish ethics rules and standards of conduct

for Board members and staff. At its public meeting on June 30, 2003, the Board

adopted an ethics code that will apply to Board members, staff, and designated contractors and consultants. The purpose of the ethics code is to ensure the highest

standards of ethical conduct within the Board’s operations, and to provide the public

with confidence in the objectivity of the Board’s decisions by seeking to avoid both

actual and perceived conflicts of interest. As required under the Act, the ethics code

has been submitted to the SEC for approval.

Public Accessibility

The Board recognizes the importance of keeping the investor community, the

issuer community, the accounting profession, and the public informed of developments as the Board carries out its mission. The Board has established a general

practice of conducting its rulemaking in a public forum and seeking public comment

on proposed rules. We also maintain a website, www.pcaobus.org, where we provide

timely and detailed information about our rules and policies, and where we webcast

the public meetings and roundtable discussions that we hold to gather public input

on substantive issues.

Budget

Section 109(b) of the Act requires the Board to prepare and submit to the Commission for approval a budget for the Board’s first fiscal year. At its public meeting

on April 23, 2003, the Board approved a budget for the 2003 fiscal year of approximately $68 million. The SEC approved the Board’s budget on August 1, 2003.

Funding

The Act establishes a mechanism for the funding by publicly traded companies of

the Board and of the accounting standard-setting body designated pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Act of 1933.5 To implement this funding mechanism, on

April 18, 2003, the Board issued final rules with respect to the allocation, assessment, and collection of its accounting support fee.6 The SEC approved the Board’s

funding rules on August 1, 2003. Under the Act and the Board’s rules, larger public

companies and investment companies are assessed based on their average market

capitalization during the preceding year.7 As a result, about 62 percent of the

issuers assessed will pay $1,000 or less in accounting support fees to the PCAOB.

The largest 1,000 issuers will pay about 87 percent of the total fees due. Pursuant

to its rules, the Board sent notices of assessment to some 8,500 issuers beginning

on August 4, 2003.

Registration

The Act and the Board’s rules require that beginning October 22, all U.S. accounting firms that prepare or issue audit reports on U.S. public companies, or play a

substantial role in the audit of a U.S. public company, must be registered with the

PCAOB. To implement the registration of public accounting firms, the Board adopted registration rules on April 23, 2003 and the Commission approved the Board’s

registration rules on July 16, 2003.8

98

goals of the Act justify the need for prompt action, but the importance of the Board’s task and

its potential impact on the public securities markets demand that it be undertaken in a thoughtful and reasoned manner. After careful review of the Board’s proposed registration system, the

Commission finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the securities laws

and is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors.

Order Approving Proposed Rules Relating to Registration System, Exchange Act Release No.

48180 (July 16, 2003). 9 In July, the Board proposed a rule on procedures by which a firm, once registered, may seek

to withdraw from registration. Under the proposed rule, a registered firm may seek to withdraw

its registration at any time if it is not engaged in activity for which registration is required.

Withdrawal would not be automatic, but could be delayed until the completion of any pending

or imminent disciplinary proceedings, or for the Board to complete other relevant processes,

such as inspections and investigations. In the absence of a pending disciplinary proceeding, however, the proposed rule would not allow the Board to delay withdrawal for longer than 2 years.

The Board is currently considering the comments it has received in response to that proposed

rule.

Registration is critical to the Board’s regulatory oversight of public accounting

firms. As a legal matter, registration is the predicate for the Board’s other oversight

programs—compliance with auditing and related professional practice standards, inspections, investigations, and discipline. In addition, registration provides the Board

with critical information about the public accounting firms that apply for registration. As required by the Act, registration applications must include, among other

things, a list of issuer audit clients and fees billed those clients, the number and

a list of the firm’s audit professionals, a statement of the firm’s quality control policies, and regulatory and enforcement actions against the firm and its professionals.

This information will both serve as the basis for the Board’s registration decisions

and help inform the Board’s exercise of its authority and focus its limited resources

appropriately.

Registration of a public accounting firm is not automatic upon application. In

order to approve an application, the Board must determine that registration of the

applicant is consistent with the Board’s responsibilities under the Act to protect investors and to further the public interest in the preparation of informative, fair, and

independent audit reports for public companies.

To make that determination, the Board is committed to a careful and fair review

of all applications. Under the Act, the Board must, within 45 days of receiving an

application, either approve the application, provide notice of disapproval, or request

additional information. To facilitate the registration process, and to support the

Board’s inspection and other functions, the Board developed its own web-based system for the registration of public accounting firms. Receiving application information from registering accounting firms in electronic format expedites the registration

process and allows the Board to maintain a sophisticated database of information

relevant to its other processes.

To facilitate registration further, the Board published in July a collection of answers to frequently asked questions about the registration process. We have also established a help line staffed by the analysts responsible for reviewing registration

applications. Since its inception, these analysts have responded to over 850 telephone inquiries regarding the registration process. Last month, these analysts also

contacted firms known to audit public companies which had not sought access to the

Board’s registration system to inform the firms of the applicable deadlines for registration. Through this outreach program, the analysts contacted approximately 500

firms.

The Board received its first registration application on August 7, 2003, and as of

September 17, 2003, the Board has received almost 500 applications. The Board approved the first 38 of those applications last week and continues to review the remaining applications.9

Registration of Non-U.S. Auditors

Under the Act and the Board’s rules, non-U.S. accounting firms that prepare or

issue audit reports on U.S. public companies, or play a substantial role in the audit

of a U.S. public company, must register with the PCAOB by the middle of next year.

Because registration is the predicate to all of the Board’s other oversight programs, an exemption from registration for non-U.S. accounting firms would be tantamount to a complete exemption from any oversight by the Board. The Board believes that investors in the U.S. markets are entitled to the same protections regardless of whether an issuer, or an issuer’s auditor, is foreign or domestic, and that

it should provide investors with confidence that non-U.S. issuers and auditors adhere to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and U.S. auditing standards.

99

At the same time, the Board has made certain accommodations in light of the special issues raised by the registration of nonU.S. firms. Non-U.S. accounting firms

need not provide certain information on their registration application if by providing

such information the firm would be violating laws in the jurisdiction in which the

firm is located. Moreover, the nature and scope of the Board’s oversight over nonU.S. accounting firms that audit the financial statements of U.S. public companies

is the subject of ongoing dialogue between the Board and its foreign counterparts.

Through this dialogue, the Board is exploring ways of accomplishing the goals of the

Act without subjecting non-U.S. firms to unnecessarily redundant or conflicting requirements.

Inspections

As you know, the Act requires the Board to conduct a continuing program of inspections of registered public accounting firms. The purpose of these inspections is

to assess the degree of compliance of each registered public accounting firm, and associated persons of that firm, with the Act, the rules of the Board, the rules of the

Commission, and professional standards, in connection with its performance of audits, issuance of audit reports, and related matters involving issuers.

The Board’s inspection program is, perhaps obviously, where we will have the

most extensive contact with registered firms and their personnel. It is where we are

going to find out about the quality of the audits that have been conducted, and it

is one of the places where we will exert pressure to change auditor behavior, when

necessary. It will provide us with a direct window into the registered firms to see

how they are implementing the standards the Board sets, areas where they are

doing particularly well, and areas where improvements are needed.

There are a number of areas on which our inspections will focus that have not

been the traditional focus of the peer review process. These include——

• An evaluation of the ‘‘tone at the top’’ of registered firms. We want to know the

nature of the messages that are coming from the highest levels of the firms and

their frequency; • We are going to look at partner compensation and promotion. We are going to look

into what behaviors are rewarded—and thus reinforced—through compensation

and promotions; and • We will consider the firms’ overall communication and training practices with regard to all firm professionals.

On July 28, 2003, implementing the directive in Section 104 of the Act, the Board

proposed rules relating to inspections of registered public accounting firms. The

comment period has ended on the Board’s rulemaking and the Board intends to finalize its inspection rules soon.

Under the proposed rules——

• ‘‘Regular’’ inspections are to take place annually for those firms that issue audit

reports for more than 100 U.S. public companies.

• Other firms are subject to regular inspection every 3 years.

• A ‘‘special’’ inspection may be authorized by the Board at any time.

For 2003, limited inspection procedures are already being conducted on the four

largest accounting firms, which have agreed to cooperate with the Board prior to

their registration. Those inspections are already in process. In 2004, regular inspections will begin for all accounting firms. Inspections of those firms with less than

100 issuer audit clients will be phased in over a 3-year period.

Generally, under the Act, information obtained in inspections is confidential. Portions of a final inspection report that deal with criticisms of or potential defects in

a firm’s quality control system cannot be made public by the Board if the firm addresses the items to the Board’s satisfaction within 12 months of the report. Final

inspection reports will be provided to the Securities and Exchange Commission and

appropriate State regulatory authorities, however, and the Board may refer information learned from inspections to relevant authorities and commence an investigation or disciplinary proceeding if the facts and circumstances warrant. Moreover, the

Board has proposed rules pursuant to which the Board would publish reports about

findings from the inspections process to discuss any matter the Board considers of

public interest, including criticisms and potential defects in firms’ quality control

systems. Under that proposed rule, the Board would not identify specific firms in

issuing such reports.

Investigations and Discipline

The Act authorizes the Board to conduct thorough investigations when there are

indications that a registered firm or an associated person may have violated the Act,

the Board’s rules, certain provisions of the securities laws and the Commission’s

100

10Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 105(c)(4). Under the Act, a firm or associated person sanctioned

by the Board may seek review of that determination by the Commission. In the event of an appeal to the Commission, the Act provides that the sanction will be stayed unless and until the

Commission affirms the sanction or otherwise affirmatively terminates the stay. 11Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 103(a)(3)(B).

rules, or professional standards. The Act further authorizes the Board to use the

results of those investigations as a basis for formal disciplinary proceedings. If a violation is established in those proceedings, the Act authorizes the Board to impose

a range of sanctions on the firm or associated person who committed the violation.

On July 28, the Board publicly proposed an extensive set of rules relating to investigations and disciplinary hearings. We received substantial public comment on

the proposal. We have been considering the comments and we expect to consider

adopting final rules very shortly. We are also in the process of staffing a Division

of Investigations and Enforcement, which will have responsibility for carrying out

the Board’s investigative work and disciplinary proceedings.

Among other things, the Board’s proposed rules implement the Act’s provisions

granting the Board broad authority to demand testimony, production of documents,

and other cooperation from firms and associated persons during an investigation. As

with inspection materials, the Act provides for the confidentiality of the Board’s investigative processes and protects all such information from discovery by private

parties. Firms and associated persons must provide the necessary information and

cooperation, or risk the possibility of being sanctioned for noncooperation with an

investigation. As provided in the Act and our proposed rules, noncooperation with

an investigation can result in sanctions as severe as revoking a firm’s registration

or barring a person from association with a registered firm.

The Board’s investigative and disciplinary work will also necessarily involve a

need to obtain documents and testimony from public companies and other persons

who are not legally required to cooperate with our investigations. While the Act does

not authorize the Board to compel cooperation from those persons, it does authorize

the Board to ask those persons to supply information voluntarily. The Act also gives

the Board the option of working through the Commission to serve legally enforceable Commission subpoenas for any such information that is relevant to a Board investigation but is not supplied voluntarily. Our proposed rules would implement

these provisions as well.

The proposed rules also include detailed procedures to govern the conduct of

Board disciplinary hearings in order to ensure a balanced process in which the respondent has fair notice of, and a full and fair opportunity to defend against, allegations of misconduct. Like the investigative process itself, disciplinary hearings will

be nonpublic unless the Board and the respondent agree otherwise, as required by

the Act.

Finally, the proposed rules implement the Act’s provisions for imposing sanctions

if a violation is established through the hearing process. The sanctions the Board

may impose range from the most severe sanctions—revocation of registration and

bar on association—to lesser sanctions such as monetary penalties, limitations tailored to the particular violation, requirements to retain consultants for particular

purposes, and requirements to obtain additional professional education.10

Professional Standards

The Act directs the Board to establish certain standards related to the work done

by auditors of public companies. Those include standards for auditing and related

attestation work, standards for quality controls, ethics standards, and independence

standards. As part of the authority to establish standards related to auditor independence, the Act authorizes the Board to add to the categories of nonaudit services

that auditors are prohibited from providing to their audit clients. Early on, the

Board made the decision to establish professional standards by creating a standardsetting division of the Board, made up of highly-skilled experts, rather than by delegating the standard-setting function to another body, such as the AICPA’s Auditing

Standards Board.

The Act required the Board to adopt professional standards as initial or transitional standards prior to the Commission’s April 25, 2003, determination of the

Board’s capacity to carry out its responsibilities under the Act.11 Accordingly, at a

public meeting on April 16, 2003, the Board announced the adoption of certain interim auditing, attestation, quality control, ethics, and independence standards to

be used by registered public accounting firms in the preparation and issuance of

audit reports, and the Commission approved those standards as part of its April 25,

2003 determination.

101

12With regard to independence standards, if the SEC’s rules are more restrictive, then registered public accounting firms are expected to comply with the more restrictive requirements. 13See PCAOB Release No. 2003–009 (June 30, 2003).

The standards adopted on an interim basis include the standards with which the

profession is, or should be, familiar. They include the following standards, as they

existed on April 16, 2003:

• GAAS, as previously established by the AICPA, including Statements on Auditing

Standards, auditing interpretations, auditing guidance included in AICPA Audit

and Accounting Guides, and auditing Statements of Position; • Attestation Standards and related interpretations and Statements of Position as

previously adopted by the ASB; • the AICPA’s Statements on Quality Control Standards and certain AICPA SEC

Practice Section membership requirements; • the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct on integrity and objectivity; and • the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct regarding independence, and the standards and interpretations of the Independence Standards Board.12

The Board has not determined that any of these standards should be permanently

adopted, however, and the Board has announced plans to review systematically all

of the interim professional standards and to determine whether each of the interim

standards should be modified, repealed, or made permanent.

The Board has also announced its plans for a general process related to setting

the permanent auditing and other professional standards. The process will include

the appointment of an advisory group, as envisioned by the Act, including members

of the accounting profession, issuers, investors, regulators, and others. The Board

has adopted a rule concerning the composition of the advisory group 13 and expects

to begin the process of forming the advisory group shortly after the Commission approves the rule.

We expect that the standing advisory group will be comprised of approximately

25 members with a variety of backgrounds. Our intent is that the standing advisory

group act at a high level, providing advice and recommendations on policy matters,

significant issues related to specific standards setting projects, and our agenda and

priorities. The standing advisory group will not be a standard setting committee, in

the more traditional sense, drafting and debating all the provisions of proposed

standards. Most of that work will be done by the Board’s staff.

We also plan to use other means to obtain the expertise and advice of the profession and the public, including such things as ad hoc task forces based on our need

for specific expertise. We also have the option of convening roundtable discussions,

which we have already held on certain issues, public hearings, and other types of

public forums to obtain input and advice as needs arise.

The Act itself sets forth the Board’s initial standard setting agenda. Section 404

of the Act, which mandates public reporting on internal control over financial reporting, becomes effective for fiscal years ending in June of 2004. On July 29, 2003,

the Board held a public roundtable discussion to explore whether revised auditing

and attestation standards on this subject are needed. The roundtable included representatives from issuers, auditors, investors, consumer groups, and regulators.

The Act also mandates that we establish requirements in the auditing standards

for the retention of audit documentation and for a second-partner review, and we

already are working on those subjects.

Conclusion

With your vision in establishing authority for independent standard setting, registration, inspection and discipline, you have given the PCAOB the responsibility

and the tools to build a new future for auditing. I have faith that our staff and my

fellow Board members will live up to your expectations.

I have not been shy about telling members of the accounting profession that we

expect a lot from them, and that they will have to work harder than they could have

imagined before Sarbanes-Oxley. Through a succession of scandals, the entire profession came to be judged harshly—but you and your colleagues, through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, did not merely judge them; rather, you gave them a meaningful

shot at redemption.

In my mind, facilitating that redemption, and not just punishing miscreants, is

a key objective—one that the Board must not lose sight of even when we are, as

we will need to be, tough on the profession.

As we work toward that objective, my fellow Board members and I look forward

to a long and constructive relationship with this Committee.

Thank you.

102

1 ‘‘PricewaterhouseCoopers’’ refers to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers

International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL A. DiPIAZZA, JR.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee, on

behalf of thousands of PricewaterhouseCoopers 1 professionals in the United States

(U.S.) and my colleagues from around the world, it is a distinct honor and pleasure

to appear before you today. My profession and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) are

going through dramatic change, and I do not see this change abating greatly in the

foreseeable future. We stand at a crossroads today and have a unique opportunity

to redefine our profession, ensure our continued relevance, and, importantly, restore

a high level of investor confidence.

Introduction

A Profoundly Different Landscape for the Accounting Profession

Two very significant and interrelated events have created a landscape that is far

different today than anything my profession has previously experienced. A series of

high profile corporate failures raised significant doubts on the part of the investor

community as to the reliability of the capital formation process and as to whether

auditors deserved the degree of trust historically conferred upon them. This lack of

trust, of course, was not just directed at auditors but at all significant players involved in reporting financial information to investors and other stakeholders. As a

consequence of these failures and the crisis in confidence that resulted, Congress

passed—and President Bush signed into law—the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the Act) just

over 1 year ago.

Following the Act’s passage, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the

PCAOB) established itself as the primary regulator of public company auditors.

Using the Act as a guide, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) implemented various rules designed to ensure the financial integrity and

vitality of our capital markets. We recognize and commend the great effort that the

Commission and the PCAOB have made over the last year to enhance investor confidence in the efficacy of our capital markets.

Three Fundamental Areas of Change

The Act created three fundamental areas of change for those with responsibility

for protecting the interests of investors. First, there has been a shift of power and

governance from the executive suite to the boardroom and, notably, the audit

committee. Second, auditors who perform public company audits, like PwC, are now

regulated with Government oversight, rather than the self-regulatory system that

previously existed. Third, public entities and their auditors must be more transparent in the information disclosed to others—in particular—information relating to

the effectiveness of control systems, a requirement commonly referred to as Section

404, which has not yet been fully implemented but will greatly enhance corporate

reporting in the future. Today, I want to concentrate my comments on: (1) What

PwC has done to lead change in the new environment; (2) how the new requirements are impacting PwC and the profession; and (3) what needs to be done in the

future.

Meeting the Rules in Letter and Spirit

Now, the challenge is for all of the market participants to implement the necessary reforms in a manner that places the interests of investors above all others.

The Act requires participants in the financial reporting process to take responsibility for their actions and every party must play his or her role. For example,

managements, boards, and audit committees need to carry out their fiduciary responsibilities, investors should research companies prior to investing, underwriters

should see that adequate due diligence is performed, lawyers should perform as officers of the court, regulators should enforce the rules, and auditors must provide unbiased opinions on the information that is being provided to investors.

The Act clearly intended that investor interests be the overriding requirement.

Therefore, in addition to complying with the letter of law, we must be especially diligent in implementing the spirit of the law.

The Act and the rules adopted by the SEC establish clear lines of accountability.

Accountability is an important deterrent to objectionable behavior. Behavior drives

many of the areas addressed in the Act (such as executives’ compliance with ethical

103

codes), but ethical behavior cannot be legislated. Therefore, public trust will only be

attained and the goals of the Act achieved if the people with responsibility for implementing the requirements do so with integrity. Where integrity is lacking, neither

rules, regulations, laws, concepts, structures, processes, best practices, nor the most

progressive use of technology, can ensure accountability or compliance. This will

only occur when people of integrity do the right thing, not what is expedient or even

necessarily permissible. Ultimately, people’s actions are what matter, not what they

say or the wording of a particular regulation.

We fully support the PCAOB’s mission to refocus the accounting profession to help

restore public trust. PCAOB Chairman William McDonough’s comments in a recent

speech given at a New York State Society of CPA’s conference are hard-hitting and

appropriate,

I expect that you, as members of a regulated profession, know what the rules

are. I expect that you are following those rules, both in their letter and their

spirit . . . If you depart from those expectations—that is, if you break the rules,

if you ignore the spirit of the law even while meeting the letter—woe be unto

you.

Embracing Change

Many of the Act’s provisions have and will require change in the way we do business. Change can be unsettling but also very positive. At PwC, we are embracing

these changes, implementing them both in letter and spirit, and doing everything

in our power to regain trust in our profession.

Like any profession, we would have preferred a self-regulatory model that worked.

Clearly, the former model did not, and it has been replaced with something far

different. The PCAOB is now our independent regulator with responsibility for

standard setting, quality control, and discipline. We and others in the profession are

committed to the success of the PCAOB. Our profession has a critically important

role in the financial reporting supply chain, and given the importance of this role,

our regulatory system must be effective in fact and in appearance. As an independent body overseen by the SEC, the PCAOB will promote that effectiveness. And

we intend to do our part by working constructively with the PCAOB to restore the

public trust.

We are implementing the changes brought on by the Act across our global organization. PwC member firms have approximately 120,000 employees and 8,000 partners worldwide, and operate in more than 140 countries. Our firms are generally

organized as separate national partnerships, but share a common strategy, common

methodology, and quality control system. Many of the provisions of the Act affect

our operations outside the United States, especially those firms that audit significant numbers of entities registered on U.S. exchanges. The impact of the Act on

these non-U.S. operations is especially challenging because of the interplay among

different regulatory and legal systems in the various countries.

Examples of Change within PwC

PwC and many of the other large accounting firms are developing new policies,

tools, systems, and methodologies for complying with the letter and spirit of the Act.

The following section highlights some of the key changes that are being made at

PwC.

Audit Methodology

We have updated our audit procedures to ensure we are addressing today’s risks

and meeting investors’ expectations. To that end, recent policy changes and improved guidance focuses on the following key areas:

Helping audit teams develop a better understanding of their clients’ businesses

and industries, in order to effectively evaluate the risk of material misstatement

and the controls that management has in place to mitigate that risk.

PwC Audit, our global audit methodology, sets forth a framework to help audit

teams understand their clients’ businesses. This framework includes information

about the markets in which the companies operate, their strategy for increasing

shareholder value, critical value drivers, and internal performance metrics used by

management. Our research shows that this is the type of information investors use

to make investment decisions and, therefore, it is an important input for the audit

team in forming its point of view on the client’s business and risk, including audit

risk.

In testing the information that management uses to run and control its business,

we reconcile this information with that which management communicates to the investors in its external financial reports. This helps us assess the transparency of

financial reporting, as well as the risk of material misstatement. We also provide

104

guidance to our teams to use specialists when audit risk is increased by the presence of complex information technology systems, or when the risk of material error

due to management fraud exists.

In anticipation of next year’s reporting requirements around internal controls

under Section 404 of the Act, our public company audit engagement teams have

been encouraged to take a greater ‘‘controls-based’’ approach to their audits this

year. While this level of controls testing is not the same as will be required for an

attestation under the Act, it will enable our teams to communicate identified weaknesses in key controls to audit committees in the current year, as part of the financial statement audit process.

Increasing our consideration of the risk of management fraud and our ability to

detect a material misstatement in the financial statements due to fraud.

Our audit teams around the world are increasing their emphasis on understanding the risk of fraud in the companies we audit as well as the fraud deterrence

controls and procedures within those organizations. They are also performing additional fraud detection procedures as part of the financial statement audit. These

procedures include:

• Consideration of key incentives and pressures to commit fraud;

• How best to conduct client interviews regarding fraud;

• Consideration of five key fraud risk areas: (1) Revenue recognition, (2) journal entries and other adjustments, (3) management’s accounting estimates, (4) significant unusual transactions and (5) suspense and inter-company accounts.

Engagement teams are required to determine, as part of our annual client acceptance and continuance process, whether heightened fraud risk exists based on specific criteria set forth in our policy. If the team determines there is a heightened

risk of fraud, they should consult with a risk management partner and a fraud detection specialist to determine whether additional procedures should be performed

to mitigate the risk of error due to management fraud.

Recognizing our changing relationship with audit committees through increased

communication.

Communicating effectively and candidly with audit committees is critical in today’s environment. We have implemented a required audit committee communications framework that is used throughout the audit, from planning to completion.

The framework covers four specific topics: Our audit approach; our views on the

company’s level of audit risk and management’s controls to mitigate key risks; the

reliability and transparency of management’s financial reporting; and corporate governance. Our public company engagement teams around the world are engaged in

a dialogue with audit committees on these topics. This is in addition to the required

communications under the Act and U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards

(GAAS).

U.S. Partner Compensation System

Many of the key components of our partner compensation system were in place

prior to the Act. However, the Act provided the impetus to review the current system to ensure compliance with the rules. The resulting changes have been fully implemented for our current fiscal year.

PwC’s reward system is aligned with the behaviors we expect from our partners.

Our policy is to reward all partners equitably based upon the partner’s responsibilities, role in the firm, and thier actual performance. The PwC U.S. Partner Income

System is primarily based on two components of income: The partner’s level of responsibility within the firm (Responsibility Income) and the firm’s performance (Equity Share Income). In addition, in a year when a partner delivers outstanding performance, he or she may also receive a performance award. We recognize the potential conflict of interest that can arise when a partner is directly compensated for

selling nonaudit services, and consistent with the SEC’s rule, we do not compensate

audit partners for selling nonaudit services. Further, our system is not commissionsbased, nor is it tied to audit or nonaudit service revenue targets. The following is

an expanded description of our compensation structure:

• Responsibility Income. The responsibility component of a partner’s income reflects

what the partner does and the degree of complexity inherent in that role. Each

partner is assigned an appropriate responsibility level with a fixed level of income.

• Equity Income. The equity component of a partner’s income is based on how well

the overall firm has performed and the assigned number of equity units or shares

for the partner’s level of responsibility.

105

2 ‘‘Territory’’ refers to all of the PwC legal entities within a country. In certain instances, the

legal entities in multiple countries comprise a territory. 3 As an example, the IFAC Code permits an audit firm to have an immaterial joint business

relationship with an audit client as long as certain safeguards are applied. The SEC rules prohibit joint business relationships with SEC audit clients regardless of materiality or safeguards.

• Performance Income. Performance income is awarded to a small number of partners each year, based on the partner’s individual performance against goals established at the beginning of the year.

In compensating our partners, the firm is mindful and fully supportive of the

SEC’s public policy goals. Most important, good judgment must be exercised in all

cases to comply with both the letter and spirit of the Act.

Compliance and Independence Systems

PwC has made significant investments in state of the art systems for independence compliance. We are committed to continuing to provide the resources, systems,

and processes that our firms and people need globally to comply with the rigorous

auditor independence standards established by standard-setting bodies and regulators in the many different territories in which we operate.

The compliance framework that we have put in place predated the Act, and we

have been able to use this robust framework quite effectively to implement

the necessary regulatory changes. PwC member firms operate around the globe.

Audit engagements performed in any given country (especially those that span borders) involve a complex—sometimes overlapping, sometimes contradictory—web of

independence rules. PwC has addressed this challenge by putting in place a global

framework of people, policies, processes, and systems to ensure compliance with all

standards. Within this framework, PwC firms are responsible for establishing policies and conducting activities to help ensure independence compliance. The global

organization establishes baseline standards and monitors territory 2 activity to help

ensure compliance. Key elements of this framework include a global organization of

independence experts, global independence policies, sophisticated compliance monitoring systems, a global database of restricted entities, periodic training programs

and technical communications, and substantive disciplinary processes.

PwC’s Global Independence Policy sets forth principles and requirements to be followed with regard to all PwC audit clients, with emphasis given to major independence requirements that apply to certain types of audit engagements, for example,

SEC audit clients. The global independence policy is based on the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) Code of Ethics, since the Code is the only recognized

worldwide standard for independence with respect to all audit engagements. The

policy sets forth basic requirements that apply to all audit clients, and provides for

incremental restrictions and processes with respect to SEC audit clients and such

other audit clients as necessary.3

In many instances, we have consciously established independence policies that exceed the requirements of IFAC, the SEC, and other standard setters. This remains

true even today with all of the additional requirements resulting from the Act. For

example, the PwC independence policy generally prohibits partners from investing

in any PwC audit client, while the IFAC Code restricts only those partners that

have certain direct connections to the audit engagement.

While policies, communications, and systems are important components of the

compliance framework, we also conduct compliance reviews of our firms and our

people. Beginning this year, we have instituted a global process to formally review

and test compliance with independence activities in each territory. In conducting

these reviews, we focus on the territory’s organization, processes, policies, and compliance with PwC, regulatory, and local professional independence rules.

The PwC disciplinary policy holds persons found to have violated the PwC independence policy accountable for their actions, and discipline is based on the severity

of the violation. Partners and staff who violate the independence policy are subject

to sanctions including written reprimands, suspensions, monetary fines, and termination.

Selectivity Process

Some clients present us with much more risk than others. The riskier clients tend

to have poor internal controls and/or an overly aggressive management. These clients generally have more errors and misstatements in their financial statements.

This often carries too much risk for us. Accordingly, during the last year, the PwC

U.S. firm chose to reexamine its entire client portfolio—with the primary goal of reducing overall risk. Engagement partners, risk management partners, and firm

106

leadership reviewed all clients that exhibited a higher level of risk as determined

by guidelines established by our Risk & Quality Group.

In total, 842 public and nonpublic clients were selected for such review. In each

case, the client’s risk factors were carefully evaluated as to whether the audit team

could effectively manage the risk. For those clients where it was determined that

PwC’s risk was too high, the situation was discussed with the client’s audit committee and/or management, who were given the opportunity to make the necessary

changes within their organizations. If we believed the risk profile was still too high,

PwC exited the relationship. The U.S. firm terminated relationships with 159 clients—representing about 250,000 annual audit hours.

Our actions have sent a strong message to the business community that PwC is

standing firm on audit quality. PwC will continue to reevaluate client relationships

in this manner and exit those relationships where the client risk profile is beyond

our acceptable limits.

Thought Leadership

When the Act was first passed, many were unclear on how its myriad provisions

would impact them from both a technical and practical standpoint. In response, we

got out in front of the issues and presented our viewpoints by developing a variety

of thought leadership pieces that explored how the Act would impact the various

market participants and our profession. These activities included the following:

• Webcasts: We held a series of webcasts designed to explore the implications of the

Act——

• Corporate Responsibility under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;

• Discussion on the Hill;

• Final Rules on Auditor Independence and;

• Web cast Series on Section 302, Section 404, and Auditor Independence.

• White Papers: We produced three white papers that focused on key issues highlighted by the Act——

• The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Strategies for Meeting New Internal Control Reporting Challenges—November 2002

• The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 And Current Proposals by NYSE, Amex, and

Nasdaq: Board and Audit Committee Roles in the Era of Corporate Reform—February 2003

• The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Understanding the Auditor’s Role in Building

Public Trust—August 2003

Learning and Education

In January 2002, the U.S. firm launched PwC University for its partners. The

University provided partners with a forum to discuss our business strategy and reinforce a culture of quality throughout our organization. The design is built around

several themes, which include driving quality throughout PwC and living our values

of leadership, excellence, and teamwork. We also stress the need for personal development and continuous improvement. Since its inception, over 1,700 U.S. partners

have attended this program.

In May 2002, we launched the first Quality Lens educational course for our audit

partners and 995 partners had completed the course by year-end. Among other

things, Quality Lens focused on the underlying behaviors essential for an auditor,

including: Professional skepticism, objectivity, and independence. In May 2003, we

relaunched Quality Lens for our audit partners and managers to further strengthen

our focus on quality. Training included coaching and mentoring; performing investigative interviews; and handling other difficult situations. Finally, partners and

managers participated in an audit simulation, which focused on the application of

audit methodology and communications with audit committees and management. To

date, over 2,000 partners and managers have attended this 3-day program. In addition to the above, we have rolled out training for our partners and staff focusing

on the framework for internal controls and testing, business risks, controls that

mitigate those risks, fraud, and the use of specialists.

Finally, skills and knowledge related to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) are critical to our profession and, as such, represent a significant area

of training for our partners and staff. A core part of the curriculum comprises justin-time training on Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) releases and implementation guidance from the FASB’s Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF). Additional classroom training provides a forum for discussion and guidance on complex

accounting issues related to topics such as stock-based compensation, derivatives,

affiliated entities, income taxes, and revenue recognition.

107

Impact On the Way We Do Business

The Act has already had a profound impact on our business—from our audit and

tax practices to our firm’s structure and the regulatory environment in which we

operate.

Dramatic Changes to the Audit Relationship

One of the most significant changes arising from the Act is our direct linkage to

audit committees. The Act now requires all public company audit committees to accept a higher level of responsibility, and we have begun to see the impact of that

requirement. Audit committees are meeting much more often. They are more involved. They are probing much more deeply, and they are challenging what they are

being told. This is excellent news for the investing public.

This change is significantly enhancing the audit process because the audit committee is much more attuned to investor protection and is actively supporting our

audit efforts. All of this comes at a cost, however, and we should recognize this. We

are spending more time on our audits as is appropriate. Audit committees are asking us to do more, our audit procedures have been expanded, and we have more senior people spending more time on audits resolving complex accounting questions.

Our audit fees reflect this new environment, but it is a cost that is relatively small

compared to the benefit—a greater focus on investor protection.

Another cost is associated with the new Section 404 requirements to attest to the

soundness of internal controls. We believe that this is one of the more significant

requirements of the Act. When accounting problems occur it is often because the internal controls are weak. I am confident that the benefits of more transparent reporting and improved controls will far outweigh these additional costs.

On average, this expansion in the scope of the audit has increased the time spent

on audit engagements by about 10–15 percent. This increase does not include the

additional work required for full compliance with Section 404 of the Act. We have

invested significant dollars in hiring, training, and retaining highly qualified staff

to ensure that the high quality of our audits is maintained. A tight market for auditing professionals has required us to increase compensation more than normal,

and we have also spent about 15 percent more in training costs so that our staff

has the necessary skills to deal with the new rules and regulations. Finally, our insurance premiums for practice protection have soared due to increased litigation in

the accounting arena, fewer reinsurers, unfavorable investment returns for insurance companies, and large insurance company losses. For our U.S. firm, practice

protection costs are now the second largest cost of doing business, second only to

the compensation provided to its people.

A Significant Decrease in the Demand for Tax Services

One of the more controversial audit independence issues arising from the Act has

been the provision of tax services to audit clients. The SEC largely settled the debate on tax services in the accompanying discussion section to its auditor independence rule, which rightfully acknowledges Congress’s intent to expressly permit audit

firms to provide tax services to audit clients. This was in recognition that these

services are an integral part of the services provided by an accounting firm and that

better audits are performed when tax professionals are involved with the complex

and difficult judgments that need to be made with regard to a client’s tax accruals

and expenses.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a continuing drumbeat that auditors who provide

tax services to audit clients are not independent—even though Congress and the

SEC carefully considered the issues and concluded to the contrary. As a result, our

tax practice has experienced a significant decrease in demand for these services

from our SEC audit clients. The decrease in the United States has been around 20

percent and evidence shows that the trend is continuing. One of the great checks

and balances built into the Act is the audit committee’s preapproval process. We

fully support this process but the continuing rhetoric around tax services may be

pushing the pendulum too far from the mark. Precluding accounting firms from rendering tax services to their audit clients and the inevitable long-term consequences

of an exodus of tax talent from accounting firms will not serve investors well.

Changes to the Business Model

In recent decades, accounting firms, traditionally providers of audit, tax, and related advisory services, became multifaceted service providers. This development, in

my view, commenced in the 1960’s with the dawning of the information technology

age, and was further accelerated by the removal of marketing restrictions by the

Federal Trade Commission. To meet the demand for a broader array of services, accounting firms began to employ a wide range of professionals with varied backVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
108

grounds. Over time, the influence of these professionals grew and, as a result, the

cultures within the firms slowly evolved from ones that were built around providing

traditional audit, tax, and related advisory services to ones that de-emphasized

those areas in favor of consulting services. In the 1990’s, these consulting practices

grew enormously.

We disposed of our consulting practice in October 2002. In addition, we disposed

of certain other businesses such as our human resource consulting group and corporate valuation business.

Today, our practice is made up of three lines of service: Audit, tax, and advisory.

Our audit practice is focused on providing assurance on financial information. Our

tax practice provides a broad range of tax services from preparing tax returns to

providing advice on the optimal treatment of economic transactions. Our advisory

practice provides a broad range of services focused in large part on risk assessment

and risk management. This practice is built on the core skills found in our audit

and tax practices.

New Regulatory Oversight

In August, the PCAOB inspection staff began what they refer to as ‘‘limited inspection procedures’’ for each of the Big Four firms. The first part of the inspection

process includes interviews with our national leaders and reviews of internal documents to gain an understanding of our firm’s policies and procedures, and gain other

insights into our operations. The second part consists of visits to certain practice offices and interviews with professional staff members at all levels. It will also include

verification of information accumulated at the national level. Further, the inspection

staff has told us that they will perform an in-depth inspection of the working papers

in certain areas of selected issuers’ audit engagements.

In the letter accompanying their data request, the PCAOB staff confirmed that

the procedures they perform this year would focus on behavior, culture, and other

important processes including: tone at the top; partner evaluation, compensation,

promotion, assignment of responsibilities, and discipline; independence implications

of nonaudit services; business ventures, alliances, and arrangements; commissions

and contingent fees; client acceptance and retention; our internal inspection program; practices for establishing/communicating audit policies, procedures, and methodologies, including training; and policies/procedures for work performed by foreign

affiliates on foreign operations of U.S. audit clients.

Their data request covered a wide range of items: our values and Code of Conduct; organization charts; agendas for and minutes of management and board meetings; policy materials in the areas listed above; client satisfaction survey forms and

summary results; staff survey forms and summary results; lists of public company

proposals/reproposals; public clients we no longer audited in the last year; descriptions of our current business model and strategic business plans, and the financing

structure of the firm; descriptions of industry and geographic programs; communications from leadership to partners and staff; and details about our partner evaluation

and compensation process and its outcomes, among other things.

We have provided all of the data requested and are responding to follow-up questions and requests for additional details. The interviews with national leaders have

all been scheduled and will be completed by October 1. The first office visit is scheduled for October 6. We understand that the PCAOB’s goal is to issue their report

in December.

Our interactions to date provide us with a glimpse into our future in this new

environment. It is clear that the scrutiny will be intense. We have approached our

interactions with the PCAOB and its staff with a mindset of cooperation and openness, with the hope that PCAOB will share our goal of continually enhancing our

systems and processes. We hope that the foundation of the inspection process will

be the shared purpose of rebuilding the public trust in our profession rather than

reprimands for unintentional errors.

Future of the Accounting Profession

Entrants into the Profession and Accounting Education

Much has been said about the need for the profession to recruit the best and the

brightest. But the issues the profession faces in this area are really two-fold. First,

can we continue to attract the right people into the profession and second, is the

quality of education today sufficient to properly train these young people?

One has to be concerned, given the events of the last couple of years, about

whether the best and the brightest students believe this profession offers them the

long-term opportunity they are seeking. With confidence in the profession at a low

point, with the media constantly focusing on the negative, and with the example of

109

one of the most prestigious firms—Andersen—failing, I am concerned about the appeal of our profession to the next generation.

We cannot fulfill our mission without attracting and keeping the best and the

brightest. No profession can. All the best efforts to restore public confidence will fail

if independent auditing professionals are not on an equal intellectual and motivational footing with the executives of the companies they audit.

We have some concerns about the curricula. The U.S. firm sponsored a study of

the curricula at nine universities that produce a large number of graduates for the

large public accounting firms. Completed in late 2002, this research broke new

ground in the breadth and depth of its analysis of what is actually happening in

the classroom and in understanding the intersection between collegiate education

and continuing professional education. To stimulate productive dialogue on the future of accounting education, we distributed our monograph, Educating for the Public Trust: PricewaterhouseCoopers Position on Accounting Education, to over 4,000

U.S. accounting faculty and business school deans.

In addition, the firm and its partners and staff commit millions of dollars each

year to support various curricula, faculty research, and other accounting educational

programs in the United States. We also sponsor PwC conferences and training programs for faculty as well as other initiatives that promote our profession among

high school and college students.

Not only do we provide significant financial support, but we also spend a significant time and effort attracting top talent. This year alone, 700 partners will spend

35,000 hours on this effort. Our continuing investment and commitment to accounting education is absolutely critical to our future—it is our future.

The Success of the Profession

The profession is at a critical juncture. We can no longer count on our proud history to speak for our importance. We must stand and be counted; and in doing so,

establish a professional reputation will ensure that we are recognized as leaders in

the capital formation process. Our integrity must be beyond question. In addition

to simply conducting business in an appropriate manner, a number of matters will

need to be addressed by PwC, the profession, regulators, investors, attorneys, underwriters, analysts, and others.

The following should be at the forefront of the profession’s agenda:

• Ensuring that our firms have the right ‘‘tone at the top’’ and commitment to quality, excellence and restoring investor confidence;

• Recruiting, developing and retaining the best and brightest professionals;

• Converging systems, standards, and regulatory regimes globally and;

• Making sure that our business model appropriately balances our risks.

I also believe that, for the sake of the investing public, the PCAOB needs to set

auditing standards that will enhance investor confidence. The PCAOB should seek

the advice of professionals who have the practical experience to effectively develop

auditing and other technical standards for the profession.

I invite my colleagues in the profession as well as investors, regulators, attorneys,

and others to join me in addressing these complex matters. We must remain true

to our vision. We must also make sure that we hold one another to the highest possible standard and encourage those seeking entry into the market. Investors will

benefit from having a broad range of qualified auditors. In this regard, regulators

and others need to recognize how their actions may create barriers to entry.

A Proper Assessment of the Effects of the Act

The Act provides a good roadmap for moving ahead. However, as the most comprehensive piece of legislation affecting corporate governance and financial reporting

since the securities laws of the 1930’s, the new regulations adopted under the Act

must be given ample time to prove their usefulness. It is critically important that

we all be patient and not rush to judgment if something does not appear initially

to be achieving its goal.

By taking a long-term approach, we will discover the law’s true effectiveness in

meeting its objectives. Auditors, audit committee members, executives, and others

have just begun to work through the many nuances of complying with the new regulations and some aspects are not yet effective. Additional time must pass before we

step back and evaluate the effect of the Act to see whether its key objectives—to

protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of financial disclosures

and restoring investor confidence—have been met. It is absolutely critical, however,

that we first allow the rules to ‘‘sink in’’ to corporate America’s consciousness and

truly have a measurable effect on financial reporting and investor confidence. Only

then can we make a valid assessment of the law’s impact. To evaluate too soon and

110

launch further rulemaking projects would layer regulation upon regulation and risk

further erosion of the public trust.

A Concerted Effort is Needed

Many parties, including corporate managements, boards of directors, audit committees, auditors, investment banks, attorneys, securities analysts, rating agencies,

standard-setters, and regulators were accused of contributing to the string of U.S.

corporate failures that shocked the world financial community. As SEC Chairman

William Donaldson testified recently before this Committee, ‘‘The sweeping reforms

in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act address nearly every aspect and actor in our Nation’s

capital markets.’’ Because many viewed the corporate failures to be the fault of so

many, Federal lawmakers adopted a law that was intentionally far-reaching in

scope and effect. As mandated by the law, the SEC adopted rules that implement

several provisions of the Act, and the General Accounting Office (GAO) and SEC

launched various studies. Shortly thereafter, the major U.S. stock exchanges proposed new rules for listed companies. The PCAOB worked quickly to establish itself

and commence rulemaking and registration activities.

The lawmakers and the regulators have responded. Now it is time for groups and

individuals who prepare, communicate, or use corporate reporting information to

stand and be counted. Clearly, it is not enough that lawmakers and regulators

change the rules; the players must be ready, willing, and able to apply them in the

spirit in which they were intended. If they do not, then the effect of the Act will

be muted and the desired impact lost. As auditors, we stand ready not to let that

happen. As a firm, we have championed the cause of the Act by authoring books,

white papers, and articles and making those publications widely available. We have

taken every opportunity to spread the message of what needs to be done both inside

and outside of the accounting profession to strengthen and safeguard our capital

markets and restore investor faith in those markets. We will continue these efforts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me thank you for your leadership and support to reestablish and

strengthen investor confidence and integrity in the capital markets. Rest assured

that, at PwC, we understand the importance of the role that we play in the capital

formation process. Further, we eagerly look forward to embracing change in the future as well as today. I have great faith in the market and the private sector. This

market is the most effective and efficient ever devised.

Thank you again for inviting me to speak on behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD NUSBAUM

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GRANT THORNTON, LLP

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee,

thank you for inviting me to testify today concerning the impact of the SarbanesOxley Act (the Act). I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss this important

subject with you.

We have seen the effects of the Act first-hand and our chief conclusions are:

(1) The Act has had a positive influence on corporate America, financial reporting,

and the accounting profession. It has been a step in the right direction to restore

trust and confidence in the capital markets. Investors are the winners from this Act,

with greater reliability in financial information. Grant Thornton congratulates you

on having the courage and foresight to adopt this Act. With the benefit of 1 year

of history, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been, in our opinion, a success.

(2) Proper continued execution of the Act is key to restoring investor confidence.

The Act contains many provisions that are just now being implemented. Government regulators, the new Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the accounting profession, corporate America, and all other stakeholders must work together to

accomplish the objectives of the Act. A principles-based approach is necessary for

the successful implementation of the requirements of the Act.

(3) And there is more that needs to be done. To improve financial reporting worldwide, each of those bodies responsible for accounting, auditing or independence

standards must implement principles-based standards and international accounting

and auditing standards must converge. Grant Thornton and other accounting firms

must work with the PCAOB to improve the audit process. Working as a team, corporate America, investors, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the

111

PCAOB, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the international standard setters, the accounting profession, and other stakeholders can improve the business reporting model and the quality and transparency of information used by investors and creditors.

(4) Grant Thornton and other leaders in the business community have responded

to both the spirit and substance of the Act. We have spoken out on the need for

reform and worked hard to support the implementation of the Act. Again, we appreciate your efforts to adopt this important legislation. Grant Thornton is committed

to take the steps necessary to ensure its continued success.

About Grant Thornton

Since our founding in 1924, Grant Thornton has focused on providing audit and

tax services to mid-size companies, generally those with revenues between $25

million and $2 billion, although we have clients both larger and smaller. Grant

Thornton International is the world’s leading accounting, tax and business advisory

organization primarily dedicated to mid-size companies. Through our network of 585

offices in 110 countries, including 50 offices in the United States, partners of the

member firms of Grant Thornton provide personal attention and seamless service

delivery to public and private clients around the globe.

How the Act has Positively Impacted American Business and

the Accounting Profession

I believe that the tone of an organization starts at the top.

As I wrote in Chief Executive magazine this past year—which was cited in the

House Committee on Financial Services’ recent publication, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act:

The First Year; Rebuilding Investor Confidence, Protecting U.S. Capital Markets—

under Sarbanes-Oxley, the role of CEO has taken on a new dimension as numerous

new responsibilities and potential for penalties for corporate wrongdoing—including

prison—now stop directly at the desk of the CEO.

In the past, many CEO’s did not worry about the state of their internal control

systems. Many CEO’s, absent a specific regulatory mandate, came to believe their

control system was adequate—even though they had no way to prove that to be the

case if asked. Today, because of the Act, the SEC requires CEO’s to back up that

fact with a signature and actual evidence. The increased role of the CEO in financial reporting has been, based on our experience, a positive step.

The Act has clarified and, in some cases, strengthened the role and responsibility

of boards of directors and audit committees. Boards can no longer blindly rubberstamp the actions of management. They now must work side-by-side with the auditors to ensure the shareholder interests are protected. Audit committees must be

more independent and expert in carrying out their vital duties. Again, our experience has been that most audit committees and boards of directors have increased

the number and quality of meetings, and the members of most audit committees and

boards appear to be taking their role more seriously since the adoption of the Act.

The Act is forcing public companies and their auditors to make sure that the financial statements are squeaky clean as restatements have jumped 30 percent over

the past year. And despite warnings of increased lawsuits against corporations, that

has not happened, as according to The Wall Street Journal, ‘‘Both the number of

class-action lawsuits and the size of settlements are consistent with previous years.’’

(The Wall Street Journal, ‘‘Sarbanes-Oxley Affects Suits Little, Study Says,’’ by Kara

Scannell, July 24, 2003.)

Thanks to the Act, the quality of information provided to investors from corporations has improved, and we believe that changes mandated by the Act prohibiting

auditors from providing certain services, such as consulting, to their public audit clients has helped in restoring trust in the accounting profession. In fact, a recent Gallup Poll found that the image of the accounting profession has improved significantly over the last year, more than any other profession tested.

According to the poll analysis, ‘‘The one industry whose image has improved the

most compared to last year’s is accounting, which has risen from a net rating of 0

percent last year (that is, as many people gave it a negative rating as a positive

one) to a +31 percent this year. Other industries and business sectors tested include

the computer industry, real estate, banking, the legal field, the airline industry, and

healthcare.’’ While one could argue that the accounting profession had significant

room to improve, we are pleased to see that the Act, combined with the actions of

Grant Thornton and other accounting firms, has helped to restore the public’s image

of our profession. Most important, the Act has helped restore the public’s confidence

in financial reporting.

112

Execution of the Act is Key to Improvements in our Financial Markets

The Act established the PCAOB, which is now beginning to execute its provisions.

We believe that accounting firms must not only cooperate with the PCAOB, but also

act as leaders to help the PCAOB operate effectively. Likewise, the PCAOB should

not only monitor and discipline accounting firms, but should also work with the

firms to improve the audit process. This cooperation between the new Board and

accounting firms should result in further improvements of the financial reporting

process. The functioning of the PCAOB will be a major factor in evaluating the success of the Act in future years. The focus of the PCAOB and the Government should

not be on increased litigation against accounting firms, but instead on helping accounting firms work with the PCAOB and Government to ensure the successful implementation of the Act into the foreseeable future.

Although there have been several well-publicized allegations of accounting misdeeds and auditing failures, there are many more instances where auditors have

discharged their professional responsibilities, uncovering fraudulent acts. It is

equally important that the PCAOB, in addition to disciplining auditors, find the

means to recognize and reward auditors who act without self interest to protect investors.

Some provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are crystal clear. Other provisions are

subject to interpretation. Grant Thornton believes that any gray areas in the Act

must be implemented in the spirit of transparency and investor protection. We believe that was the intent of you, the bill’s authors.

The internal control provisions of the Act are also just now being implemented.

The degree of an auditor’s independence is driven by the separation between management (which produces the financial information) and the users of the information

provided by management. The standard for independence is heightened as that separation increases. We firmly believe that the auditors of publicly held companies

must hold themselves to the highest possible standard of independence.

For this reason, Grant Thornton will not accept engagements to document, evaluate, or design our public audit clients’ internal controls, including engagements to

document existing controls, or to perform evaluations of existing controls that management uses to support their conclusions regarding the effective design of those

controls. To do so, we feel, is a conflict of interest. Instead, as auditors, we will audit

the internal controls as designed, documented, and evaluated by management, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

What Still Needs to be Done

For the last 20 months, we have been advocating the need to adopt a principlesbased approach to accounting standards setting. Enron’s former Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow created hundreds of ‘‘special-purpose entities’’ to hide Enron’s

debt. He argued they were within the letter of the law, under the current rulesbased approach to accounting. But we must ask ourselves, ‘‘Is this right?’’ Is this

what financial disclosure is about? Or is it presenting the truth and transparency

to investors and other stakeholders? I strongly believe that the accounting profession and the standards setters (the FASB, SEC, PCAOB, etc.) need to embrace a

’spirit of the law’ versus ‘‘rule of the law’’ approach to standards setting. The current

rulebook approach for all standards setting fosters a culture of ‘‘if the rulebook does

not specifically forbid it, it must be okay.’’

Albert Einstein said, ‘‘The problems that we have created cannot be solved at the

same level of thinking that created them.’’ A principles-based approach is necessary

for the successful implementation of the requirements of the Act. Rather than establishing a new set of complicated rules—which is the approach that fostered the

problems the Act seeks to solve—we believe a focus on principles will result in

stronger adherence to the spirit of the Act. A principles-based approach would provide greater assurance to the public and investors that management, auditors, and

those responsible for corporate governance will do the right thing.

Convergence with international accounting standards will also improve the global

quality of reporting. Consistent accounting principles throughout the world will

allow global corporations and auditors the ability to improve financial reporting.

Further, a principles-based approach to accounting standards would provide greater

assurance to the public and investors that management, auditors, and those responsible for financial reporting will provide information that is in the public’s best interest.

There also must be a renewed effort to improve the current business reporting

model. Grant Thornton has taken a leadership role in this effort. In December 2002,

the board of directors of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

(AICPA) formed a special committee on enhanced business reporting (the special

ommittee) and appointed our Managing Partner of Strategic Services, Mike Starr,

113

as the Chair. Under the leadership of Mr. Starr, the special committee adopted the

following mission:

‘‘To establish a consortium of investors, creditors, regulators, management,

and other stakeholders to improve the quality and transparency of information used for decisionmaking.’’

The special committee has also written a monograph, Enhanced Business Reporting, which grounds the project intellectually and guides future activity.

Ned Regan, President of Baruch College and former New York State Comptroller,

is set to meet with the special committee to discuss the steps necessary to establish

and launch the consortium. Mr. Regan will lead the efforts to recruit a small group

of very prominent U.S. business and civic leaders to help put together an Enhanced

Business Reporting Consortium. The members will be high-level representatives of

prominent business, accounting, auditing, investor, creditor, foundation, and Government groups. This will be done carefully so the Consortium will have representatives from all the key groups necessary to make this significant change in reporting.

It is anticipated that the Consortium members, from their positions of national

stature, will be advocates for enhanced business reporting and guide our collective

activities to make the project goals a reality. When fully organized, the Consortium

will be freestanding, with financial support coming from the AICPA and several

foundations. Subject to special committee approval, staff, research, and conference

activity is expected to be headquartered at Baruch. Academic and foundation partners in other parts of the country are expected to join with Baruch in supporting

the Consortium’s activities. The objective is simple; improve the quality and transparency of business reporting as part of the process to rebuild investor confidence

and protect capital markets.

The first building block for improving the business reporting model is effective

corporate governance, and effective corporate governance starts with a board of directors who demonstrate a fierce commitment to integrity; demand excellence in all

efforts; provide leadership, and motivation; and, display respect for people, ethical

standards, laws, and regulations. Strong corporate governance is the bedrock upon

which high quality, transparent information is built. And executive and director

compensation is the litmus test for determining the effectiveness of corporate governance. The second building block is transparency. However, it must be noted that effective corporate governance is necessary to ensure that there is transparency in the

information reported by management. Warren Buffet explained the need for transparency in his letter to the shareholders in the Berkshire-Hathaway, Inc. 2000 annual report, stating that:

‘‘At Berkshire, full reporting means giving you the information that we

wish you to give us if our positions were reversed. What Charlie and I

would want under that circumstance would be all the important facts about

current operations as well as the CEO’s frank view of long-term economic

characteristics of the business. We would expect both a lot of financial details and a discussion of any significant data we would need to interpret

what was presented.’’

Investors and creditors should have the right to see an entity through the eyes

of management. Competitive disadvantage should not be used as an overarching

basis to avoid providing information to investors and creditors. Competitors frequently know a great deal about an entity from former employees, mutual suppliers

and customers, market research, industry publications, engineering studies of products, and the marketplace itself.

Globally accepted accounting principles are at the core of enhanced business reporting. In addition to the basic financial statements, management needs to provide

users with insight into management’s assessment of:

• Competition and industry factors that effect the entity’s position in the business

environment; • Current and future regulatory developments that may effect business strategy;

and • Factors such as the general economy or demographics that may effect business

performance.

Currently, MD&A is nothing more than a narrative recitation of information contained in the financial statements. Management needs to provide information about

the entity’s strategy, plans, opportunities, and risks. These quantitative and qualitative disclosures need to focus on key performance indicators and how these indicators compare to industry peers. We need to develop commonly accepted definitions

and principles for these performance indicators.

114

The enhanced business reporting model requires a change in the auditor’s role.

Auditing standards need to provide guidance on how to provide assurance on the

qualitative disclosures required by information transparency. As stated above,

Grant Thornton and other accounting firms must work with the PCAOB to improve

the audit process. Working as a team, corporate America, investors, the SEC, the

PCAOB, FASB, the international standard setters, the accounting profession, and

other stakeholders can improve the business reporting model and the quality and

transparency of information used by investors and creditors. We ask you to continue

to support the cooperation and efforts to accomplish this goal.

What Grant Thornton is Doing

I am proud to say that in February 2002, we issued the Grant Thornton Five

Point Plan to Restore Public Trust. As a result, Grant Thornton became the first

global accounting organization to provide a program of reforms to regain public

trust in financial information. The points are:

The policies and reward systems of the major firms must reflect an uncompromising commitment to professional excellence. The actions of the management of

those major firms must make it clear that nothing is more important than their professional responsibility. In addition, all the major firms must collectively agree to

limit the nature and extent of services provided to publicly held clients. Such agreement should specify that the firms would only provide assurance and advisory and

tax services to their publicly held audit clients. For example, certain consulting

services such as outsourcing should be prohibited. We must change our business

models significantly in response to the demands from the public. To do otherwise

ignores a fundamental precept: That businesses set priorities based on those drivers

that have the greatest impact on earnings. Assurance and advisory and tax services

must once again be the business drivers and focus for the auditors of SEC registrants.

Audit committees must ensure that the auditor’s primary responsibility is to the

shareholders and that the auditor’s relationship with management is clearly subordinate to such responsibility. Audit committees must do a better job of protecting

shareholder interests. They must challenge management and the auditors on the

treatment of significant accounting issues. They must be diligent in determining

that their auditing firms are free of conflicts of interest. The audit committee plays

a critical role in this regard. The regulators need to take the steps necessary to reinforce the audit committee’s need to be truly independent of management. Audit committees must be vigilant in performing their duties to ensure that the appropriate

auditor-client relationship is maintained and that management is challenged on all

significant transactions, including the underlying business purpose of those transactions.

The SEC must amend its rules for proxy disclosures of auditor’s fees. The amended

rules should require separate disclosure of fees for (1) assurance and advisory services (for example, those services that meet the definition for assurance services), (2)

tax services and (3) all other services. The current proxy rules for disclosure of the

fees paid to the auditors, which resulted from a compromise, are misleading because

services that do not give rise to a conflict of interest are inappropriately combined

with services that can and, in some instances, have created conflicts of interest.

A principles-based approach should be adopted for all standards setting areas: accounting, auditing, and independence. In addition, the auditing standards should be

expanded to incorporate a forensic approach. A year ago, the previous administration at the SEC fueled a public debate that effectively killed the Independence

Standards Board and its proposed principles-based independence framework. Those

same individuals conveniently continue to ignore that this framework, properly constructed and implemented, would have addressed some of the very issues that we

are trying to solve today. The current rulebook approach for all standards setting

fosters a culture of ‘‘if the rulebook does not specifically forbid it, it must be okay,’’

where there is more concern about the form of transactions than their substance.

A principles-based framework for setting standards provides greater assurance to

the public that management, auditors, and those responsible for corporate governance will do the right thing.

AICPA should coordinate a review of the audit methodologies of the major accounting firms. We believe that Grant Thornton has an excellent auditing methodology

and we are willing to share our best practices with others. We assume that others

feel the same about their methodology. The best practices of these firms should be

shared with the entire accounting profession. This unprecedented sharing of best

practices by the major firms would serve the public interest by ensuring that all

auditors of SEC registrants have access to the best practices of the leaders of the

profession.

115

I am pleased that three out of our five proposals were included in the Act.

Grant Thornton with its staff, industry and technical expertise, and global reach

has expanded its market share of public audit clients in the last 2 years with the

consolidation of the profession. I am proud that Grant Thornton was the first of the

major accounting firms to file the registration application with Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. We are anxious to begin working with the Board.

We have also taken actions to implement, and spoken out on the effective implementation of, the Act. Last month, as stated above, Grant Thornton became the first

and only one of the six global accounting organizations to go on the record publicly

and prohibit services for its public audit clients related to the documenting of internal controls. Consistent with our guiding principles, we will not provide these services because to do so violates the spirit of the Act. On the other hand, we have spent

millions of dollars to develop auditCARE sm, our proprietary tool for controls assessment and risk evaluation, and to train our people to better audit the internal controls designed and documented by management. We have discussed our process and

tools with the staff of the PCAOB.

We are also very involved in increasing transparency of information providing to

investors. As mentioned above, our partner, Mike Starr, is leading these efforts and

Grant Thornton has endorsed the entire process.

Grant Thornton has consistently spoken out on the need for reform, the proper

execution of those reforms, and the need to continue to improve the financial information used by investors. One of our strategic initiatives is to provide thought leadership to our clients, the accounting profession, and the business and investing community. Grant Thornton is proud and honored to be a part of this hearing, and looks

forward to assisting you in any way we can to improve business reporting and restore investor confidence.

Conclusion

In 1933, Congress passed the Securities Act that led to the creation of the SEC,

designed to restore investor confidence in our capital markets after an estimated

$50 billion in new securities had became worthless to investors.

Now 70 years later, Sarbanes-Oxley has further protected American investors. I

know that I speak for many Americans in thanking you for the countless hours

spent in bringing this landmark legislation to fruition, resulting in improvements

in our financial reporting system in the past year and for many years to come.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEAN HARRIGAN

PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION, CALPERS

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee, it

is an honor and pleasure to be here with you today to discuss a topic of such importance to investors.

My name is Sean Harrigan. I am the President of the Board of Administration

of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

CalPERS has long been a leader in corporate governance. It goes without saying

that CalPERS has had serious concerns over the crisis in our financial markets. Our

organization was one of the fist investors to embark upon an initiative of financial

market reform as the depth and magnitude of the crisis facing our markets became

increasingly apparent in early 2002.

Now, almost 2 years later, we have accomplished a great deal. The primary vehicle for reform has been the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that was passed just over 1 year

ago. While I recognize that implementation of the Act will realistically go on for

some time, I think it is safe to say that this historic legislation is to be credited

with an excellent start toward restoring investor confidence and improving the

credibility of our financial markets.

Today, I would like to highlight some of the important elements of the SarbanesOxley Act which have had a tremendous impact. I would also like to offer some suggestions for the next steps that are critical to completing the job that we have all

set out to accomplish—restoring the public’s trust and confidence in our financial

markets. I still believe that this goal is an admirable one. It will help us as longterm investors to satisfy our obligation to our membership. But it will also help

strengthen the efficiency of our markets which is crucial for effective capital allocation and sustainable economic growth.

First, however, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude on behalf of CalPERS

and its members for all that this Committee, and in particular Senator Sarbanes,

116

1 CalPERS adopted two narrow exceptions to this rule. Under these exceptions we consider

corporate tax form preparation and SEC compliance work to be acceptable services for external

auditors.

for his leadership on this issue. As can be expected when industries with a vested

interest face real reform, there was significant resistance to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

We are proud to have been a vocal supporter, and we continue to play a role in implementing the Act and evaluating the effectiveness of reform.

It is from this perspective that I offer our analysis and comments on the impact

of the Act over 1 year after its enactment and on what we are focused on going forward. There are several components of the Act that we feel are most important and

I will focus on those areas broadly.

Auditor Independence

We believe there are significant conflicts of interest created when an auditor is

simultaneously receiving fees from a company for audit services and nonaudit services such as consulting. CalPERS supported an outright ban on nonaudit services

for the external independent auditor. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act went a long way toward addressing this issue by establishing a list of prohibited services.

However, from our perspective as a significant investor and user of financial

statements, this is perhaps the main area in which the Act can be improved.

Investors rely upon financial statements for accurate and objective information.

We have witnessed how much harm can come from inaccurate and fraudulent accounting. Auditors play a crucial and irreplaceable role in ensuring the accuracy of

financial statements.

While the goal of the Act was certainly aimed at eliminating the conflicts inherent

when an independent auditor receives fees for nonaudit services, two significant

types of services remain permitted. Under the rules implementing the Act, auditors

may still under certain circumstances provide tax planning and consulting services

as well as certain information technology consulting.

CalPERS continues to feel that an outright ban on nonaudit services is necessary.

In response to this issue, CalPERS has taken steps to communicate our concerns

directly to companies in which we invest. During the 2003 proxy season, CalPERS

withheld its votes for audit committee members when they used their auditors for

any nonaudit services.1

We have also analyzed proxy disclosures in an effort to monitor how companies

use their external auditor. Again, it is important to remember the rules adopted by

the SEC related to audit independence are still being implemented. However, our

analysis indicates that approximately 50 percent of the total revenue to the audit

firms in our study was nonaudit related. More specifically, approximately 40 percent

can be attributed to consulting, advisory, or planning services that include tax related work. This remains a deeply troubling situation that we feel has the significant potential to impair the objectivity of the independent auditor.

In the coming proxy season, CalPERS will continue to withhold its vote for audit

committee members at companies that use the auditor for nonaudit services. Because this remains such a significant concern we urge you to pursue tougher rules

through the Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to address this issues.

Accounting Industry Oversight

In response to the clear failure of the accounting industry to self regulate, the Act

created a new independent body to oversee audit firms. CalPERS strongly supported

this provision. In particular, we advocated for strong independence, strong regulatory powers (such as the ability to subpoena and discipline), and independent

funding.

The PCAOB is now operational and is making progress toward its inspection and

disciplinary programs. I am pleased to see that the PCAOB is preparing its own auditing and attestation standards. As you are aware, the Board is currently focused

on internal controls over financial reporting. To investors, ensuring proper internal

controls over financial reporting is critical. I do not accept the criticism by some in

the business community that the additional focus on this area is misplaced or the

cost associated with improving internal controls is not worth it. To investors that

rely on financial statements and controls, it is completely worth it. The benefits

clearly outweigh the costs. I applaud your focus on internal controls in SarbanesOxley.

117

Strengthening the Enforcement of Federal Securities Laws

The Act provided numerous enforcement tools to strengthen the ability of the SEC

to regulate the securities markets and compensate injured investors. It will take a

number of years to completely evaluate the effectiveness of these new tools. However, there are some areas where we feel particular attention should be paid to ensuring that the SEC is adequately equipped. The Committee should consider studying whether additional authority for the SEC to ban individuals from serving as an

officer or director at public companies is appropriate. In addition, the Committee

may wish to study additional authority for the SEC to claw back gains from executives that are in any part attributable to misconduct. The SEC has already exercised

new authority (under Section 1103) to escrow ‘‘extraordinary payments’’ during an

investigation. In its most recent action under Section 1103, the SEC successfully petitioned the court to escrow for 45 days a total of $37.64 million intended for two

former executives of Gemstar International. CalPERS applauds this action and in

fact filed an amicus brief in support of the SEC’s efforts.

Scenarios in which a significant payment follows corporate failure as a result of

poor financial performance adds insult to injury for harmed investors. This is especially true when any portion of a gain realized by an executive can be attributable

to malfeasance. Any reasonable authority we can provide for the SEC to rectify

these types of situation should be duly considered.

Next Steps

There are too many other detailed provisions within the Act to mention today. At

this time, I would prefer to focus on some of the actions we think still need to be

addressed.

The next steps that we think are most important are still focused on the same

goal, which is to help restore investor confidence in the U.S. financial markets.

While there are many issues we feel are important, I would like to focus on five

reform items that are among our most important:

Audit Independence

As I mentioned, CalPERS will continue to take action through its governance program and other means to help strengthen the independence of the external auditor.

As a major investor and financial statement user, we feel strongly that there should

be a bright line ban on nonaudit services. Again, the primary concern we have is

that external auditors are still permitted under certain circumstances to provide tax

consulting and planning services and certain IT consulting services. These services

provide a clear conflict of interest because the auditor may still be in a position to

audit their own advice and must maintain a ‘‘client’’ relationship beyond the audit

that impairs objectivity.

Examining the Role of Market Participants

The SEC as well as other organizations continue to conduct analysis of the role

of varying constituencies within the financial system. Much like the audit industry,

many of the remaining constituencies have a role in maintaining the market’s integrity. In some cases, these players are proving that their industry has significant

structural impediments or conflicts that are contrary to the interests of investors

and the markets. For example, CalPERS has been active in helping to curb conflicts

inherent in firms that provide both investment banking and equity research. We

urge the Committee to continue to examine these various constituencies with a balance in mind that recognizes both their need to operate in an effective manner and

yet fill a meaningful role in helping ensure the integrity of the financial markets.

SEC Budget

Congress and the President have dramatically increased the budget of the SEC,

and CalPERS has supported this action on numerous occasions. As our primary

market regulator, The SEC plays a crucial role in ensuring the integrity of the U.S.

capital markets. This has obvious long-term implications for the health of our economy and on our ability as an investor to satisfy our obligation to our members. We

feel that the focus on increasing the resources for the SEC is highly appropriate

(and a good long-term investment in our market), but it is only half of the problem.

To ensure that the SEC can be an objective market regulator and continue to build

a sustainable and consistent program it should have a greater degree of independence from the Federal budget process. This position is similar to the support

CalPERS has given for independence in funding for the PCAOB and the Financial

Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Congress recognized the merits of providing

a safe and independent funding source for these organizations, and we believe the

same arguments apply to the role of the SEC, and are perhaps even stronger given

the SEC’s prominent role.

118

Open Access to the Proxy

The SEC is currently considering action that would provide investors with greater

ability to nominate directors and have those candidates appear on the same proxy

as management nominated directors. Of all the reforms that have been considered

or enacted since the crisis began, this is perhaps the most significant one for investors. At the heart of many problems that face investors is a lack of accountability

of board members to the owners of the corporation. We believe that one of the root

causes for such issues as abusive executive compensation, lack of oversight that

helps permit fraud, and plain old sub-optimal financial performance is the lack of

accountability of board members to their owners.

A reasonable and balanced approach to providing investors with greater access to

management’s proxy statement will directly address this problem. Because we will

be able to gain greater accountability we will expect more behavior that is consistent with long-term owners’ interests and less short-term decisionmaking and

self-interested behavior that has been so damaging to all of us.

We urge the Committee to help us in support of a reasonable open access policy

that provides long-term investors with the ability to nominate directors without the

prohibitive costs involved in launching a full flown proxy contest.

NYSE Reform

As this Nation’s principal securities market and a so-called self regulatory body,

the NYSE has a distinctive role in helping to restore and then maintain the integrity of our financial markets. We were appalled with the disclosures that came from

the NYSE regarding the compensation package of the former chairman. We feel that

the NYSE has a unique opportunity to meet the challenges that it now faces and

to set an example for corporate America and indeed the world. I sincerely hope that

the resignation of Chairman Grasso does not take the focus away from more substantive reform. Among some specific governance reforms that the Exchange should

consider, we feel strongly it is time to have real investor representation on the

NYSE. This reform alone would provide a change in perspective that would help ensure that the governance of the Exchange will be responsive to its primary constituency and that any regulatory role it retains going forward is meaningful.

In summary, I would like to once again offer my sincere gratitude for all that Sarbanes-Oxley has done for investors. This has been a truly remarkable time in the

history of the U.S. financial markets. I feel strongly that your leadership has been

a significant boost in our efforts to recover. We still need that leadership. I hope

you take my comments accordingly, and as we celebrate the early success of Sarbanes-Oxley, we also keep a watchful eye on its continued implementation and pursue opportunities to responsibly improve upon its reforms.

Thank you and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH TESLIK

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS

SEPTEMBER 23, 2003

On behalf of the Council’s 300 members, I thank you for this opportunity. The

executive summary of this hearing, which examines the effects of the 14-month-old

Sarbanes-Oxley Act, was actually written decades ago during President Nixon’s historic trip to China. As I am sure you recall, during a state dinner on that trip, Secretary of State Kissinger asked the legendary Cho En Lai what he thought of the

18th century French Revolution. Cho’s response: ‘‘Too early to tell.’’

For many reasons it is similarly much too early to write the history of SOXA. But

that has not stopped many from whining loudly to anyone who will listen—including

all of you—that the Act:

• snuffs entrepreneurial spirit,

• prevents board seats from being filled, and

• forces companies to reincorporate on Mars to avoid killer compliance costs.

For example: law firm memos breathlessly warned companies that company credit

cards might now be illegal because the Act bars loans to executives. One CEO asked

me what I thought of this and I responded, ‘‘Ditch the firm. Keep the cards. And

tell everyone to get a grip.’’

Of course there are some new costs. But let us remember 5 key things:

119

• Any change will incur temporary change-over costs. If the United States converted

to the metric system, we would have huge change-over costs and that does not

mean the metric system is bad; it just mean change takes time and costs money.

• Some costs arise from conflicting advice. A major oil company chairman told me

on Friday that his company’s main SOXA costs came from conflicting advice from

consultants, accountants, and lawyers.

• Some costs are unnecessary. Remember, consultants, lawyers, and accountants

make money if they advise companies that they need to be hired to revamp something or other. The CEO of a major pharmaceutical company told me last week

that most of the compliance packages marketed to their company offered unnecessary bells and whistles.

• Many features of SOXA entail very few additional costs.

• It is GOOD that some costs are up. Companies that did not have internals controls should spend money to adopt them. If the PCAOB costs a bit more because

it does a better job, that is money well spent.

Finally, the whining we hear fails to ignore the clear financial benefits that SOXA

is producing. Have we already forgotten that at the largest 1,000 companies that

lost over 75 percent of their value in the 2 years before SOXA, insiders nabbed fully

$66 billion of shareholders’ equity and kept it? That is now much, harder to pull

off and the number of frauds is declining.

Boards are now acting better. Nearly everyone can tell you that. Boards are also

acting faster. Does anyone believe the NYSE or Freddie Mac boards would have

acted as fast before SOXA? SOXA strengthens safety nets so that when wrongdoers

attempt to put a spanner in the spokes of our markets, they are stopped earlier.

SOXA could not cover everything in the short time it was enacted. It is essential

that the SEC follow up with increased shareholder access to the corporate proxy. It

is essential that SRO’s and GSE’s, such as the New York Stock Exchange, get restructured so that their regulatory functions are aligned with investor interests.

These are critical add ons.

But SOXA has other value besides its immediate effects.

I am sure everyone in this room agrees that the fact that our markets have been

for the past many decades the cleanest and most efficient in the world has brought

great wealth to most of us; even to Americans who hold no shares and have no pensions. People all over the world invest here because they believe that are markets

protect their investments best; this creates jobs, pensions, and a vibrant economy.

But we are at very real risk of losing this edge. Increasingly special interests have

been successful at rewriting the rules that govern our markets so that they benefit

and investors suffer. Special interests visit Washington daily; average Americans

cannot.

As soon as it is recognized that our markets are losing their integrity—they can

and will flow almost immediately to any other country that maintains a better system. Markets can move overnight unlike other industries so this risk is very real.

What you all did here just over a year ago was to stem this erosion and take a

bold stand in favor of clean, investor-protective markets. On behalf of my members’

beneficiaries and on behalf of all of our children, who have the most to lose if our

markets lose their edge, I ask you—no, I beg you—to stand firm. Our jobs, our pensions, our homes, and our way of life depend on real protection of—not lip service

to—clean markets. You hold the key—little else you do here has greater importance.

Thank you.

(121)

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT AND

RESTORING INVESTOR CONFIDENCE

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Richard C. Shelby (Chairman of the

Committee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD C. SHELBY

Chairman SHELBY. The hearing will come to order.

Senator Sarbanes is probably stuck in traffic somewhere between

here and Baltimore, but I will tell you, he will be here as soon as

he can get here, and he wanted me to say that.

This is the final hearing in a series examining the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and its impact on investor confidence. A primary focus of Sarbanes-Oxley is to change the ‘‘tone

at the top’’ of public companies by increasing the accountability of

officers and directors and strengthening corporate governance principles. The Act mandates new audit committee requirements and

requires executive officers to certify their financial statements, institute rigorous internal controls, and disclose more information regarding operations. The Act addresses a boardroom culture that for

too long was characterized by cozy relationships and the lack of objective and critical analysis of management’s performance.

More important than any one provision of Sarbanes-Oxley is the

underlying message that corporate America needs to change its

ways in order to regain the trust of investors. Even though Sarbanes-Oxley has contributed to a renewed investor confidence,

some remain concerned that the Act is too costly and will negatively impact corporate behavior. Many believe that companies

have incurred unreasonably high compliance costs associated with

increased auditor and legal fees. Others contend that SarbanesOxley has hurt the markets by requiring executives to focus on

process at the expense of corporate risktaking.

As with any landmark legislation, companies will experience a

certain amount of uncertainty and cost increases as they implement the law and modify their business practices. Although I

acknowledge increased compliance costs associated with implementing Sarbanes-Oxley, I also recognize that these costs were necessary to address the surprising erosion of business principles that

122

became evident with the recent scandals. Further, the Act does require executives and directors to focus on procedure and process in

order to ensure that corporate decisions are the result of considered

decisionmaking. Attention to process, however, does not have to

come at the expense of corporate innovation.

As I have previously stated, the Act does not penalize risktaking

but rather promotes transparent and honest business practices.

With the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, the President and Congress

laid the foundation for a new era of corporate accountability and

governance. Congress, however, cannot legislate that boards of directors tackle difficult issues or that investors trust the markets.

We cannot penetrate the executive suites and boardrooms to ensure

that officers and directors have taken Sarbanes-Oxley to heart and

have changed their practices. True reform will be manifested in

new corporate cultures that adopt the spirit of Sarbanes-Oxley and

reflect the shareholders’ best interests. I think it will take a great

deal of time and effort before investors fully regain their trust and

confidence in the markets. Therefore, much needs to be done before

corporate America can state that it has addressed the root causes

of the recent scandals.

A successful implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley is the first step.

Executives, directors, and their advisers must remain vigilant in

guarding against conflicts of interest and misconduct that result in

corporations’ profiting at their shareholders’ expense. As corporate

governance and financial reporting standards evolve, corporations

and their advisers must proactively adopt new guidelines that

maintain a high level of integrity.

As we have recently learned, it is all too easy to lose investors’

trust, and it is much harder to earn it back. The witnesses on our

first panel today play an important role in establishing new standards for corporate governance and financial reporting. The Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise

was convened in June 2002 to address the recent corporate scandals and crisis in investor confidence. The Conference Board issued

a set of findings and recommendations addressing a number of prospective reforms that companies should consider to further improve

governance and financial reporting.

With us from the Conference Board are its Chairman and three

Commissioners. I would like to welcome Chairman Pete Peterson

and Commissioners Charles Bowsher, Ralph Larsen, and Dr. Paul

Volcker, former Chairman of the Fed.

The witnesses for our second panel will be Brian Anderson, the

CFO of Baxter International; John Castellani, the President of the

Business Roundtable; Keith Grinstein, the Chairman of Coinstar;

and Richard Trumka, Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL–CIO.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. We will start with

you, Mr. Peterson. Your written testimony will be made part of this

hearing record in its entirety. You proceed as you wish.

123

STATEMENT OF PETER G. PETERSON

CO-CHAIRMAN, THE CONFERENCE BOARD COMMISSION

ON PUBLIC TRUST AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

CHAIRMAN AND CO-FOUNDER, BLACKSTONE GROUP

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear that we

speak to you today as individual members of the Conference Board,

that Treasury Secretary John Snow and I co-chair. Fellow Commissioners Paul Volcker and Chuck Bowsher will speak on our auditing and accounting recommendations. Mr. Ralph Larsen on my left

here, former Chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson—widely

considered to be one of the most ethical companies in America—

and former Chairman of the Business Council, will discuss the critical importance of building an ethical culture within corporations.

In my view, Mr. Chairman—I have been in 50 years now—I have

never seen public trust at this low a level. It matters because our

savings levels in this country are at unprecedented low levels. We

depend on unprecedented amounts of foreign capital, and, therefore, confidence in our markets is extraordinarily important.

I am going to focus my comments today, Mr. Chairman, on executive compensation, which we believe is the most fundamental and

most toxic cause of the great breakdown in public trust. The recent

example of Richard Grasso at the New York Stock Exchange has

only punctuated the need for reform in this area.

Before going getting into our recommendations, I would like to

say just a few words about Sarbanes-Oxley and the possible future

role of this Committee and the Congress.

As to Sarbanes-Oxley, it is in my view, by and large, a very constructive and much needed piece of legislation. Already, I sense a

sea change, Mr. Chairman, in the attitudes toward corporate governance practices to implement better governance. I have never

seen boards of directors and CEO’s as diligent and as proactively

involved as they are today.

Moreover, I believe that the private sector needs some time not

only to fully digest Sarbanes-Oxley, but also to make constructive

changes in other areas of corporate governance. Frankly, Mr.

Chairman, history seems to teach us that, particularly in the area

of executive compensation, Congressional action has in times past

had some serious unintended and negative effects and resulting in

certain very ironic, unintended side effects and rigidities. Let me

give you an example. In 1993, the Congress passed the $1 million

cap on cash compensation deductibility. It inadvertently set off an

absolute explosion, Mr. Chairman, in the awards of what we call

fixed-price options and inflating senior compensation dramatically

in the process. That was hardly the intent of that legislation. This

kind of well-intentioned but unfortunate Congressional involvement is the political equivalent of what the medical profession, borrowing from the Greeks—I thought Senator Sarbanes would be

here, so I was going to appeal to him.

Chairman SHELBY. Please repeat it. He will get here.

Mr. PETERSON. The medical profession has something called the

‘‘iatrogenic effect’’—that is, diseases or ill effects that are caused by

the ‘‘iatro,’’ the doctor, in Greek.

Now, when we started our work, Mr. Chairman, I, at least, had

assumed that these widely reported general increases in compensaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
124

tion would present the major problem to the public. All of us on

this Commission had read the BusinessWeek report that showed

CEO compensation going up 9.5 times faster than the average

worker. We also saw reports that in 1980, the average CEO made

42 times what the average employee did, and then it was, 20 years

later, 500 times—far higher than any country in the world, that

ratio.

We were also very much aware, Mr. Chairman, of those who

questioned management’s sincerity in saying that compensation

should be related to productivity. Critics asked the question: Has

management’s productivity grown 9.5 times faster than the average

worker? William McDonough, whom you know well, and someone

I respect a great deal, head of the Public Accounting Board now but

then-head of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, in a widely

publicized speech at the Trinity Church of New York, said the following: ‘‘I am old enough to have known both the CEO’s of 20 years

ago and those of today. I can assure you that the CEO’s of today

are not 10 times better than those of 20 years ago.’’

Now, this huge imbalance between the compensation of senior

executives and other management and workers has certainly contributed to the plummeting public trust. But as we looked further,

Mr. Chairman, into this issue, I came to believe that the more

dominant contributor to the loss of public trust were the highly

publicized cases of excessive and, I would say, egregious compensation of CEO’s in failing or failed companies. You will probably recall a Financial Times headline saying, ‘‘A Stunning Payoff For

Corporate Failure.’’ Who could have not been impressed with the

Fortune magazine cover showing kind of a rogues’ gallery of CEO’s,

saying, ‘‘You Bought, They Sold.’’ These were companies whose

stock prices had fallen 75 percent or more shortly after they got big

gains and the stockholders had big losses. As the headline of the

Fortune article said, ‘‘Since 1999, hundreds of Greedy Executives in America’s Worst Performing Companies Have Sold $66 Billion

Worth of Stock.’’ In effect, the Fortune article seemed to be asking

the corporate version of the Watergate question. It may be ironic

that a Nixon Cabinet officer would bring up that metaphor but,

nonetheless, it is appropriate: What did these executives know

about their companies’ declining prospects? And when did they

know it?

These kinds of public suspicions led to our recommendation of

full, conspicuous, and readily understandable—plain English, plain

sight—disclosures of all executive compensation arrangements. In

addition, to reassure the public that senior management was not

involved in stock transactions involving the company in advance of

material information, we recommended that executive officers give

advance notice of their intention to dispose of the company’s equity

securities.

Now, why do I believe that excessive compensation at these

failed or failing companies—rather than simply the overall increase

in compensation—is the more dominant explanation of the precipitous decline in the public’s trust? Mr. Chairman, you know that

many Americans believe that the American Dream is a real possibility for them. Witness the interesting statistical anomaly that 20

percent of Americans believe they are in the upper 1 percent of inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
125

come, and another 20 percent believe they will be someday. Moreover, $20 million salaries for genuine sports stars do not engender

anything comparable to the criticism or anger engendered by executive compensation. Their success is perhaps seen as something to

be admired as long as they perform, with the hope that they or

their kin can someday achieve that success.

In many of the corporate scandals, the public witnessed certain

executives reaping unprecedented gains just prior to the time when

their shareholders suffered huge losses, and many of their employees lost their jobs and at the same time saw their retirement savings suffer irreparable damage. You know, Mr. Chairman, that the

most highly visible publicized case was the case of Enron. You may

recall that Dan Yankelovitch, the well-known public opinion expert,

reported that Americans were particularly outraged and frightened

by widely publicized reports that restrictions that were placed on

employees selling their company stock held in their retirement accounts during periods of rapidly falling prices were far greater than

those placed on Enron’s executives. Employees and the public alike

saw this phenomenon as still another example of a rigged system

that favored executives over nonexecutive employees.

So after much analysis, our Commission came to this triad of

principles that I will briefly review.

Number one, a renewed focus on the long-term—and I emphasize

‘‘long-term’’—success of the company.

Two, a renewed focus on corporate operating performance, not

simply on stock price performance, which can obviously be capricious. With this in mind, the Commission recommended that very

independent compensation committees who hired and fired any

compensation consultants and suggested they should be unconstrained by industry median compensation statistics or by the company’s own past compensation practices or levels when awarding

senior compensation. We, instead, thought that the board should

establish performance-based incentives that reinforce the corporate

performance goals approved by the board, for example, return on

equity, profit growth, cost containment, operating cashflow, cash

management, and other nonfinancial objectives.

Three, we emphasized there should be a renewed focus, Mr.

Chairman, on long-term stock ownership which can validate operating performance and help drive long-term corporate performance,

and more truly align the long-term interests of the shareholders

with that of management. History teaches us that stock prices and

operating performance can deviate a good deal over the short-term.

But over the long-term, there is a much higher correlation. That

is why we believe that it is critical to focus executive compensation

on the long-term.

Our recommendations longer holding periods for equity-based

compensation and for substantial stock ownership requirements by

senior management and directors that fit into this practice. If you

think about it, Mr. Chairman, if we had just had the requirement

of longer holding periods and long holdings of stock, many of the

scandals that occurred would never have occurred in the first place.

A few words about the fixed-price stock options which came to

dominate the entire compensation field. They were not expensed

and did not reduce operating earnings. Nevertheless, as I am sure

126

you know, they conferred substantial tax deductions on employers.

As a result, there became a perception, Mr. Chairman, in some

companies that they were either free or very low cost. This, along

with the 1993 tax legislation that I referred to, led to an absolute

explosion in the number of these fixed-price options. For example,

Mr. Chairman, in a very short period of time, stock options as a

percent of total equity doubled, and in many, many cases, stock option gains came to dominate the compensation of executives. The

combination, of one, huge number of options, two, a bull market;

and three, short holding periods, led to be highly seductive in some

cases and led to the practice of ‘‘managing’’ short-term earnings.

This phenomenon also led to unprecedented short-term gains by

some executives—gains unrelated to corporate operating performance or, if you prefer, too de-linked from operating performance.

We, therefore, came to believe that the elimination of the accounting bias toward fixed-price options, which we felt had led to

an inadequate focus on operating performance, is one of the most

powerful reasons to favor the uniform expensing of all forms of equity-based compensation. We would hope that the Financial Accounting Board and the International Accounting Standards Board

would adopt a uniform standard, thereby increasing transparency

and comparability among companies on an international basis, Mr.

Chairman. The uniform expensing of equity-based compensation

would also, we believe, improve the comparability of earnings

among companies operating across different industries. I, at least,

was surprised to learn that, whereas expensing of options in Standard & Poor companies generally would decrease reported earnings

by perhaps 10 percent, in the information technology industry the

expensing of options would reduce earnings by approximately 70

percent.

We believe that a more level accounting playing field would result in a far greater use of long-term compensation incentive programs that are closely tied to actual operating performance and

that would not distort financial results for investors. If all forms

of compensation were treated similarly in terms of their impact on

profitability, then it seems to me that companies will be much

more likely to choose programs that offer real, balanced incentives

to help create long-term value.

It pleases me to report that 175 of the Nation’s largest 500 companies have announced their intention to expense options. Even

greater progress has been made in the important area of achieving

better balance of power and checks and balances by either appointing a nonchairman CEO, a presiding director, or a lead director.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that we are not going to

stand by and simply hope that the private sector will substantially

improve their executive compensation practices. We are now very

actively involved in getting a large number of corporate directors,

CEO’s, large investors, and others to participate in public advertisements and other public statements that pledge their companies

and themselves to implement executive compensation principles I

have just outlined.

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, we thank you warmly for your constructive efforts in formulating and passing the Sarbanes-Oxley

legislation. At the same time, before developing further legislation,

127

particularly in the area of executive compensation, we ask that you

give those of us in the private sector some time to make the

changes that are so obviously needed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. Larsen.

STATEMENT OF RALPH LARSEN

FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOHNSON & JOHNSON

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Picking up on Pete’s

comments, I would like to just give you my personal perspective on

the reception and impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation and

make some other points. I, obviously, cannot speak for other chief

executive officers, but in talking with a wide range of business

leaders, I sense that the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation has been well

received and is well on its way to being implemented.

The legislation has had, I think, significant positive impact in a

number of important areas, specifically increased director engagement, awareness, and expertise; increased disclosure and transparency in financial reporting; a significantly heightened sense of

personal responsibility and attention to detail. And I think those

things are very important.

So, on balance, I think the legislation has been accepted well in

corporations throughout the United States, and their directors and

senior executives are working hard to fulfill all of its requirements.

And I can assure you based on everything that I have seen that

Sarbanes-Oxley is being taken very, very seriously.

With that said, I would like to focus my comments this morning

on just one point that I think is vitally important, and it is something that I am sure each person in this room has learned through

their own life experiences, and that is, the importance of the tone

at the top.

Clearly, it is essential that we have a basic structure and framework of laws and regulations to define the boundaries of acceptable

personal and corporate behavior. But, I would argue that all of the

laws in the world cannot ensure that corporations or the individuals that run them will perform with integrity day in and day out.

The reality is there will always be those few souls who are inclined

to compromise, or to put it bluntly, chisel or to connive, or who lie

awake nights conniving how to circumvent laws.

But after 40 years in business and 13 as a chief executive officer,

one of the most fundamental things that I learned is the importance of a values-based culture to the success, the long-term success of the enterprise. A culture that honors integrity and demands

it of all.

I also learned that the example set by the chief executive officer

of a company has a profound and far-reaching impact on how the

entire organization behaves. For better or worse, the tone at the

top largely establishes the cultural norm within an organization. It

defines what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. I learned

that, yes, people listened to what I said in the endless speeches

that I gave, but much more importantly, they watched how I behaved, particularly when the going got tough and the stakes were

128

high. They watched as a management to see whether we made ethical decisions, whether our walk matched our talk. In our company

culture, we encouraged people to challenge our decisionmaking

process, and we tried to make it as open as possible.

I was particularly struck by how closely they followed and often

emulated the processes by which we made our business decisions,

particularly when we were wrestling with issues in which there

was no clear right and wrong, where we were operating in uncharted waters. They watched whether we strove for ethical solutions to the issues at hand. In the give and take of internal debate,

was the conversation and the discussion honorable? Was it honest?

Was it transparent? Did we make it clear that integrity, both personal and corporate, were of paramount importance? Or did we

somehow signal that we were willing to consider bumping up

against the ethical line if the stakes were high enough?

The reality is, and the point I am making is, that individuals and

organizations learn most quickly and most memorably by watching

the conduct of their leaders. If you have questionable ethics at the

top, that tone will permeate the entire organization, and it will poison ultimately the entire organization. To put it plainly, you show

me a conniver at the top, and I will show you a corporation headed

for big-time trouble.

The good news here is that the boards of directors and chief executive officers are focusing as never before on the importance of personal integrity and a values-based culture. They are focusing on it

because they realize that in order to thrive and prosper over the

long-term, businesses must be built on trust. It must be trusted by

all of its constituency—customers, employees, share owners, and,

yes, government. Boards realize that in any large organization with

people scattered all over the world, a values-based culture is the

only way to ensure that the enterprise for which they stand responsible does not engage in misconduct, does not break trust, and does

not become tomorrow’s headline.

The scandals of the past few years have once again demonstrated

the importance of the tone at the top—a tone that makes it clear

through word and personal example that a commitment to the

highest ethical standards are the way the business will be run, and

nothing less is acceptable.

This point is made well in the Commission’s report. We stressed

the importance of the board of directors’ assessment of ethical values in choosing a chief executive officer and gauging their performance over time. We emphasized the importance of having tools and

processes to measure and evaluate their adherence to ethical

standards. And we encouraged ways to ensure that those standards

were promulgated down through the organization in a clear and effective way. And, finally, we stressed the need for a reporting

mechanism to allow employees to safely report their views on misconduct.

In summary, while the well-publicized behavior of a few individuals and companies give us much to be concerned about, the fact

is, I believe, that there is much to celebrate. We have the greatest

and most inventive economic system in the world. We have a wonderful group of growing and vital companies. And I believe that the

vast majority of men and women in senior management positions

129

in our companies in the United States are decent and honorable

men and women who are striving to do the right thing in the face

of a very complicated and competitive world. And, by and large,

they are men and women who recognize that the most fundamental

responsibility of leadership is to set the proper tone at the top.

Thank you very much.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. Bowsher.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BOWSHER

FORMER CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC COMPANY

ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD

Mr. BOWSHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator

Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee. It is a great pleasure to

be here today.

One thing I would like to do is start out by saying that I think

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is really an excellent piece of legislation,

especially in the auditing and accounting area, which I have spent

most of my life and career working in. It was long overdue, and

many of the things that you have in that legislation really were

taken from past efforts in the private sector on various commissions, blue-ribbon panels, and things like that to try to improve the

accounting and auditing in this country. But a lot of it did not ever

get accomplished, and now it has been codified in the SarbanesOxley Act, and I think things are moving ahead. I agree with

Chairman Peterson and my predecessor, Mr. Larsen, and I am sure

Paul will agree that we are making real progress here in the private sector at this point in time.

One of the first issues in our report in the accounting and auditing area, which was the third section of the conference report, was

the emphasis on the audit committee, because, again, as Ralph

points out, the tone at the top really sets the way things go in

these big organizations. And what we have pointed out is that it

was awfully important to get qualified people—not only independent people but also qualified people—people who were financially literate, serving on the audit committees so they could ask

the tough questions not only of management but also of the auditing firm and the internal auditors. And we think that there is

progress being made here, but this is one area that the Committee

should follow very carefully and maybe have the SEC monitor it

and give you updates as to how it is moving along, because I think

it is essential to really getting the accounting and auditing scandals behind us to have first-rate audit committees serving on the

boards representing the investors of this country.

I have served on some boards here and some audit committees,

and I can tell you I see a huge difference between when I first went

on in 1997, when I left the Government, and the current time. I

am on a New York Stock Exchange company in Chicago where the

first meeting lasted a half-hour, and I do not think there were any

tough questions asked of anybody. Just a month ago, when we were

closing out the fiscal year of June 30, we had 6-hour audit committee meeting. We now have the right people serving on the audit

committee. We have the questions being asked. We have the auditing firm identifying the major issues in two- and three-page memos

130

to the audit committee, and it just is so much more professionally

done with everybody playing the part that they are supposed to

play. So, I think the audit committee is very crucial, and although

progress is being made—I think that General Electric is a good example that Ralph serves on. They set the tone when they made the

changes right away.

The first issue we did recommend in the Conference Board report

is that sometimes it is not so easy to ask people who have been

serving with you to step aside, maybe because they do not have the

right qualifications. So we recommended that bringing in a law

firm or a consulting firm to evaluate the audit committee membership and to see if everybody should be on that committee is a good

way of doing it and making progress.

The second issue we took up was really on the continuing education and the need of education and training for audit committee

members. When you looked at the unfortunate gentleman who represented Enron’s audit committee, you recognized that this was a

gentleman who had impeccable credentials, but probably really was

not current on this very intricate world of derivatives and the financial instruments that the investment bankers are selling these

days. And so you have to understand the business that you are

serving on the board and on the audit committee, and you have to

keep up through training and education and everything like that.

The third issue area that we took up is the internal control, Section 404, which is becoming more and more now an important

issue, as you indicated, Senator Shelby, in your opening statement.

This is to me one of the really most key parts of the SarbanesOxley bill because what it really is saying is that in 1933 and 1934,

when the Securities Act was passed, why, you required that all

public companies have an annual financial report, management’s

responsible to produce that, but to have an outside independent accounting firm come in and check it out and give a certificate on it.

Over the years, we have never really had strong requirements to

make sure that the accounting systems underneath those financial

reports were properly in place, properly documented, or properly

checked out. That is what Section 404 says. And it will cost some

money as an investment for the companies.

But I would just like to read one paragraph from my prepared

statement that says this: ‘‘For companies that have adequate and

well-documented internal controls and an adequate internal audit

function’’—which now the New York Stock Exchange requires—‘‘it

will not find the reporting on internal controls to be a major or

costly effort. However, those companies that have not put an emphasis on internal controls will have a one-time investment to

make, but investors will be much better protected once management and outside auditors can attest to proper internal controls.

This area is the basic framework for the CEO and CFO certifications regarding the annual financial statements and quarterly reports.’’

If I could just amplify a little bit on that, once you get your internal controls in shape in the big companies, they are going to ask

the division vice presidents and the people down the line to certify,

too, so that when the CEO and the CFO are certifying, they are

doing it because their senior management has already checked out

131

things. If you have the right internal controls, the internal auditing

checking it out, management certifying, the CPA firm checking

things out, then reporting to the audit committee, I think it is

going to be very seldom that we will run into the cases like

WorldCom where they were slipping through journal entries at the

end of the year to cook the books. And that is really what we are

trying to change and provide here.

I might also say on the cost, we recommended to this Committee

and to the Congress after the S&L crisis that this type of reform

be included in the banking reform legislation of 1991. I remember

a lot of lobbyists being paid a lot of money to come over here and

say this would be the end of Western civilization if you left that

in the bill.

Chairman SHELBY. Some of us were here.

Mr. BOWSHER. Yes. But, you know, a few years later, I went on

the board of an international bank, and I asked them at the annual

presentation, and they said, no, it is fine, it was a good reform, it

is working fine. And if you think about it today, we have not had

many failed banks, only really a couple scandals with failed banks.

But the banking legislation, I think, has contributed dramatically

to the success that we have had there of getting rid of the problems

that we had in the late 1980’s and the early 1990’s. And Section

404 really is a takeoff practically from that legislation and that

success. And I think when we get it achieved in the corporate

world, it is going to make a big difference for everyone. And when

you think of the cost, the losses that we had in these scandals,

why, the individual costs to the companies to get their things

straightened out I think will be very much an economic thing. In

fact, I think Chairman Donaldson once said, ‘‘Benefits of new rules

will outweigh the cost.’’ And I do not think there is any question

about his position.

The next issue area that we spoke to was on rotation of auditing

firms. Now, this is something that the auditing firms do not like.

I want to be upfront with you on that. And I know that in the Sarbanes-Oxley bill you asked the GAO to do a study on rotation, and

they have not quite completed that report, and it is coming over to

you here, I think, in the next few weeks.

But the one thing we said is the private sector should consider

audit rotation, no matter whether it is required or it is not required

by the Government, and we laid out just a couple of criteria here.

We said any audit firm that has been employed by the company for

a substantial period of time, say over 10 years, would be one thing

to consider. Another would be if you have former partners or managers of the audit firm employed by the company. If you remember

the Enron situation, all of the accounting staff practically had come

from the accounting firm. Or if you were still having significant

nonaudit services provided by the company, in other words, getting

to the independence issue here.

I might say that Mr. Breeden’s report recently here on the

WorldCom reform did pick up our first item and said that every 10

years the auditors should be rotated.

This is just something, I think, that is awfully important for the

audit committees to consider, and they certainly should be considering that after 7 to 10 years. But we have 7 years in our report—

132

or 10 years, I guess, in our report, but I know some are thinking

of 7 years.

The next two issue areas Paul Volcker, my colleague here, will

discuss in our accounting and auditing, and that is on professional

advisers for the audit committees and also the outside services performed by the accounting firms.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Dr. Volcker, welcome back to the Banking Committee. You spent

many days and hours here when you were Chairman of the Federal

Reserve.

Mr. VOLCKER. Indeed. The Committee room is the same. Even

some of the Senators are the same.

[Laughter.]

Mr. VOLCKER. It is nice to be back.

Senator SARBANES. The one thing that is different now is we

have a no-smoking rule.

[Laughter.]

Senator SARBANES. In those days, the room would be enveloped

with smoke when Paul Volcker testified.

Mr. VOLCKER. Some of my valued pictures at home show me behind cigar smoke in this very room. I remember those days.

Mr. PETERSON. Senator Sarbanes, I used to accuse the Chairman

that his blowing smoke was his particular technique for the kind

of creative obfuscation that some Chairmen used.

[Laughter.]

Chairman SHELBY. Well, Dr. Volcker is not known for that,

though.

STATEMENT OF PAUL A. VOLCKER

FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Mr. VOLCKER. The policies were very clear, despite the smoke.

That is my defense.

I am at the end of this distinguished panel here, and I will be

short. Chuck just mentioned I have been asked to mention specifically and comment on the recommendations of the Conference

Board Commission on access of auditing committees to professional

help and the controversial area of the services that auditing firms

might perform. But before commenting on that briefly, I just want

to join my colleagues here in saying that nothing has happened

since this bill was passed to suggest the thrust and the detail of

the bill were not appropriate. We are still being barraged, as you

well know, week by week, almost day by day, with indications of

performance by our big accounting firms that simply do not meet

the standards that we expect and must demand and that are required by Sarbanes-Oxley. The quicker we can make that history

and not current and future, the better off we will be.

It is maybe a sad story that that great profession has lost its discipline and lost the primacy that the auditing function deserved

and needed to be informed by constructive legislation. I congratulate you on doing that.

In areas that I was asked to comment on, Mr. Bowsher certainly

made clear the burdens on auditing committees these days, and

that is one the primary results of this legislation—in fact, deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
133

manded by this legislation. It is an entirely different atmosphere

for auditing committees. And there is a common-sense—I believe it

is common-sense—recommendation that the Commission made consistent with the burden on auditing committees, they should feel

free to engage outside professional help, and they should have the

authority to do that and feel free to do that in discharging their

responsibilities. It sounds to me like common sense at this point,

but I am sure it has not historically been the practice in the past

where there was not that feeling of professionalism and independence in the auditing committees, or at least too often that was lacking. So that seems to me pretty straightforward.

The other area has been more controversial, and that is the question of what services accounting firms should be providing and the

degree to which they may conflict with the primary auditing responsibility. As you well know, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill attacks that

head on by indicating some important, almost dominating services

that accounting firms were performing for auditing clients would

not be permitted and others might be permitted with the careful

consideration of the auditing committee, which in turn may ask for

outside advice.

That no longer, I think, in terms of what the bill suggests is particularly controversial, but there is one area that remains open

that the bill did not deal with that I think very much does deserve

consideration and action. That is in the area of tax services. To

some degree, auditing firms have traditionally provided tax preparation and other tax services. What is relatively new is the emphasis that these firms have put on a very profitable activity, what I

would term as ‘‘aggressive tax planning.’’ And that is an area in

which I think we have seen dramatic indications since the bill was

passed of the potential conflict that that involves. When a firm is

involved at one and the same time in advising a firm or, in cases

that we have seen, advising the senior officers of that firm, on

elaborate schemes for tax evasion. That requires a psychological

approach of let’s see how we can get around the rules. Then being

asked to audit the firm in terms of whether it is following the tax

rules and the accounting rules is a rather basic problem.

Fortunately—and I think deliberately—the bill has provided authority to the SEC or to the Public Company Accounting Oversight

Board, if I have got all those initials or words straight in order, to

review that matter. And the SEC, as I understand it, took a look

at it and said, ‘‘well, we will pass that on to the Board,’’ and the

Board, I believe, has that on their agenda. And I think that is an

area that should be followed. It is a difficult and subtle matter,

perhaps, to define what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.

But at the extremes, I think it is clear enough. I would like to

think that there are some very common-sense criteria. If an accounting firm is involved in advising a firm or its executives to use

three offshore tax havens and gets a success fee for the tax savings,

you begin to get suspicious that that may involve a conflict and be

inappropriate.

Let me, if I may, just very briefly talk about compensation. I cannot match the eloquence that Mr. Peterson brings to this subject,

but I do want to reinforce the point that I think the root of these

egregious excesses has been the increased use of fixed-price stock

134

options, which happened to coincide in a way nobody expected with

this historic boom in the stock market, resulting in compensation

amounts beyond earlier imagination. But once you have them, they

begin seeming normal. You have seen no greater example of that

than in the recent developments in the New York Stock Exchange,

which did not directly involve stock options, but it certainly involved a mentality that said everybody else is getting rich in stock

options, we should do something for this fellow. And it just is an

example of how these things spread because of the stock options.

I think pricing of stock options and expensing of stock options involves some very difficult issues. I am happier about the tendency

beginning in some business firms to recognize that fixed-price stock

options for big public companies really involves capricious compensation results demonstrably bad and perverse incentives that

focus on the short-term stock price rather than the continuing

value of the business. And it has led to demonstrable distortions

in business behavior.

I am delighted that we are beginning to see even in Microsoft,

a great new-technology company, deciding that stock options are

not an appropriate method of compensation.

I would make one other point. We have had a lot of concentration

on auditing, deservedly so. Auditors have a special responsibility.

But I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that the responsibilities of other so-called gatekeepers in the financing process

have fallen by the wayside too often. Accounting firms have not

been alone in designing and encouraging elaborate schemes to circumvent accounting principles, to dodge taxes, and to embellish

and smooth earnings. Far from it—I am quoting from a speech I

gave recently:

Far from it, there were battalions of investment bankers, lawyers, consultants,

and financial engineers prepared to go to the edge or even beyond ethical practice.

Too often they have lent their professional authority to practices of their own clients

that fraudulently misrepresent operating results. In the process, investors are illserved and the long-term prospects for the business jeopardized.

I say all that to reinforce the importance of what Ralph Larsen

is talking about. If the top of the firm is not setting and following

ethical standards themselves, you cannot rely upon these professional advisers and their clients to do it for them.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you. I thank all of you.

Mr. Peterson—or Secretary Peterson, as I remember you—your

report proposes alternative means to address what we call the imperial CEO that characterized many of the recent corporate scandals. What is your perspective on the governance issues at the New

York Stock Exchange that has been in the news so much lately?

Mr. PETERSON. I will probably get in trouble for saying this——

Chairman SHELBY. Oh, you will not get in trouble, not here.

Mr. PETERSON. I have done it before. The only thing, Mr. Chairman, anybody ever remembers about my service as Secretary of

Commerce is an indiscreet comment I made that I could not pass

the physiological loyalty test. My calves were so fat I could not

click my heels.

[Laughter.]

And that is the only thing that is remembered that I did.

135

But it is indeed ironic that the New York Stock Exchange that

saw fit to have a group of corporate CEO’s make recommendations

for corporate governance and independence and lack of conflict in

the companies that were operating under the New York Stock Exchange would itself indeed practice some egregious negative examples of the very principles that they were espousing.

I chose to talk to you today about executive compensation, and

I said there is nothing more important than a thoroughly independent, unconflicted compensation committee.

Now, if you look at the interlocking relationships on the New

York Stock Exchange, I think it violates the very fundamental

principle that we are talking about. So, again, I would be indiscreet

in saying it, but I would not be surprised if someday at the Harvard Business School the New York Stock Exchange will be used

as kind of a poster child of things to avoid in the areas of corporate

governance.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. Larsen, it seems like companies evaluate corporate ethics by

looking at whether they have complied with the rules in the employee handbook at times. But would you elaborate on how you

would move beyond technical compliance to fundamentally change

the corporate culture?

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a difficult thing to do.

You cannot legislate morality, and you cannot legislate a good

heart.

Chairman SHELBY. Ethics, anything like that.

Mr. LARSEN. It is very difficult.

Having said that, I think it starts with choosing a chief executive

officer, a senior management that you know, that you have confidence in that person’s character and reputation. I mean, typically,

by the time somebody reaches that level, they have been in business for 20 or 25 years. They have developed a track record. You

should be able to divine that. Some people may go bad at the end,

but not usually. And my experience is that, as you watch young executives coming up, there will be some who have a tendency to

bump up against the line. And I have always taken the position of

getting rid of them because they will get us in trouble someday.

Getting rid of them early before they can cause big-time trouble.

So, I think it is a cultural thing that has to start at the top, but

it has to be reinforced by the board of directors making sure that

they make it clear to everybody that it is a fundamental requirement. But it is a cultural issue. It takes years to build up, and it

is greatly influenced by the tone of the individual that is on top.

Mr. PETERSON. Ralph, if I may interrupt, I think the Senators

might profit from a brief discussion of your credo and how you implement it, because I think it is one of the most innovative and

basic I have seen anywhere in America.

Mr. LARSEN. What Secretary Peterson is referring to is we have

a very simple document within Johnson & Johnson. It was written

back in 1940. It was revolutionary at the time. It says that our first

responsibility as a company is to our customers, to do what is right

by them and provide them with good-quality products at fair prices.

Our next responsibility is to our employees, to treat them fairly,

with dignity, and respect. Our third responsibility is to the commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
136

nities in which we operate, to be good corporate citizens and to enhance the environment. And, finally, we say that if we do a good

job in those three things, the shareholder will come out okay. And

that is exactly what has happened over all of these years.

But what it has done for our employees and, frankly, for me as

a chief executive officer, is I did not have to think too hard about

what our principles were. I mean, our first responsibility was to

our customers, then to our employees, community, and then the

shareholders will do okay. We never focused on the stock price. We

never focused on shareholder return in that sense. That was the

end result of good management and good ethical behavior. And

then we have a whole set of mechanisms where about every 2 or

3 years worldwide, our people fill out an anonymous survey judging

their local management on how well they are adhering to the ethical principles of the credo. And it is not healthy for management

to get a bad score in that regard.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Senator Sarbanes.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I

apologize that I was detained and was not here at the outset.

Chairman SHELBY. You should have been here. They were saying

nice things about your legislation.

[Laughter.]

Senator SARBANES. I caught part of that, so I did not miss it entirely. But I want to take just a couple of minutes to make a statement.

First of all, I want to commend Chairman Shelby for holding this

informative and productive series of oversight hearings on the legislation that we developed last year. I think this was an opportune

time to do it as we approach the end of this session of the Congress. The legislation was signed a little over a year ago, and while

not everything has yet been fully put in place, it was an opportune

time to take a look.

We heard from Chairman Donaldson of the SEC, Chairman

McDonough of the PCAOB, and leaders from the accounting industry and institutional investors, and we have this panel and another

distinguished panel to follow this one this morning.

First of all, I want to particularly acknowledge the work done by

the Conference Board’s Commission on Public Trust and Private

Enterprise. Four of its 12 members are at the table before us, and

I just want to mention the names of the others, because it really

an all-star group. In addition to the four witnesses here this morning, John Snow, who, of course, is now Secretary of the Treasury;

John Biggs, the former head of TIAA–CREF; John Bogle, Founder

and former Chairman of Vanguard; Peter Gilbert, the Chief Investment Officer of the Employees’ Retirement System of Pennsylvania;

Andy Grove, the Chairman of Intel Corporation; Arthur Levitt,

former SEC Chairman; Lynn Sharp Paine, Professor at the Harvard Business School; and our old colleague, Warren Rudman. And

I have to say this was really an all-star panel, and its charge as

it launched into its work when it was convened, was, ‘‘to address

137

the causes of declining public and investor trust in companies that

are leaders in America’s capital markets.’’

In undertaking this inquiry, the Conference Board acted on the

underlying commitment that dates back to its founding nearly a

century ago in an earlier contentious period of market activity, ‘‘to

create and disseminate knowledge about management and the

marketplace to help businesses strengthen their performance and

better serve society.’’ And the Commission went on and defined the

crisis in stark terms: ‘‘A clear breach of the basic compact that

underlies corporate capitalism.’’

The Commission found that in many instances this compact

among shareholders, boards, and management has been significantly weakened, diminishing the trust that investors and the general public have in our system of corporate governance.

Of course, the Commission has come forward with a set of recommendations and findings. The Conference Board has also recently published a set of corporate governance best practices. And

I think they have made an extremely important contribution to trying to address this issue.

The statute is by no means the be-all and end-all. It is really to

provide a basic framework within which activities will take place.

But as the Conference Board’s Commission has indicated—and we

have efforts now on the exchanges with respect to their listing requirements; we have other efforts going on in the private sector

with respect to best practice—there is a considerable amount that

needs to be done complementary to or in addition to the parameters of the legislation. So, I really want to pay my respects to the

work of the Conference Board and their recommendations.

Now, before my time completely expires—and presumably I will

get another round.

Chairman SHELBY. You will get another round.

Senator SARBANES. I just wanted to ask just a question or two.

I want to address this internal controls issue for a moment, Section 404 of the legislation, management’s annual assessment and

independent auditor attestation of the internal controls. We are

getting some complaints, of course, about the costs of complying

with this. One of the witnesses in the panel to follow you states in

his written statement, ‘‘My overall concern here is that both reporting companies and external auditors will spend an enormous

amount of time, energy, and money to ensure compliance with Section 404 without necessarily achieving the desired outcome of ensuring that companies have systems in place to identify potential

weaknesses in their financial reporting.’’

And another witness on the next panel predicts that ‘‘the SEC’s

rules relating to internal controls over financial reporting may provide to be the most costly of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act reforms.’’

And I put to the panel: How important are the provisions of Section 404 on the maintenance of sound internal controls by public

companies? What is the source of these increased costs that they

make reference to? And what is your response to these criticisms?

Mr. Bowsher, let us start with you? Then the others can add.

Mr. BOWSHER. Well, as I said in my testimony there, it is an investment that has to be made. How large is the investment that

a company has to make? It depends on what the status of their

138

controls is right now, and they should be in good shape. But lots

of times, unfortunately, they are not.

And so those companies will have to make quite an investment,

but it is an investment that they cannot afford, it is not an investment they should be making to protect their investors, their workers, and the pensions for their workers. In other words, you cannot

run a large company today and not have a good set of internal controls without sometimes running into big trouble.

I remember I went on one board, a major New York Stock Exchange company, when I left the Government, and I asked all the

right questions at the first audit committee meeting about are the

controls in place. I was told, oh, yes, they are in place, and the

auditors were there, and they agreed with it. The financial statements, I especially worried about the inventory because it was a

manufacturing company. Oh, no problem there.

And then two meetings later, why, we found out, we had all

kinds of problems in the financial reporting. At the end of the year,

the outside auditors even said we had a material weakness in how

we closed the books—which we did. They were right. They were

just about 5 years late in telling the audit committee or the board

about these problems. And we got them cleaned up in 6 months.

We spent a lot of money because by that time you are in a crisis

mode, and you are trying to get it all done.

But I think if you would go about it in an organized fashion—

the SEC and the PCAOB has given industry another year to do

this—I think the companies that are in good shape will not have

that big of a cost. I think the others need to spend the money to

get their controls in place.

Again, it is the underpinning of the certifications that the CFO’s

and the CEO’s have to make.

I was at one audit committee meeting recently where somebody

raised the issue of cost because it was costing this firm. And I always remember the CFO and the CEO saying, ‘‘well, if we have got

to certify, we sure want this work done and we want this in good

shape.’’ So, I think that is the issue.

Senator SARBANES. Does anyone else want to add to that on the

panel?

Mr. LARSEN. I agree with Mr. Bowsher’s observations.

Senator SARBANES. My time has expired and I have other questions, but just let me make this observation. We talk about these

internal controls as helping the investors, but it seems clear to me

it helps the management. I would think that the management of

a corporation of any consequential size would want strong internal

controls in order to enable them to really know what is going on

and exercise control over their company. So it is not something that

management just does to help the investor, although that is an important part of it. It seems to me it is a real tool for management

itself.

Mr. BOWSHER. Absolutely. In fact, if you look at a lot of the bankruptcies and companies that have to get acquired, a lot of times it

is the fact that management did not have that attitude.

If you remember the Bank of New England, which was one that

went under 10 years ago, it had done a lot of acquisitions. It did

not get control of their accounting, and pretty soon they did not

139

know what was happening, and all of a sudden the cashflow ran

out.

So management has a huge stake in whether they have good controls or not, absolutely.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Allard.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also apologize for

being late. I have an opening statement I would like to ask be

made part of the record.

Chairman SHELBY. It will be included as part of the record in its

entirety.

Senator ALLARD. Dr. Volcker, a GAO study completed in July

that examined the impact of mandatory rotation of registered accounting firms, concluded that mainly the Big Four were the firms

doing the majority of the auditing of public firms, and that the medium-size or smaller firms were facing some significant barriers

into the market. Last week, the Chairman of the PCAOB appeared

before the Committee and seemed to agree that a disparity did

exist, and that the PCAOB could nurture and cherish the small

and medium-size companies to see that they enter the auditing

market.

First of all, from your observations, do you agree with the GAO

and the Chairman of the PCOAB assessment? If so, what do you

believe we could do to break down some of those barriers?

Mr. VOLCKER. Your stumbling over these initials matches my

own. I would recommend maybe you amend this bill so we would

have simpler initials for this board.

I am not familiar with the report of the GAO in this area and

the particular contrast that you are drawing. My experience has

mostly been with these big companies, and in the area that I have

been concerned with, with these conflicts in the variety of services,

it is the big companies that are totally dominant in auditing big

companies. The big accounting firms are dominating in auditing

the big companies, and that is where the problem lies.

I cannot comment on, I think, the typically more specialized

firms or firms that deal with very small companies, and I am not

aware of so many problems there.

Senator ALLARD. Maybe other members on the panel would like

to respond to that comment.

Mr. BOWSHER. Yes, I can comment. What you have is an unfortunate situation where we have too much of a consolidation in our

accounting profession. We had eight big firms for many, many

years. In fact, when the Moss-Metcalf hearings were held in the

late 1970’s, it showed that the concentration of the auditing firms

was not near as great as maybe the industry was by industry classification. But then they consolidated down to four, and they really

were planning to go down to three. KPMG was going to merge with

Ernst & Young. And, luckily, they called that off because with Andersen disappearing, we would be down to three now instead of

four.

And they do a very high percent of the audits of all the big companies, not only in the United States but also all over the world.

140

I mean, it is 85, 90 percent when you look at the dollar value. And

so this is a problem.

There has always been this wish and hope that these mediumsize firms would grow up into being the big firms and small firms

could grow up. But it has not happened in the last 20, 30, 40 years

because now the investment to come into the business, to have

overseas offices and everything like that, is very difficult.

I see this as a potential problem down the road, no question.

Senator ALLARD. Yes, and especially if you have a corporation

that is looking at rotating your auditing firm.

Mr. BOWSHER. Right, right.

Senator ALLARD. Pretty soon you run out of choices out there,

and I think that has to be——

Mr. VOLCKER. Rotation may not mean very much when you have

only got four firms. There are not many people to rotate to.

Senator ALLARD. Yes. I also have talked to a few accountants and

understand that some of the smaller corporations that are now

public firms may decide to go out of the public realm and go into

more of a private realm. Do you see that happening at all? Or is

that in your observations? Anybody?

Mr. VOLCKER. I have a great sample of one. I know a friend of

mine that runs a small public firm is considering going private because he thinks the auditors have become too tough now. I would

not generalize from that particular experience, but in relation to

Senator Sarbanes’ earlier question, I think this bill was really

aimed at big public companies. That is what we are talking about,

and the comments Mr. Bowsher made about that are relevant. If

you have a really small company—and some are simpler than others—some of this seems a little burdensome. But I think this can

be hopefully alleviated by common sense and administration.

Senator ALLARD. So at this point, you would consider that would

not be a big concern to——

Mr. VOLCKER. No, I would not think it is a big concern, but I understand that——

Senator ALLARD. I appreciate that. Yes, I do, too.

It has been about a year now since Sarbanes-Oxley was signed

into law. After this first year, what observations would you make

about Sarbanes-Oxley as far as potential changes that may be

needed in the near future? I am not talking about, you know, 10

years out, but maybe within the next 4 or 5 years? Or do you see

any? Anybody want to comment on that?

Mr. BOWSHER. I would stick with the Chairman’s opening view

there, that we should give this enough time, a longer period than

1 year, and let the private sector have time to implement it. I think

all of us believe that they are making progress here, but I think

in 3, 4, or 5 years it would be worth looking at.

Senator ALLARD. I want to push that a little further. Any potential areas? Yes?

Mr. VOLCKER. I have a special pleading here, which really is not

special pleading. But I have responsibilities with the international

accounting framework in an effort to get consistency around the

world. And the concern reflected in Sarbanes-Oxley about the

equivalent U.S. body, FASB, about how they are financed has been

dealt with by providing a mechanism for the assured financing of

141

FASB. I was disappointed that you did not extend that explicitly

to an American share of the International Accounting Standards

Board, because we have the same problem. We have the same

question that arises. I do not think there is really a great substantive problem, but we are financed by voluntary contributions

from accounting firms and major international businesses.

I presume we can continue that way, but we have also been looking at alternative methods of financing that might provide greater

assurance of independence if necessary. And I would like to think

that this bill even could be interpreted as permitting FASB to extend some of their financing to us for the U.S. share of the IASB.

It is a relatively small amount compared to what FASB spends, but

I think it is a relevant issue given the importance of international

accounting standards.

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your comments. I see my time

has run out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you, Senator Allard.

Senator Corzine, we have a few minutes. Do you want to start?

COMMENTS OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE

Senator CORZINE. Well, I want to commend——

Chairman SHELBY. We have a vote on the floor——

Senator CORZINE. —you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing such a distinguished panel. There are not four better minds to speak to the

issue that we are doing in the review of this, and I compliment all

of them for their contributions, not only with regard to corporate

governance and ethics and all the other issues that you have addressed, but also for your leadership in the country as well.

I particularly want to say that Chairman Larsen is a person that

I am distinctly proud of, being a New Jersey-based company, and

the values that he talked about are exhibited by the company that

he led very clearly in the community and society in general. A remarkable period of leadership.

All those nice words. Let me ask a couple of questions that you

might not interpret quite so nicely.

You know, I look at what happened to the New York Stock Exchange, some of the things that we see in mutual fund practices

and governance issues that are associated with that. My own anecdotal feel with regard to the sniping and griping about Section 404

and some of the questions that have come up and resistance to

shareholder resolutions and proxies and democratization of boards

leads me to wonder whether there really is a buy-in yet from corporate leadership. You know, I certainly believe there has been by

some, but is it as broad and widespread?

I would also say another example where I worry about it is I

often see some in corporate leadership speak about risk aversion

that has been built into the system because of Sarbanes-Oxley, and

I would like to understand whether your assessment is generally

the view of all of the members. I hope it is because I think this

values-based view about how you lead companies is the right approach.

Mr. VOLCKER. If I may comment on that. I think there has been

a lot of talk about overkill and in some applications I can understand that. But my concern has been at least as great about what

142

I perceive as essential denial still in industry generally. Certainly

you see it in accounting firms, which are the most directly affected.

You have seen recently an accounting firm having several of its

partners disbarred from practice in auditing public companies because of really willful bad behavior over a series of years. These are

settled in a noncriminal context with the firm saying, ‘‘well, we

really did not do anything wrong under the standards that existed

at the time.’’ I do not know how they interpreted the standards existing at the time. These are pretty egregious examples of behavior,

and people are still employed by the company.

I can only see that as a symptom of denial.

Senator CORZINE. Any other comments?

Mr. PETERSON. Senator Corzine, my needle is probably stuck on

this subject, but I have read every public opinion study, I think,

known to man on this subject, and before you came, I pointed out

I have never seen public mistrust at the level it is today. And I

really think the ultimate litmus test that would help answer your

question is whether there is a fundamental change in executive

compensation, because that is the issue with the American public.

Now, with regard to the questions of these outside advisers, the

theory in corporate governance, as you know, was that you not only

had directors representing the stockholders, but they also had socalled independent outside advisers. I am talking about auditors.

I am talking about compensation consultants. I am talking about

law firms and so forth.

Now, the theory was that for their monitoring purposes, their client were the outside directors and ultimately the shareholders. But

I think what happened with many of these firms, in their understandable desire to grow, they got into a lot of businesses that had

very little to do with the monitoring function, but it was where the

big fees were. And you and I were in private firms for a long time,

and we know how partners get compensated in private firms. They

get compensated, importantly, by the overall revenues that they

produce.

If I am an auditing firm and I am getting huge fees for consulting—and in the year 2000, 2001, the consulting fees were 3

times the auditing fees. In the case that Paul Volcker was talking

about, these tax planning, tax advantage strategies, the success

fees were 3 times, or thereabouts, what the auditing fees were. Or

law firms that were getting huge M&A fees that were unrelated to

a specific problem that came up. And I have had the painful experience in three public companies where we had to be investigated for

some alleged improper behavior. And when the management picked

the regular law firm, I can assure you the investigation was not appropriate or independent.

So, I think part of the answer to this problem is for the outside

directors to take charge of all other relationships with these outside firms, to hire them and fire them and make it clear that their

client is the outside committee and outside directors.

We went so far as to suggest, among other things, aside from tax

advantage strategies, that in the case of an investigation you

should not use the law firm that is your regular law firm. And I

think if we can get that best practice, you are going to see the performance of these independent firms be much more independent.

143

Senator CORZINE. Chairman Shelby, I have one quick question.

Chairman SHELBY. Quickly, because our time has run on our

vote.

Senator CORZINE. The point that Mr. Peterson made in his testi- mony about the negative consequences of Congress’ placing a $1

million cap on cash compensation deductibility, it is a topic that

can be discussed long and needs a lot of detail. But do you think

we should be addressing that legislatively and go back and correct

that? Because I do believe, as I think you believe, it led to this emphasis on options and other types of compensation.

Mr. PETERSON. This gives me a chance to bid Mr. Sarbanes—

Paul, I used—excuse me, Senator Sarbanes, I used a word called

‘‘iatrogenic effects’’ from the Greek. I definitely think that was a

case where it had unintended effects, and I do not know how my

colleagues feel, but I do not think it was a helpful piece of legislation, and still do not think it was helpful.

Chairman SHELBY. Our time has run out. Senator Carper, we are

going to recess now to go vote. Do you want the panel to come

back?

Senator CARPER. I will move very quickly to the floor and back,

but if the panel could stay, I would appreciate it.

Chairman SHELBY. You want to bring them back?

Senator CARPER. If that is possible.

Chairman SHELBY. And if you get back, you can reconvene the

Committee.

Senator CARPER. We will move some legislation.

[Laughter.]

Chairman SHELBY. We will be in recess for a few minutes.

[Recess.]

COMMENTS OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER

Senator CARPER. [Presiding.] Before the Chairman returns, I will

ask the clerk to report out by unanimous consent legislation affording Delaware special privileges.

[Laughter.]

I just want to say, when we were walking down the hall, Chairman Shelby, Senator Sarbanes, and I were just remarking on what

a terrific panel this is. And I know Senator Corzine said this earlier, but just to each of you, thank you for, in some cases, your

service to our country, your continued service to our country, and

the example you have provided to others in the business community. We are just grateful for all that you have done and that you

continue to do. And I very much appreciate your willingness to

hang in here with us for a little bit.

First of all, with respect to corporate governance, I want to ask

a question on the ability of corporations’ boards to attract quality

members, the kind of well-qualified members that you speak to in

your recommendations. It is a lot tougher to serve on boards these

days, at least to do a good job. How are companies finding the difficulty of attracting the kind of people that they need to serve and

keep them?

Mr. LARSEN. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find qualified

board members. I think most individuals are limiting the number

of boards that they are willing to serve on, and I think the issue

144

is particularly significant in companies that have problems, business problems of one kind or another, or historically regulatory or

legal problems. And when they need it most, they are finding it

very, very difficult to attract anybody onto that board for fear of

being drawn into extensive litigation.

It is an issue, and I do not know what to do about it.

Senator CARPER. There is a statement here in your section on

corporate governance that says, ‘‘Companies will certainly have to

develop ways to motivate and attract such independent directors in

an era of rapidly increasing government requirements.’’

Are you aware of any best practices that are out there that have

evolved in the last year or two that we might hold up as examples

to other companies? Anybody?

Mr. LARSEN. I do not think there are any simple answers to this.

Clearly, what I have seen is that it is taking the combined efforts

of many board members to go out and recruit other board members. So it is no longer a simple case of making a phone call and

asking somebody whether they are interested, but rather now you

have to go visit with them, they often want to do their own due

diligence to find out what they are walking into before they get into

it. And I think that is healthy because at least they then know

what they are getting into.

But I spend a considerable amount of time on a number of

boards where I will go out and try to personally recruit another

board member and assure them that it makes sense for them and

divulge completely what the situation is. So, I think it is taking a

lot more effort on the part of individual board members, and that

is probably a good thing.

Senator CARPER. Yes, sir, Mr. Bowsher?

Mr. BOWSHER. Yes, I would second the way Ralph ended there

about it is a good thing, because I think that they are paying a lot

more attention through the nominating committees of the boards

now as to who do they need on the board, what kind of skills, what

kind of background, and everything like that.

I think also you are seeing some people who maybe would not

have been considered in the past that do have the qualifications.

I was just out in Chicago talking to a board that wanted me to

come on. I could not do it because I am kind of full up right now.

But there was a young lady there who is the CFO of a major corporation, and she was describing the two or three companies that

she had been asked to come on the board to be the financial expert.

And she is highly qualified. She was a partner with a big firm. She

is CFO of a major company. And I think sometimes in the past that

she would not have been given those opportunities.

So, I think there is a broadening now of looking at the talent

base, and the search firms are very much more involved now, in

other words, trying to find quality directors and everything like

that. And I think that is healthy. I really do.

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Your comment about the

woman who is a CFO gives me an opportunity to segue to another

question. I was out in Silicon Valley talking with a CFO who is

also a female, and a company that had been around for about 10

years. And she was arguing—not arguing, but advocating forcefully

that the stock options should not be expensed.

145

Mr. BOWSHER. That is Silicon’s Valley view.

Senator CARPER. Yes. If you can just make the point, put yourself

in their shoes, and if one of you could just make their point, and

then counter those arguments. Please, anybody?

Mr. LARSEN. I will take a stab at it, Senator. The arguments that

I have heard from Silicon Valley—which I am sympathetic with, by

the way, and I do not hold quite the same views that Dr. Volcker

has on the evil of stock options. But if you look at the Silicon Valley firms and you look at some of the remarkable things that they

have accomplished, there was a high, high level of risk for those

young men and women who went into those businesses 5, 10, and

15 years ago. Frankly, the only thing—and I have some personal

experience with it—that attracted these people in, was the chance

to really hit a home run. And I think stock options were an important part of that.

Now, as companies mature and as the upward movement in their

stock moderates, it has less pull. But I can understand, if I were

starting up a firm and I did not have any money and the only thing

I had is to offer a young Ph.D. electrical engineer the opportunity

to strike it rich if he hung in with me and built this technology,

I can understand where that is an important draw.

Having said that, I think the expensing of stock options is something that needs to happen at some point because it is a real cost

and it is diluting the shareholders’ equity.

Mr. PETERSON. Senator, you are probably aware of this on stock

options, but in the event you are not, let’s clarify something.

One of the anomalies of accounting was that if you had a fixedprice option, you did not need to expense it. But if you had a performance-based option or a grant, one that said they vest if you

achieve a return-on-equity goal or an operating cashflow or something, that was expensed. So that led to this curious bias against

injecting the very performance measures that would have made

them far more effective. And that is why one of the great virtues

of expensing, and if we can agree with ourselves and foreigners on

a common set of standards, is we think it will drive it much more

toward performance, which is our basic theme here.

Senator CARPER. Thank you.

Mr. Volcker.

Mr. VOLCKER. I think I better state my position on stock options

a little more carefully.

[Laughter.]

Senator CARPER. It was interesting. In the section here, there

was a footnote to the section under corporate governance that suggested that you and I think Mr. Grove had a somewhat different

view than the rest of the panel.

Mr. VOLCKER. We did indeed. When I state my position, what I

say is for a large publicly owned company with diversified ownership, the use of fixed-price stock options needs a lot of careful justification as to why it suits their particular circumstances when I

think demonstrably the temptation to abuse stock options is great;

it has been demonstrably so clear.

That does not say it—you are a start-up company in Silicon Valley, you have no cash, you want to give away some of your company prospectively, that is your decision. You are the owner; you

146

can do it. I think there are other ways of giving equity. I am not

objecting to start-ups, whether in Silicon Valley or anyplace else—

I am not ruling it out for anybody. But I am saying the temptation

is so great to give these options away, that do not appear to cost

anything that, in fact, often give perverse incentives, not for that

young engineer in Silicon Valley but the chief executive of

unnamed companies, which we have seen quite a few examples of

recently, is a different matter.

Mr. PETERSON. That is particularly true, Senator, if you have

short holding periods. You see, one of the things—New York University did a study of what executives did with stock options, and

the vast majority of the executives sold the stock right after it vested. So if you have a very short holding period, that creates the

short-term-itis and managing short-term earnings. The incentive is

terrific because you get huge gains that have little to do with longterm performance.

Senator CARPER. Mr. Bowsher.

Mr. BOWSHER. I have a son who is an MBA and a venture capitalist on Sandhill Road in Silicon Valley, and he has asked me the

question that you have just asked more than once, because he believes in stock options. But I really say basically what Ralph and

Paul have, that for the smaller company, the private company, it

certainly is a viable vehicle, I think, in compensation to get the

company off and going and everything like that.

When you become a public company, I think that does really

change the ball game, and I think Paul’s point is that they were

badly used by a lot of public companies, and that is what we are

trying to get at here so that we get rid of the bad features of these

stock options.

Senator CARPER. One last question, if I could. I am going to

quote this. It is from your corporate governance section again. It

reads, ‘‘The Commission also believes that policymakers’’—I think

that would be us—‘‘should find ways to create incentives for investors to hold for the long-term perhaps such an increasing’’—let me

just—yes—‘‘the differential tax rate for the long-term and shortterm holders. The Commission believes, however, that any detailed

consideration of tax policy is beyond the scope of its current work.’’

This is, again, with respect to attracting investors who are going

to hold the stock for the long-term as opposed to the short-term.

I realize this is not part of what you are trying to do as members

of this Commission, but any thoughts you have with respect to——

Mr. PETERSON. Senator, I will take a crack at that. Jack Bogle

educated me a lot, at least. Corporate governance theory has this

notion, you know, of the symmetry of interests between long-term

owners and management. That raises the interesting question:

Who are these long-term owners you are talking about? The average turnover of a New York Stock Exchange stock annually is

about 110 percent, which means it is held about 11 months. On

Nasdaq, it is 300 percent. So you have people who are, as Jack

Bogle points out, more in the nature of short-term speculators rather than long-term owners, and get here we are talking about your

long-term responsibilities as owners of the business.

Warren Buffett has been advocating what you are talking about.

Should there be a tax treatment that encourages people to hold

147

stock for very long periods of time by, for example, in the extreme

case, having a zero capital gains rate if you hold a stock 5 or 10

years or something, in the attempt to encourage many more real

owners of businesses, because there are a lot of constituencies—

there are employees, communities, and so forth, who have an interest, as Ralph suggested, in the long-term viability of the company.

And yet we have these financial incentives that are all very shortterm and quite speculative.

Senator CARPER. Thank you. And thank you all again for being

here today and for sharing your thoughts with us and for continued

good work.

Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Dodd.

COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I apologize for getting here late. But let me thank all of you for your participation

today. I know all of you fairly well. Mr. Larsen and I do not know

each other that well, but I have enjoyed your advice and counsel

on a number of issues over the years, and it has been tremendously

worthwhile. And I picked up from my staff some of the comments

you made earlier.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for inviting such a distinguished

panel to be here.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Senator DODD. Mr. Peterson, I enjoyed—I was going to insert in

the record here for the benefits of my colleagues your piece you

wrote in The New York Times Magazine, several months ago I

guess now.

Mr. PETERSON. The enthusiasm in some quarters was a bit restrained.

[Laughter.]

Senator DODD. That is why I thought I would mention it here,

to try and help. But it was, I thought, a very, very good piece, and

let me just say—we have said this in the past, those of us who are

here, but Paul Sarbanes and certainly Jon Corzine, Mike Enzi, and

Mike Oxley did a great job on this bill. I ask every one of my business groups in Connecticut, large and small, how they are reacting

to this. I am very curious. And these are very private kind of meetings, I must say the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

That is not to say they are not concerned about some aspects of

this and how this will ring out and we are still discovering areas

that may need some tinkering with. But overall, from a Connecticut standpoint, it has been overwhelmingly supportive, in fact,

welcomed.

I do not want to draw the analogy too tightly here, but it reminded me of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which Senator

Sarbanes was involved in, and others. There was such opposition

to that. Of course, that took a much longer time to get done. But

today the reaction to that piece of legislation, generally speaking,

has been fairly positive. It has done a lot more good than people

thought it would do. Here the response has been more rapid, but

overall pretty positive, and giving them an opportunity to clean out

boards, get audit committees functioning, doing things that many

148

of these CEO’s wanted to do for years, did not have the—they did

not think, anyway—authority to really do it as well, and SarbanesOxley gave them that chance.

Chairman Volcker, I am anxious to you and Mr. Bowsher, given

your experience in this—and I haven’t had a chance to—I was troubled on the Arthur Andersen issue, and I want to thank you, by

the way, for your efforts there. You did a tremendous job, and I do

not think it has been publicly recognized as widely as it should be,

your Herculean efforts to save what was a great, great company.

And just as a layman looking at this, clearly, no one is arguing

about what should have happened to those responsible in the

Enron issue. I also know there were thousands of other people that

worked for this company globally that got swept away in all of this.

Obviously, someone has made the point that in the future it will

be very hard to deal with any of the other accounting firms in the

sense that you are not going to have any left.

I wonder if you might just share with us your own thoughts in

retrospect. Were there things that we could have done or should

have done differently that might have created a different situation

so that we may be faced with similar problems coming down the

road. And I would love to have at least some brief thoughts and

comments on what might have been done differently to avoid losing

a great company, in my opinion.

Mr. VOLCKER. Well, look, I approach this in a rather romantic

frame of mind. Arthur Andersen was a big company, and they obviously had a lot of difficulties over a period of time. But I had this

feeling, with the help of Mr. Bowsher and a few others, that we

could have reformed that company, and it would have been a different company, and that would have been a good example for the

accounting industry in general. We would be better off having that

company in a fully reformed mode, so to speak, which we do not

now have.

You are absolutely right. As I have observed this process, people

are very chary now, seeing what happened to that firm when it got

indicted, in dealing with other firms. They are using maybe more

kid gloves than is desirable.

So it has had a kind of perverse reaction. I obviously have a special point of view. We did not get the reform done in a way that

it could have been done within the private system, and it has also

to some degree, I think, affected prosecutorial zeal in other areas.

Senator DODD. From a public policy standpoint—and maybe you

would want to think about this some more and get back to us—but

was there something we could have done as public policy setters

here, delayed this in some way or given you more of a chance to

operate?

Mr. VOLCKER. I do not think you in the Congress could do anything at that point. It was not an area subject to legislation. I do

not fully understand, obviously I am in no position to understand,

why the Department of Justice and the SEC together—the SEC did

not make the decision—but wanted to indict. I think they knew

what the consequences would be. And I understand, you know, that

there were a lot of activities in that firm, just on the auditing side,

that were very egregious examples of failure of professional responsibility.

149

It was not an easy call, but, romantically, I think we could have

done it another way and a better way.

Mr. BOWSHER. I certainly agree with Paul. I think we could have

easily reformed that. When he asked me to come and have breakfast one morning to discuss trying to save Arthur Andersen, he

turned to me and said, ‘‘Do you think we can do this?’’ And I said,

‘‘Compared to some of the other things that you and I have been

involved in, like the Penn Central and the S&L crisis and things

like that, this is going to be a piece of cake.’’

[Laughter.]

Then, you know, 3 months later, Andersen was gone.

Mr. VOLCKER. He is more of a romantic than I am.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BOWSHER. Paul once said that, you know, we knew our company was a little lame. We did not know that our Government was

going to come out and shoot this horse. That is what I think happened. I think it was very unfortunate. I am a retired partner—

I was with Arthur Andersen for many years, up until 1981.

Senator DODD. That is why I asked. I know you were.

Mr. BOWSHER. I know a lot of people, the widows and others

were really badly hurt, who had nothing to do with the Enron situation. I believe think it does come to one big public policy issue,

and that is, do you hold people accountable criminally at the top

for a large organization where something happens way out in the

organization? You know, if the top is involved in some policy that

truly is—but to think that this destroying of the records, which

later they produced most of the records, as I understand, from

other sources, was so egregious that you had to hold the whole firm

accountable for it. It just I think was a terrible overreaching by the

Justice Department, and unfortunately, as Paul said, we are now

down to four times. We have one less firm, and that firm could

have become what it used to be, and that was the gold standard

for auditing.

Senator DODD. Yes, it was.

Mr. VOLCKER. Let me just make one comment that does not directly respond to your question, but it responds to Sarbanes-Oxley.

You could not get involved with Andersen, for however short a period of time, when they were in crisis and under stress, without understanding the conflict between the auditing side and the services

side was so intense, they almost could not make a decision.

Senator DODD. Well, they spent more money. Actually, the contract for the consulting was larger than the auditing contract.

Mr. VOLCKER. Yes. And, you know, every decision they made,

how would this affect the auditing, how does it affect the consulting

side? And there was no decision that did not affect one side or the

other, so they did not make any decisions.

Senator DODD. That is a good point, and that has been, obviously, corrected by steps we have taken here. I appreciate your observations, and, again, I commend both of you for the efforts you

made. As I say, all of us have constituents that worked in that

company, and I just felt terrible. These people had nothing at all

to do with this, and they had their careers—in fact, embarrassed

even to mention they were associated with this remarkable firm.

150

Mr. VOLCKER. One of the ironic experiences of that, I was invited

to go out and give a lecture at Northwestern University, in Arthur

Andersen Hall, Leonard Spacek Auditorium, about 2 days before

they went down the drain.

Senator DODD. And Arthur Andersen, when you think of who he

was and what a great contribution he made.

Mr. VOLCKER. He was a great paragon of effective auditing, and

other firms told me, whoa, we used to be so jealous of Arthur Andersen because it was so strong and their disciplines were so good.

Chairman SHELBY. I think, Dr. Volcker, if they had just shot the

rider or the jockey and not the horse, we would be a lot better off.

The aim was too broad. That is my observation.

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes, do you have further questions?

Senator SARBANES. I have just one question I wanted to ask because I want to try to develop a record here.

In testimony presented to the Committee last week, the head of

PricewaterhouseCoopers stated that his firm’s tax practices experienced a significant decrease in demand for tax services from their

SEC audit clients. He went on to say that the decrease in the

United States has been around 20 percent, and evidence shows

that the trend is continuing. And he concluded by arguing that precluding accounting firms from rendering tax services to their audit

clients and the inevitable long-term consequences of an exodus of

tax talent from accounting firms will not serve investors well.

I would like to get your reactions to that statement.

Mr. BOWSHER. I was surprised when he stated the number the

way he did because he did not give you the other half of the situation. In other words, there is no question that each firm is seeing

a reduction in the tax services for their audit clients. But that

means that most of the companies—and American Express is a

good example, where they went out and hired another firm to handle the tax and a lot of its special work, and that was

Pricewaterhouse. And so there are millions of dollars of fees coming

into these firms that did not used to come in from clients that they

do not audit because they now are working with two or three of the

firms rather than just one firm.

So, I think that the idea that they were having a big loss but not

having the gain in the services, you did not get the total picture.

Mr. VOLCKER. My comment would be whether they have lost

some revenues or not, it just is an area, not in the traditional type

of tax preparation work, but in the aggressive stuff for which they

are paid success fees—whatever they call them, they amount to

success fees—which is contrary, as I understand it, to auditing ethics. It just creates dangers that have been highlighted repeatedly

now in recent incidents. It has finally disturbed the IRS itself to

take action that has embarrassed some of these firms.

Senator SARBANES. We looked at this when we were trying to develop the legislation, but we just did not have the time to come up

with the line that would divide traditional tax services, which have

always gone with accounting practice, from aggressive tax planning

that involved clear potential conflicts of interest. But, increasingly,

you know, they have been engaged in providing counsel and develVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
151

oping an effective exploitation of loopholes, and that I think has

created a very real problem.

The other point that I think Mr. Bowsher made which is important—and it applies not only to tax services, but there is also a

whole list of consulting activities which, if you are the auditor, you

cannot engage in. Other consulting activities you can engage in

only if the audit committee approves it. Auditing firms may lose

consulting activities, the other ones on that list from thier audit clients, but they may well pick these service up from their nonaudit

clients since other firms will have to drop them. So it just shifts

it around, and that is particularly the case when you only have

four auditing companies that do 90 percent of the public company

work.

Mr. BOWSHER. Deloitte Touche just announced their earnings

were up 21 percent this past year, and that is a big part of it, the

new work that they are getting from clients that they are not the

auditors because those firms have decided to work with two or

three firms.

Mr. VOLCKER. But I would also say I would like to see the revenues of these auditing firms go up if they are charging more for

better audits—not if they are just charging more for the same old

audits. But I think auditing has too often been a kind of loss leader

a given of things they are willing to do because they are only providing a minimal audit. If they are providing the audit that Sarbanes-Oxley calls for, I think they are going to have to be better

paid—for the audit itself, not for ancillary services.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.

I want to thank the panel. This has been a great panel, and we

welcome all of you back here.

On options, I think most people believe there is a place for options if properly used. But some nonexpensing options——

Mr. VOLCKER. I may even believe——

Chairman SHELBY. The nonexpensing of options was always troubling to a lot of us.

Dr. Volcker.

Mr. VOLCKER. I may even believe that there is a place for options

if properly used, to use your words.

[Laughter.]

Chairman SHELBY. And I believe Secretary Peterson said that in

a different way.

Mr. PETERSON. Precisely.

Chairman SHELBY. He explained it in detail, and so did Mr.

Larsen and Mr. Bowsher.

We appreciate your appearance here today. We know it has been

long, but you add a lot to the record. Thank you very much.

Chairman SHELBY. We are going to call up the second panel now,

if we can get started on that.

I want to thank the second panel for your patience here this

morning, all of you. Your written statements will be made part of

the record in their entirety. You can tell it is afternoon here, a few

minutes after 12 o’clock noon. We will start with you, Mr. Anderson, if you could briefly sum up your relevant points. Thank you

so much. Welcome to the Banking Committee.

152

STATEMENT OF BRIAN P. ANDERSON

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED

Mr. ANDERSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I will definitely

be brief.

Chairman SHELBY. Absolutely.

Mr. ANDERSON. I am Senior Vice President and Chief Financial

Officer of Baxter International, a global health care company, listed

on the New York Stock Exchange, with approximately $8 billion in

sales and about 50,000 employees in 100 countries around the

world.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to join you to

look at the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley 1 year later, particularly from my perspective as the chief financial officer of a large

public company as well as the chairman of the audit committee of

another large public company. Sarbanes-Oxley represents a bold

step toward restoring public confidence and rebuilding trust in the

capital markets that is so essential to the proper functioning of our

free enterprise system, as the previous panel I think so eloquently

stated.

This law seeks to improve investor confidence by requiring CEO

and CFO certification of periodic reports, enhance disclosure requirements, and, finally, a redesigned approach to regulations of

the accounting profession, including the important aspects of auditor independence. In general, we believe these rules have served

their intended purposes extremely well.

One of the most high-profile aspects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

is the accountability it places on corporate executives to ensure

that financial information is complete and correct. Enron and related scandals have placed the leadership and ethical standards of

every executive in every corporation on the line, and I was particularly pleased to hear Ralph Larsen’s testimony. Our CEO and I absolutely applaud these certification requirements, and we have

signed these certificates without hesitation. This is a part of our

job, and it is our responsibility.

Issuer disclosure in both financial and nonfinancial arenas has

improved significantly under Sarbanes-Oxley, and perhaps more

importantly, management’s time, energy, and focus on enhanced

disclosure has increased.

As a multinational company operating in over 100 countries, we

have found that even though we had rigorous reporting and control

environments, there were still improvements that could be made.

On the other hand, I believe that it still remains to be seen

whether the time, effort, and expense required to comply with Section 404 of the Act will ultimately result in significantly enhanced

internal controls and procedures across corporate America. In our

case, I believe it will.

I also believe that the increased responsibility and focus that

Sarbanes-Oxley has brought upon independent auditors is also a

very positive development. The importance of the public’s trust in

accountants, particularly as it relates to the audits of public companies, cannot be emphasized enough. In that regard, I believe Congress has successfully implemented important changes designed to

ensure auditor independence. These include, obviously, limiting the

153

kinds of nonaudit services that can be performed for audit clients,

restricting relationships that can result in a lack of independence,

establishing ‘‘cooling off’’ periods, ensuring mandatory audit partner rotation, and, finally, the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

The Act has also solidified an important link between the independent auditors and the audit committee of public company

boards. At Baxter, we have had several of these processes in place

for many years, including executive sessions between the audit

committee and our independent auditors, as well as audit partner

rotation. And several years ago, we took the step of actually having

our board receive continuing education sessions at each audit committee meeting in areas of financial accounting and auditing, and

our audit committee has responded very well to this training as

well as the quiz that we give them on these topics. Overall, I believe that the new rules imposed by the Act with respect to public

accounting firms and audit committees should result in significant

positive change.

In regards to boards, I believe the Act has had and will continue

to have a significant positive impact on how boards interact with

those of us in executive management.

At Baxter, we are very proud of our strong commitment to maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance. In 1995, we

were one of the first companies to adopt formal corporate governance guidelines, long before this became in vogue in corporate

America and actually a requirement of Sarbanes-Oxley. Most of the

new rules that are now mandated are practices we have had in

place for years, and, therefore, the new law has not dramatically

impacted our practices.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, looking back at what has occurred

since the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, I believe we see, on balance, a very positive and encouraging picture. To those who feel

that Sarbanes-Oxley may have gone too far, I would say that the

strong medicine is working, and we must not abandon the treatment just because there may be a few unwanted or unpleasant side

effects. At the same time, to those who believe that Sarbanes-Oxley

may not have gone far enough, I would also urge caution and

strongly encourage them to closely monitor the impact of the law

to just make sure that we have not tipped the balance too far in

any one direction.

Specifically, I believe we must continue to pay close attention to

preserving the appropriate balance between Federal and State law,

the potential erosion of the business judgment rule, increased liability for directors, and the increasing hesitancy of very qualified

individuals to serve on corporate boards, especially the important

role of the audit committee.

Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate having the opportunity

to appear before the Committee today to underscore the importance

of what you have accomplished so quickly with the enactment of

Sarbanes-Oxley and to express our very strong support for the

overall goals that this legislation is intended to serve.

Thank you very much.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. Castellani.

154

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CASTELLANI

PRESIDENT, THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE

Mr. CASTELLANI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, appreciate the

opportunity to share the Business Roundtable’s view on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and restoring investor confidence.

I would like to begin by commending this Committee and your

efforts and Senator Sarbanes’ efforts to strengthen corporate governance and restore investor confidence over the past 2 years. Our

organization shares that objective, and we strongly supported the

Act when it was being considered, and we have supported the

SEC’s efforts to implement it. And I think a word of thanks goes

to the SEC. Despite a tight rulemaking schedule, it has taken the

time to consider every rule, weigh its consequences, and solicit, and

listen, to input from investors, companies, and others.

The Act has put a necessary spotlight on corporate governance

and financial reporting. Our members have viewed the Act as an

opportunity to enhance their corporate governance practices and

financial reporting procedures. In addition, the Roundtable companies have implemented, voluntarily at this point, many of the proposed New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq corporate governance

reforms, with independent boards of directors, entirely independent

audit, nominating, and compensation committees, and written committee charters.

And I would like to talk about a recent survey that we did of our

companies and our members, which we believe shows that they are

not only living up to the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley but also

the spirit of these reforms.

For example, 88 percent of the Roundtable companies report increased involvement in board and committee meetings by members

of the audit, nominating, and compensation committees. Over 90

percent report increased involvement by the board as a whole. In

keeping with the spirit of the reforms, audit committees today have

taken on ownership of the relationship with independent auditors,

making it clear that the auditors report to the committee and not

to the management.

Our companies also report a dramatic increase in director evaluations. Seventy percent of our companies are performing director

evaluations this year compared to 44 percent in 2002. As we stated

in our own Principles of Corporate Governance, directors should

only serve so long as they add value to the board, and the recent

rise in these evaluations reflect our companies’ renewed commitment to board quality and accountability.

We also support enhanced communications with shareholders,

and, to that end, we have supported recent SEC efforts to increase

disclosure about nominating committee processes and to require

disclosure concerning the shareholder communications with the

board. In fact, our survey shows that two-thirds of the Roundtable

companies have discussed with their own nominating committees a

process to communicate and to respond to shareholder proposals

and inquiries. An equal number have a process in place to communicate and respond to shareholder nominations of board candidates.

Moreover, we strongly supported the New York Stock Exchange

and Nasdaq proposals to require regularly scheduled executive sessions of independent directors. In fact, the independent directors of

155

55 percent of our companies expect to meet in executive session

five or more times this year. The norm has become that they are

meeting both before and after the full meetings of the board.

The New York Stock Exchange also proposed to require that a

director be designated to preside at executive sessions of independent directors. Our members agree it is important to provide

leadership for a company’s independent directors. In our survey, 55

percent of the Roundtable companies reported that they have

named an independent lead director as either an independent

chairman, a lead director, or a presiding outside director.

Finally, 8 in 10 Roundtable companies report their boards of directors are at least 75 percent independent, and 9 in 10 report at

least two-thirds of their directors are independent, exceeding both

the proposed New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq requirements.

Although much progress has been made in the implementation

of Sarbanes-Oxley, the implementation is not complete. The SEC

has provided an extended effective date for its rules relating to internal controls, which were addressed in questions to the earlier

panel. And, in fact, those controls and that time period needs to be

completed. The CEO’s of the Business Roundtable believe that good

corporate governance should be equated with a high value for all

of our shareholders and our other stakeholders.

We are mindful of the potential for overregulation of corporate

governance becoming an overhang on the economy. But we have

not reached that point. We need to be careful going forward that

we are fair in creating the obligations and restrictions in the name

of corporate governance and we do not create, in doing so, an overhang on the economy that eliminates risk-taking and eliminates

the ability of our enterprises to create wealth and to create jobs.

We do not want directors and managers to be afraid to take risks,

but we want them and insist that they have the highest standards

of corporate governance.

We are moving forward in other areas to address some of the

issues that the earlier panel addressed. First, we are examining

how to better train current and future business leaders and to enhance the role of ethics in the decisionmaking process. Second, we

are working to bring more sense and transparency to executive

compensation. Finally, we are continuing to develop and share best

practices in corporate governance so that companies and their

boards and management can learn what works most effectively.

Congress did its job in enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the

SEC is doing its job in implementing the Act. We, in corporate

America and at the Business Roundtable, recognize that the rest

is up to us.

Thank you.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Grinstein.

STATEMENT OF KEITH D. GRINSTEIN

CHAIRMAN, COINSTAR INCORPORATED

Mr. GRINSTEIN. Chairman Shelby, it is a pleasure to be here

today.

I am here representing the small and mid-cap, Nasdaq-listed

companies, publicly traded companies. Somebody had to do it and

they found me.

156

I am a nonexecutive chairman for one mid-cap Nasdaq-listed

company, and I am an independent board director for two other

Nasdaq-listed companies. So, I am the independent director that

both of these panels have been talking about today.

I am also sitting here before you solely as an individual and

nothing that I say today should reflect these companies, which

have all gone out of their way actually to enact all of the provisions

of Sarbanes-Oxley, and it is an honor to serve on these companies.

I would like to briefly begin by actually referring to the Jackson

5 briefly, where they said that one bad apple does not spoil the

whole bunch, but a few bad apples can destroy investor confidence.

That was the issue that we were facing in the markets today.

As Mr. Larsen said earlier, you cannot legislate morality, and

that is true. But this Act has gone a long way to making sure that

if you step over the line, you are going to pay a heavy price for

lacking morality.

Horatio Alger, in my view, is the cornerstone of the American

capital markets. The fact that any individual can start with very

little and can raise themselves up is the key driving force in the

American economy. That being said, Horatio Alger thrives on a fair

playing field and access to fair and efficient capital markets.

The lack of investor trust and the recent corporate scandals that

have been discussed in this room have seriously eroded investor

trust and have limited the access, especially when you are talking

about small and mid-cap companies, to efficient capital markets.

Recently, over the last 6 months, as many companies went private

as went public, as it became clear that access to these markets was

not available and the costs of remaining public were high. However, I think that this Act has done a spectacular job of beginning

the process of turning the tide and bringing investor confidence

back, and will allow capital formation so small and mid-cap companies, where much of the productivity gains that we are looking for

to drive the economy in the future will rest. I am very pleased to

be here strongly in support of the Act today.

Briefly, I would like to say that while I have had no immediate

contact with corporate fraud, there is a change in the attitude

among board members since the passage of this Act. There is less

deference given to management recommendations, more questions

are asked, members are better prepared—and I am speaking now

for myself—I am better prepared. I felt I was a good board member

before; I am a much better board member today.

There are more meetings, more attorneys, God bless them, and

there are more auditors and accountants at every turn. It is an unavoidable consequence of increased responsibility.

That increased responsibility does not come without a cost. It has

been referred to several times, that in order to restore investor confidence, we are going to pay more money. Chairman Volcker referred here that it is okay if the auditor firms make more money,

as long as we are getting better audits. That I agree with. Splitting

the audit and the consulting fees was a critical feature here. Audit

should not be and cannot continue to be a loss leader to get more

lucrative consulting contracts. That has, I think, significantly improved the quality and the length of the audit process.

157

Let me talk a little bit about the cost of implementation. This is

something I am very familiar with, sitting on three, publicly traded, small cap companies. The range is from a small cap of a minimum of $250,000 a year in increased cost, going all the way up

to a million dollars a year for a mid-cap, or $500 million to a billion

company. These are significant costs for companies that trade between $50 million and a billion dollars. More director time, more

director fees, more auditor fees, increased insurance costs, which

was not discussed earlier, and ultimately the threat of increased

litigation, which is a big concern. We have not yet seen it, but we

need to be very wary and keep a watchful eye for increased litigation that will come out of compliance or fuzzy compliance with this

Act. There may need to be some safe harbor provisions put into

this Act at some point if excessive litigation shows up.

Looking forward. This was the right legislation at the right time.

God only knows what investor confidence would look like today if

we were facing these corporate scandals, if we were looking at

these courtroom battles on a daily basis, without Sarbanes-Oxley

Regulation FD, and all of the improvements that have been done

over the last 2 years.

In conclusion, there has been a subtle shift of power away from

the CEO as a demagogue and toward the fiduciary responsibility

of the CEO, the management team, and the board as fiduciaries for

the public. It is a little bit too early to tell whether or not we need

to tweak the legislation. I stand before you here today and say it

was the right thing at the right time, and I think it is up to the

SEC and this Committee over time to see where the law takes us.

The increased costs are justified because of the increased confidence. Welcome to the ‘‘no spin zone’’ in corporate America.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you. That was a strong presentation.

Mr. Trumka.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. TRUMKA

SECRETARY-TREASURER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. TRUMKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard

Trumka, and I am Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL–CIO. The AFL–

CIO member unions sponsor benefit plans with over $400 billion in

assets, and collectively bargained benefit plans that union members participate in hold over $5 trillion in assets. For working families, our retirement security is, in large part, dependent upon the

integrity of our capital markets.

Mr. Chairman, we believe Sarbanes-Oxley is a success more than

a year after passage, not just because of the specific provisions of

the Act but because of the tone the Act set and the message it sent.

However, the job begun by this Committee last year is not complete. Key elements of the investor protection agenda remain to be

enacted here in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission, at FASB, and the Public Accounting Oversight Board. While

we are generally pleased with the work done by those agencies, we

believe there is still an unfinished corporate reform agenda that

they and Congress should turn to.

I would like to lay out some of those elements, Mr. Chairman.

First, our legal system continues to suffer from real deficiencies in

158

the extent to which both individuals and institutions can defraud

the investing public and get away with it. Despite your best efforts,

in many circumstances lawyers, accountants, and investment

banks can still aid and abet companies that commit securities

fraud and enjoy immunity from investor lawsuits. That is wrong,

and only Congress can fix it.

There are also areas where the Public Securities Litigation Reform Act has made it easier to defraud the investing public and get

away with it. Sarbanes-Oxley addressed one such area by lengthening the statute of limitations, but there are others, such as the

PSLRA’s repeal of joint and several liability for securities fraud

and the blanket immunity it grants for forward-looking statements

that remain. Again, these problems with the PSLRA can only be

addressed by Congress.

However, as important as litigation can be to both deterring corporate wrongdoing and dealing with its consequences, it cannot be

a substitute for real working corporate governance and accountability on the part of company management. As long as CEO’s

dominate the selection process for company directors, we simply

will not see at problem companies the kind of vigorous independent

boards that we need and that Sarbanes-Oxley calls for.

That is why the labor movement believes the most important effort now underway to address the continuing governance problems

at our public companies is the SEC’s rulemaking initiative to give

long-term investors with a substantial stake in companies the right

to have their board nominees included on management’s proxy.

Today, it is practically impossible for even the largest long-term

investors, the TIAA–CREF’s and CalPERS, to nominate and run

their own candidates for the boards of public companies, so we

have elections in name only.

Of course, CEO’s know that investors have limited options. They

know that they can ignore shareholder votes on runaway executive

compensation or company audit policies, and there is little that

shareholders can do about it. So we strongly support the SEC and

Chairman Donaldson’s efforts in this area, and fervently hope that

what will emerge from rulemaking is real access to the proxy for

long-term investors.

Finally, I would like to take note that, despite everything that

has happened, we will have inadequate disclosure to investors of

the facts of executive pay and what financial impact that pay has

on the companies that award it. Despite FASB Chairman Bob

Herz’s hard work in this area, stock options still are not required

to be expensed, a state of affairs that amounts to a subsidy to an

inappropriate form of executive compensation.

As we have seen over and over again in the last year, investors

simply are not given enough information about the CEO’s deferred

compensation plan. While these matters are properly in the hands

of the SEC and FASB, they are key elements of the post-SarbanesOxley agenda.

While much has been accomplished since Sarbanes-Oxley was

passed, the work of reform is not complete. In response to Senator

Corzine’s question, there is no better evidence about the lack of

buy-in than the recent comments of one of the most influential people in corporate America, Ken Langone, CEO of Invemed AssociVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
159

ates, a former Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange’s Compensation Committee, a Member of the Compensation Committee

at General Electric, and three other public companies, and Lead

Director at Home Depot.

Mr. Langone, who is actually responsible for the pay package the

Stock Exchange offered Richard Grasso and was involved in the

pay and benefits offered to Jack Welch, remains unapologetic. He

told the press last week that given the chance to vote for Grasso’s

pay package, he would do it again. As long as that attitude continues, Mr. Chairman, with key decisionmakers in corporate America, there is a lot of work to be done.

One last point, if I might, sir.

Chairman SHELBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TRUMKA. Fortunately, the independent agencies that are active in the area of corporate governance are, by and large, stepping

up to the plate. The SEC, PCAOB, and FASB have all responded

admirably to both the specific mandates of Sarbanes-Oxley and the

tone set by the passage of that legislation. The labor movement

surely urges this Committee and Congress as a whole to recognize

that work and to fund it and to protect the independence of those

agencies as they go about their vital tasks.

I want to thank this Committee and your leadership, Mr. Chairman, for the wonderful work you have done to try to help restore

confidence to our markets.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. Anderson, could you briefly elaborate on the implementation

factors of the internal control provisions of Section 404?

Mr. ANDERSON. Absolutely. Contrary to Mr. Bowsher’s earlier

testimony, even though I do believe that we have very strong internal controls, this is not without cost. Certainly, if one just took a

‘‘check the box’’ approach——

Chairman SHELBY. Everything costs, doesn’t it?

Mr. ANDERSON. Clearly, from our perspective, we are using this

as an opportunity, as you said earlier, to improve our business. We

are already seeing some benefit from taking a very thorough look

at our internal control environment around the world and making

changes to improve that environment. I do believe, in the long-run,

the increased cost will be justified when one looks at what is at

stake from the perspective of restoring trust in the markets.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Grinstein, how do you think SarbanesOxley has impacted capital formation for small and medium-sized

companies?

Mr. GRINSTEIN. Sure.

Chairman SHELBY. You have had a lot of experience there.

Mr. GRINSTEIN. Yes. Thank you.

It is a hard time to evaluate. This is just a data point, as I think

Mr. Volcker said earlier. Over the last 4 or 5 months, as I briefly

mentioned—and it is in my testimony—as many companies went

private as went public. That was a concerning thing. I think that

had more to do with investor confidence, and obviously the turbulence in the markets.

I think that Sarbanes-Oxley has imposed a burden on the small

and mid-cap companies. It was discussed at the first panel, too. Because this was really aimed at the large companies. The simpler,

160

small companies are bearing a burden. When you are chugging

along and making three, four, five, six million dollars a year, to add

a million dollars in cost is very difficult.

That being said, I do not believe that anywhere in the world

there exists more efficient capital markets, and by protecting those

capital markets—already I saw on the docket for the coming quarter double the number of companies are going public. I think very

soon we will see a much larger number of companies going public

than going private again, which has been the historical norm.

Chairman SHELBY. That was one of our concerns early on in the

formation of the legislation, you will recall. We did not want to put

too big a burden on the small and medium-sized companies who

churn our economy.

Mr. GRINSTEIN. By the way, we appreciate it and see where the

changes are.

The other thing I think is going to happen is that there is going

to become more competition in the independent audit feature. More

people are going to become certified consultants in that area, specifically in the internal audit function, and as there becomes more

companies in that area, as it was referred to earlier, as these companies grow, there will be more competition and the costs will go

down and more efficiency. That is what we need to see.

Chairman SHELBY. Thank you.

Mr. Castellani, regarding corporate risk taking, we certainly do

not want to take risk out of the market. We would have no market

at all. What have you heard from your members regarding the impact of the Act on corporate innovation and risk taking?

Mr. CASTELLANI. Mr. Chairman, as we have surveyed and we

continue to survey our members and talk to our members about the

Act, its implementation, and its effect on the business process, the

overwhelming concern, or the overwhelming sentiment, is that it

has not adversely affected the risk taking process the way the Act

has been constructed and the way it is being implemented.

There are costs. The costs are certainly less of a percentage to

our members, which are the very largest corporations, than they

are to the companies that Mr. Grinstein has been referring to. As

I said in my testimony, perhaps the greatest area of cost is going

to be within the area of implementing the internal control and internal control reporting requirements.

But there is a concern, and the concern has to be watched and

analyzed, and that is that we do not inhibit the business risk-taking process by going beyond what is required for good corporate

governance. I do not think we are there yet. You have heard from

the earlier panel that there is some concern about being able to recruit and retain good, active, and independent directors. That is a

concern and it is getting more difficult.

We have to be careful that we do not criminalize the business decisionmaking process and risk taking, such that we all avoid it.

That is our concern.

Chairman SHELBY. That would destroy the market, would it not?

Mr. CASTELLANI. Pardon.

Chairman SHELBY. That would destroy the market?

Mr. CASTELLANI. That would destroy the market.

161

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Trumka, some people are not convinced

that reform efforts will continue. How do investors ensure that executives and directors push for further reforms within their companies?

Mr. TRUMKA. By having totally independent boards and giving

long-term investors the right to have the proxy and nominate those

boards. I think there is no substitute for that independent board,

and having the long-term investors, people with interest in the

company long term, having a say in who gets on that proxy and

actually having a real election.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Castellani, what is your perspective regarding increasing shareholder participation—stockholders, as we

know, obviously own the company—and how can it be done effectively? Sometimes it seems that they are totally ignored.

Mr. CASTELLANI. We think it is important that obviously the

boards are responsive to shareholder concerns, as they should be

responsible to all of the stakeholders’ concerns.

I think there are several things that need to be examined as the

SEC moves forward. Certainly we support the SEC’s stated objective, which is to get at those few companies, rogue directors, and

unresponsive boards, that are ignoring the shareholders.

In the SEC staff report, however, a number of options have been

brought forward that may not necessarily get to that stated objective. First, if you use triggers that were described in the staff report, you run the risk, in our own analysis, of getting companies

that were never intended. Some of the triggers, as we have looked

at last year’s proxy season, would encompass more than 100 companies, including many of which are considered having the highest

standard of corporate governance.

Second, we think it is going to be very important that the SEC

define very carefully what constitutes a shareholder, both from the

standpoint of how large that shareholder must be—most all of our

members have at least 1 percent shareholders in them—and also,

how shareholders could aggregate to bringing a director nominee

forward.

Third, we think that it is important that in all this rulemaking

we ensure that we achieve good corporate governance, that we are

not laying open a process——

Chairman SHELBY. That is the key, is it not?

Mr. CASTELLANI. Absolutely.—that we are not opening a process

for organizations and shareholders who have agendas that are different than corporate governance to co-opt a board and cause the

disruption that we have seen in boards that have competing agendas, different directors with different agendas, that have adversely

affected the ability of the enterprise to prosper and create jobs and

create wealth.

Chairman SHELBY. Senator Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to thank the panel for coming today and for

their contributions as we engage in this oversight hearing. Let me

continue along the lines of the subject matter the Chairman was

asking about.

Mr. Castellani, do you think that the access that investors have,

particular institutional investors, to placing representatives on the

162

board is adequate currently, or do you think it needs to be enhanced?

Mr. CASTELLANI. Senator, our members think that what needs to

be enhanced is precisely what we have supported, and is part of

the process that the SEC is going forward on. That is that it should

be very clear to all shareholders the criteria by which directors are

selected and the process by which director nominees are moved forward to the proxy statement.

Second, sir, we believe that boards need to be responsive to

shareholders. They need to meet and explain the board’s position

when shareholders bring forth positions that are inconsistent with

what the board has been recommending.

Third, we do support, as I had said, a process that can be implemented to provide more shareholder access to the nomination process, provided it meets the test of providing additional, good corporate governance, making sure that it is focused on shareholders

who are, indeed, shareholders, not just share renters, that they are,

indeed, long-term shareholders, and that we are ending up with directors who meet the requirements that, in fact, are imposed on us

by Sarbanes-Oxley, that they are independent, that they have an

expertise that they bring forward, that they contribute to the

board’s governance, that they contribute to increasing the viability

of the enterprise in which they are going to be sitting. So we would

support those reforms if you can meet that test.

Senator SARBANES. I take it that, in effect, that means you hold

the view that the current system is not adequate and needs to be

addressed.

Mr. CASTELLANI. The improvements that have been made in——

Senator SARBANES. There may be questions about how to address

it, but you do not assert that that issue should be just left alone?

Mr. CASTELLANI. No, particularly for those boards who are unresponsive, those few companies that are unresponsive, absolutely.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Trumka, what is your view on this thing?

I think you are both in the ballpark that changes need to be made,

that we just cannot stay where we are. The question is what

changes and how are they conditioned and so forth.

You have heard the various items that Mr. Castellani enumerated. I would be interested in your reaction.

Mr. TRUMKA. First of all, I am glad you asked, Senator Sarbanes,

because we do have definitely held positions on it.

First of all, the 1 percent threshold that he advocated we think

is far too high. That would eliminate people like TIAA–CREF’s and

CalPERS, many of our pension funds who hold these shares for the

long-term. I mean the real long-term. That type of a threshold

would be far, far too high.

Second, the trigger that he recommends would be far too high

and would create too much of a lag between the time the trigger

comes into effect and the time you can actually nominate somebody. It could be as long as 18 months, and 18 months to some

companies could be an eternity. So we would hope what was done

is have a trigger that lets us long-term shareholders, like pension

funds, like TIAA–CREF, like CalPERS, not speculators, not hedge

funds—we agree on that part—but that the trigger not be too high.

163

A 1 percent threshold would eliminate far too many people and

eliminate the people who actually want to participate more.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Castellani, if the limitations that are

being discussed are arrived at, do you think the shareholders then

should have direct access to the corporate proxy ballot in order to

place their nominees before the shareholders?

Mr. CASTELLANI. Obviously, Senator, the devil is in the details,

and that is why we are looking forward to the SEC moving forward

on this rulemaking. But again, to reiterate, if it is aimed at those

few companies which——

Senator SARBANES. I understand your position.

Mr. CASTELLANI. —and it could work out—Excuse me, sir.

Senator SARBANES. Otherwise, you are not getting very far if

they do not have access to the proxy, are you? I mean, that is pretty key, is it not, in giving the shareholders any real ability to impact on the composition of the board?

Mr. CASTELLANI. Absolutely. Let me reiterate. We have been

working and providing information and comment to the SEC so

that we make sure in those instances, where this type of dramatic

action is needed, where this kind of dramatic action is needed, that

access is given to the shareholders, to the proxy statement. But

with the test that this is significant, represents a significant number of shareholders, is aimed at egregious and unresponsive action,

and will result in good corporate governance, not the opportunity

for people with other agendas to move those forward and disrupt

the company’s ability to prosper.

Senator SARBANES. I was struck by this ad that appeared in The

Wall Street Journal on Thursday, September 25. ‘‘In the wake of

scandals like Enron and WorldCom, investors deserve a true voice

in director elections.’’ It then talks about open access for shareholders as the next critical step of corporate reform.

Now, they say let us make sure the reforms are responsive and

responsible. Then they indicate protect against frivolous challenges

by requiring significant shareholder involvement, protect against

corporate raiders by limiting involvement to long-time shareholders, protect against hostile takeovers by limiting the number of

investor-nominated candidates to less than a majority, and protect

against unresponsive boards by giving investors timely access to

the ballot. I thought that, in effect, was saying there are certain

potential abuses that could happen, that we want to guard against.

Then they set those out—the corporate raiders, the hostile takeovers, frivolous challenges.

How did all of that sound to you?

Mr. CASTELLANI. I think it misses a point that is important, and

I should have mentioned earlier in my answer to your question.

One of the things that is fundamental in the reforms that have

been enacted over the last 12 to 18 months is something that has

been mentioned I think by every member of this panel and the previous panel, and that is the need for independent boards of directors, particularly majority independent boards of directors.

What the Business Roundtable has supported and what our

members are implementing is ensuring that the nominating committees are made up entirely of independent directors so as to

avoid the kind of thing that Mr. Trumka just referred to in his tesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
164

timony; that is, that CEO’s pick the members of their board of directors.

The key, in our view, is to have an entirely independent nominating committee. We think, with that, which we are seeing now

implemented across corporate America, we will have better, higher

quality members of boards of directors, who are more attentive, active, and are representing the view of the shareholders more capably to the views of all of the stakeholders of a corporation.

We would like to see that implemented first. It is a dramatic

change, but we think an important and necessary change, and that

the remedies that were advocated in that ad, the remedies that are

being considered by the SEC, should that system fail, be focused

only very narrowly on those companies that fail to implement and

fail to be responsive to the reforms that we have talked about in

the new listing standards and within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act—that

is, the independent members of the nominating committee.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Trumka, what do you say to that?

Mr. TRUMKA. To the ad?

Senator SARBANES. To his comment about the ad, to the comment

we just heard about the ad.

Mr. TRUMKA. First of all, I do not think we disagree that there

should be more independence on the nominating committee, and

that that should raise the level of directors. However, that does not

suffice the overall game because you still need a check and that

check is for shareholders to be able to appoint directors when the

needs of those shareholders are not being met.

I think the ad, if you take it literally, sounds like—and I will borrow a phrase from corporate America—a poison pill. It sounds like

people who do not want to give shareholders, long-term shareholders, institutional shareholders, real access to the proxy, so they

will create barriers so high that it cannot be done.

We would say that I do not think a company can get hurt by having shareholders put an independent director on the board, or a

couple of independent directors, even if it is those 100 or 200 or

500 of the Standard & Poor 1,000. If they are qualified directors,

and the shareholders want them there to speak for the shareholders, I think it only strengthens the company, it strengthens

management, and it gives everybody significantly more faith in the

capital markets so that they can save and invest with a lot more

comfort.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Castellani, do you feel that if you get

one, two, or even three dissident members on the board, who are

always raising questions about corporate practices—whether it is

environment or labor, issues that you traditionally do not think are

within the purview of the corporate board—that is going to, in effect, prevent the corporation from functioning in any normal way?

I preface that by pointing out that we try to run a committee

here and we do not regard a dissident voice as impeding the ability

of the committee to function. We have to deal with it if it comes

up, and sometimes it can be difficult——

Chairman SHELBY. Every day.

[Laughter.]

165

Senator SARBANES. It can be difficult and awkward, but we manage to do it and everyone feels they have been represented and

have been heard.

I am just curious on whether there is a mindset here that says,

‘‘oh my god, we are going to have this couple of voices here pounding away and we just cannot handle that.’’

Mr. CASTELLANI. Senator, first of all, let me make sure the Committee understands that good directors are good directors who

question everything, who want to get to the bottom of decisions

that are made. There is a difference between a director who is

being active and aggressive in seeking out information and a director who has an agenda that may be counter to the stated objective

of the corporation.

There has been a fair amount of experience with dissident directors. For example, in the past they have been on corporations

where they felt the corporation was accumulating too much cash

and, therefore, the cash should have been distributed to all of the

shareholders when, in fact, just a couple of years after that it found

that that same company was cash short. There have been examples

where a dissident director has taken a position about being in a

particular market or not being in a particular market, when a company has lost an opportunity to expand its revenues and expand its

opportunities for jobs.

More importantly, it removes the cohesiveness that good boards

and good companies show in their directors and their governance,

where we have seen companies with dissident directors, dissident

by the definition of not questioning but having fundamentally different objectives from where the company is going, have had boards

were you have had to meet ad hoc separately from that dissident

or those dissident directors in order to get their business done.

The last point I would make is that there is a misperception that

corporations are democracies. In fact, they are not. Under State

laws, and the way they are chartered, they are to represent all

stakeholders, and the boards are to implement their fiduciary responsibility, not necessarily in a democratic way, not necessarily by

the majority vote of all shareholders. Shareholders always have the

opportunity to vote by leaving. It is our members’ hope that they

do not do that. We want shareholders that stay as investors for the

long-term.

In fact, one of the issues which was addressed by the previous

panel and the commissioners of the Conference Board was that

shareholding has gone from a long-term proposition in a very short

period of time to one that is less than a year, including by some

of the institutions that have been named here. They have moved

to very short holding periods.

So it is not a democracy. I do not think you can equate it to this

Committee because it has to move and move very quickly, and

move probably more often than a committee of Congress, which has

to do with the legislative process. It cannot be as deliberative and

it has to satisfy all of its stakeholders and sometimes in a very,

very expeditious manner.

Senator SARBANES. Is it your position that if a majority of the

shareholders of a corporation want to follow a certain path, that

that can be ignored?

166

Mr. CASTELLANI. If that path is inconsistent with the fiduciary

responsibility the directors have, and the directors feel there is a

good business reason not to do that, it has, in fact, provided a circumstance that the best path would be to do something else.

Senator SARBANES. To whom do the directors owe their fiduciary

duty?

Mr. CASTELLANI. To all shareholders at the same time.

Senator SARBANES. If a majority of those shareholders want to

pursue a certain course of action, then what happens?

Mr. CASTELLANI. If it is a majority of the shareholders of the

shares that are held, or the shares that are voted at the time, their

responsibility is to the shares that are held.

Senator SARBANES. Let’s assume that.

Mr. CASTELLANI. If it is a majority of the shares that are held

and the shareholders make that known, and it is consistent with

the fiduciary responsibility of the board, then the board should employ that.

Senator SARBANES. Is there a fiduciary responsibility different

from responding to the majority view of the shareholders?

Mr. CASTELLANI. In some cases, I am told it can be. For example,

the elimination of a poison pill requirement. Let us use that as an

example. There was a proxy initiative that showed up on a lot of

corporations’ proxy statements, and has shown up over the last

several years. There are some companies that have felt it was better to enhance shareholder value, long term, for all stakeholders by

having such provisions to avoid takeover by a financial buyer who

intended to either dissipate the company’s asserts and the jobs that

were incumbent on it, or to resell it to somebody else. So it was

inconsistent and they did not adopt it.

Senator SARBANES. I am not going to pursue the subject because

it is a very large subject.

Chairman SHELBY. Mr. Trumka wants to comment.

Senator SARBANES. But I am taken aback by this notion that—

I mean, I do not know who you put the final ultimate decision on

if you deny the majority of the shareholders having that authority.

Mr. CASTELLANI. No, I am not saying——

Senator SARBANES. We are back to the imperial CEO, the imperial board.

Mr. Grinstein.

Mr. GRINSTEIN. Senator Sarbanes, I would jump in here. I disagree gently. I have agreed with much of what you have said today.

I actually do think corporations are democracies and what we are

doing is actually reinforcing that.

The directors from the State law, you are exactly right. They do

have a fiduciary duty to all shareholders or all stakeholders. However, if a majority of shareholders disagree with what those directors are doing, those directors are going to be voted out. That is the

ultimate democracy. The President of the United States is responsible to all the citizens, but if a majority does not agree, you are

going to be voted out, Senators, Congressmen, whoever.

Senator SARBANES. Yes, we are all very mindful of that.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GRINSTEIN. And sitting on a board, especially in light of Sarbanes-Oxley, we are all very mindful of that, too. So when you are

167

acting in a fiduciary responsibility, if you feel you have a majority

of your shareholders who are opposing something, you are going to

be very mindful of that.

I also want to say I agree on the nominating committees, that

by diversifying the nominating committees to independent directors

only, that will have a tremendous effect. It is going to take time

because boards are staggered, so these directors are only coming up

every other year, every third year. So the effects of Sarbanes-Oxley

and the independent directors on the nominating committees is

only going to take place over time. It is going to take 2 or 3 years,

or several cycles, until we begin to see the diversity in the boards

coming in, or several annual meeting cycles.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Trumka.

Mr. TRUMKA. I would just like to make a couple of points. First

of all, we do agree with Mr. Castellani that we have never found

corporations to be democracies.

[Laughter.]

We would like to change that, however.

Second of all, it is not necessarily true that if a majority of shareholders disagree with a director that they will get voted out. If you

do not have access to the proxy, management puts those same people forward and you do not get to vote on anybody. That is why

having this provision and letting shareholders have access to the

proxy is so important.

I want to make this very important point. There is a difference

between formal independence and psychological dependence. A

board member may be formally independent but psychologically dependent upon management. Only by having shareholders, longterm shareholders with access to the proxy can you guarantee the

psychological independence of those board members as well.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I would close with one point.

Chairman SHELBY. Go ahead.

Senator SARBANES. I want to read to you a statement made by

Chairman Donaldson before the Committee last week and ask for

your reaction to it. This is the Chairman of the SEC.

‘‘The short-term costs of compliance,’’ referring to the legislation,

‘‘particularly efforts to improve internal control, should be seen, in

my view, as an investment. In the long-term, I believe that the reforms realized from the Act will result in sounder corporate practices and more reliable financial reporting.’’

‘‘New requirements coming out of the Act, such as personal certification by CEO’s and CFO’s of a company’s financial disclosures,

will renew focus on the independence of corporate boards and the

focus on internal controls and procedures will strengthen companies in the long-run if they focus on the underlying intent of the

Act rather than on mere compliance.’’

‘‘Companies that view the new laws as opportunities, opportunities to improve internal controls, improve the performance of the

board, and improve their public reporting, will be better run, more

transparent, and more attractive to investors.’’ That is Chairman

Donaldson.

I would be interested in your reaction to that statement of the

Chairman.

168

Mr. CASTELLANI. From our standpoint, from the Business Roundtable member companies, we could not agree more.

Senator SARBANES. Okay.

Ms. GRINSTEIN. I could not agree more.

Senator SARBANES. Mr. Trumka.

Mr. TRUMKA. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. We are in absolute agreement.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you all very much.

Chairman SHELBY. I will be brief. We have had two good panels

today.

Every SEC Chairman who has come before this Committee—and

I have only been here 17 years on the Banking Committee—I have

asked the question: Who owns the company; who owns the corporation? Every one of them emphatically said the shareholders. The

shareholders, as we all know, own the corporations. The directors,

the CEO, and the directors do not. We understand that it be fundamental.

So if the shareholders own the corporation, I believe that where

they have a greater voice and they do elect directors—and sometimes that is stacked against them, the participation in the election

of directors. I think that is what concerns some people, because I

have seen in my tenure here on the Banking Committee, in just

looking out at the market, that sometimes CEO’s and directors

think and act as if they own the company. But if the shareholders

fundamentally, as we know and agree, own the company, I think

they have a great fiduciary relationship to that.

What is wrong with letting the shareholders, the owners, participate, even if they own just a few shares, if they so desire?

Thank you for appearing here today. I think we have all learned

a lot today. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Prepared statements supplied for the record follow:]

169

* Held in Senate Banking Committee files.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

I would like to thank Chairman Shelby for holding this important hearing today

to discuss the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on accounting firms, financial reporting, and investor confidence. The passage of this landmark legislation one year

ago was the first step in restoring public and investor confidence which had resulted

from repeated failures in financial reporting and auditing.

Our capital market system is fueled by accurate financial reporting and disclosure. A relationship of trust must be established between investors and companies

in order for continued and increased participation in the markets to occur. After the

repeated corporate scandals, the industry has been given the chance to redeem its

reputation, through the standards and requirements set forth in Sarbanes-Oxley.

What an opportune time for companies to repair what has broken down, and advance the U.S. markets that are revered by the rest of the world.

I have been pleased to hear the progress that both the Securities and Exchange

Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board have made thus

far in implementing Sarbanes-Oxley, and I look forward to hearing today about the

progress that the industry has made, and any concerns or difficulties that have arisen so far. Thank you to each of our witnesses for agreeing to testify today. I look

forward to your testimony.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. BOWSHER

FORMER CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Charles Bowsher. I am the former Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. I also served as Comptroller General of the United States and head of the General Accounting Office from

1981 to 1996. I was a partner of Arthur Andersen & Co. from 1971 to 1981, and

served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management from 1967 to

1971). Prior to that I was associated with and served as a partner at Andersen between 1956 to 1967 in the firm’s Chicago office. Presently, I serve as a director of

several public companies and have recently been made a member of the Board of

Governors of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD).

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the recommendations of the Conference

Board’s Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise, and specifically the

seven principles with recommendations and specific best practices for each that are

contained in Part 3 of The Conference Board Commission’s January 2003 report *

concerning Audit and Accounting. This report is the second issued by the Commission—the first one was issued on September 17, 2002 and discussed the issue of executive compensation. In addition, I will describe what progress we think has been

made in the last year, and what concerns we still have for the future.

By way of background, The Conference Board (the world’s leading business network) convened a 12 member Commission in June 2002 to address the causes of declining public and investor trust in companies, their leaders and America’s capital

markets. The 12 members of the Commission, in addition to myself, included Peter

Peterson (Chairman of the Blackstone Group, former Secretary of Commerce and

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), John Snow (Chairman and

CEO of CSX Corporation and former Chairman of The Business Roundtable), John

Biggs (former Chairman, President, and CEO of TIAA–CREF), John Bogle (founder

and former Chairman of Vanguard Group, Inc.), Peter Gilbert (Chief Investment

Officer of the State Employees’ Retirement System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), Andrew Grove (Chairman of Intel Corporation), Ralph Larsen (former

Chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson and former Chairman of The Business

Council), Arthur Levitt, Jr. (former SEC Chairman and former Chairman of the

American Business Conference) Lynn Sharp Paine (Professor at the Harvard Business School), Warren Rudman (former Senator and a partner at Paul, Weiss,

Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison) and Paul Volcker (former Chairman of the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve System), who is with me today to discuss two of

the seven principles in Part 3 of the Commission’s January 2003 report.

To begin, I strongly believe the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was largely

the work of this Committee, is an excellent piece of legislation, especially in

regard to audit and accounting issues. This legislation was long overdue. As one

170

Business Week headline stated, the reforms of the 1930’s were not adequate for the

1990’s.

The introduction to Part 3, Audit and Accounting, of the Conference Board report

clearly defines the importance of effective audits and the need for continued reform.

I would quote two key paragraphs:

The audit process is integral to the confidence required for the financial markets to operate effectively. Every public company must be audited annually by

a firm of independent accountants. In the last several years, crises involving

companies such as Enron, WorldCom, Xerox, Cendant, Adelphia, and Tyco have

focused attention on the integrity of the audit process and its oversight. The

public’s trust—including that of investors, insurers, and creditors—that audited

financial statements provide an accurate picture of the company’s finances is essential for the confidence that the capital markets require. The alleged auditing

failures associated with the recent corporate scandals have been a major factor

in the erosion of that trust.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the ‘‘Act’’) of 2002, the proposed New York Stock Exchange listing standards, and the Nasdaq corporate governance proposals have each

focused on a number of structural reforms to improve the independence of the outside auditors and to strengthen their oversight by the audit committees composed

of financially literate independent directors, at least one of whom, under the New

York Stock Exchange listing requirements, must have specific financial expertise.

The Conference Board Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise believes

that the following seven principles, particularly with respect to larger public companies, will strengthen the reforms begun by the Act and the NYSE to bolster the

public’s confidence in audited financial statements.

The first major issue that the Conference Board report addressed is the need for

an enhanced role for audit committees. We recommend that corporate boards should

make sure and devote sufficient resources and time to implement Sections 301 and

407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, especially in regard to:

• the independence and qualifications of the audit committee members; • the need for one member of the audit committee to be a financial expert; • the need for conducting an annual assessment of the performance of the audit

committee and its members; • the right of the audit committee to retain certain outside advisors or educational

consultants as they deem appropriate.

Many of the recommendations in our report, and those in Sarbanes-Oxley Act,

that relate to an enhanced role of the audit committee were previously discussed

and recommended in the 1999 Blue Ribbon Committee Report on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees, which was created by the New York

Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the NASD in response to concerns about the financial

reporting process as expressed by the then Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

It is heartening to report that it appears that numerous public company boards

in the last year have moved forward to strengthen their audit committees. Audit

committee members who were not independent and/or properly qualified have been

replaced, and many very qualified financial experts have been named to audit committees. The General Electric (GE) Board is a good example. However, it appears

that not all boards have moved forward on this much needed reform and this is an

area that the SEC should monitor on an annual basis when the proxy and annual

reports on Form 10–K are submitted. I would think the Committee might wish to

consider requiring an annual report from the SEC on this issue.

The second major issue the Conference Board report addressed is that of audit

committee member education and the need for an orientation program for each

member of the committee as well as the need for continuing education programs.

The third major issue that the Conference Board report addressed is that of improving internal controls and internal auditing, which was an important section

(404) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our report states that every public company board,

and especially the audit committee, should make enterprise risk assessment and internal controls high priorities in order to facilitate the certification and report processes required by Sections 302 and 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has not yet issued the

standards for Section 404. However, it is my view that many public companies are

moving ahead to document and improve their internal controls in order to be ready

to include a management report in their 2004 annual report and to be ready for

their outside audit firm to review and attest to the company’s report on internal

controls.

171

For companies that have adequate and well documented internal controls and an

adequate internal audit function, it will not find the reporting on internal controls

to be a major or costly effort. However, those companies that have not put an emphasis on internal controls will have a one-time investment to make, but investors

will be much better protected once management and outside auditors can attest to

proper internal controls. This area is the basic framework for the CEO and CFO

certifications regarding the annual financial statements and quarterly reports.

The PCAOB and the SEC must monitor this area very carefully and again, should

keep this Committee informed about the progress achieved beginning with the 2004

company reports.

An important consideration to keep in mind is that outside auditors should not

be involved in the documentation of clients’ accounting and operating controls. This

is in keeping with the principle that an external auditor should not audit its own

work. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act specifically prohibits an external auditor from performing internal audit services for audit clients.

The fourth area that the Commission report addressed was auditor rotation. We

recommend that in order to assure the independence of any audit, the audit committee should seriously consider rotating outside audit firms when some or all of

the following circumstances exist:

• the audit firm has been employed by the company for a substantial period of time,

for example, over 10 years;

• one or more former partners or managers of the audit firm are employed by the

company; and,

• significant nonaudit services are provided to the company—even if approved by

the audit committee.

I recognize that the General Accounting Office (GAO) was requested by Section

207 of the Act to study and report on the issue of mandatory rotation of registered

public accounting firms. As of now, this report has not been issued by the GAO.

It is interesting to note that the recently released WorldCom report requires rotation of the auditors every 10 years.

My fellow Commission member, Paul Volcker, will discuss the next two major

issues that the Conference Board report addressed—professional advisers for the

audit committees and services performed by accounting firms.

The last major issue that the Conference Board report addressed directly relates

to the Big Four firms which, as a recent GAO report indicated, audit most of the

public companies in the United States and the rest of the industrial world. Our concluding paragraph in this section of our report stated that the business model, strategies, and focus of the Big Four should ensure that quality audits are their number

one priority. The Big Four must be sure that they each represent a ‘‘gold standard’’

in auditing.

The question here is this: Has the leadership of the Big Four accounting firms

each examined their business model to ensure that it is consistent with the idea

that quality audits represent their number one priority?

Many observers of the accounting profession would say ‘‘no,’’ that the Big Four

firms have still not changed, are primarily focused on their litigation risks, and are

resistant to major reform. Some, including the Big Four firms, would be more positive. One firm has invested heavily in full page advertisements in The New York

Times and Wall Street Journal to convince the public that the answer is ‘‘yes.’’

I believe the jury is still out. Daily press coverage and other reports of continued

problems with Big Four audits and other professional work indicates that much

work and rethinking is still to be done.

A very distinguished accounting professor, Art Wyatt of the University of Illinois,

just gave a very thoughtful speech entitled ‘‘Accounting Professionalism—They Just

Don’t Get It’’ to the recent annual meeting of the American Accounting Association,

which is the group that represents the accounting professors of all our major universities. I commend this speech to the Committee (Mr. Wyatt’s speech is available on

the American Accounting Association website, www.aaahq.org).

I certainly agree with SEC Chairman Donaldson’s recent statement before the

House Financial Services Committee when he said that ‘‘[w]e should all realize . . .

that the PCAOB alone cannot restore investor confidence in the integrity of the accounting profession. If these efforts are to be successful, each accountant, from the

CEO of the accounting firm to its most recently hired employee, must demonstrate

a willingness to place the interests of investors above all else. Remaining independent and ‘telling it like it is’ is fundamental.’’

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would be happy to answer

any questions you may have.

172

1 I have submitted, in lieu of a new statement, excerpts from remarks made on Sept. 24, 2003,

which directly pertain to the subject of the hearing. 2 Excerpts from a September 24, 2003 address by Paul A. Volcker at Washington University,

St. Louis.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL A. VOLCKER 1

FORMER CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

OCTOBER 2, 2003

American Leadership and Business Responsibility 2

Cast your minds back only a few years to the mid-1990’s. Powered both by new

technology and the ideology of free markets, the integration of markets internationally was in full swing . . .

But then, in the glow of seeming success, something unexpected and disturbing

happened. We had a succession of financial and economic crises, first in Mexico and

then in Asia, in Russia, and back to Latin America. Those were big setbacks for the

emerging world. With few exceptions, individual countries have not yet returned to

earlier growth trends . . .

In the wake of the crises, the theme of much of the analysis was that the emerging economies were fragile and vulnerable because of long-standing weaknesses in

their business practices: in accounting and auditing, in the prevalence of cronyism

and corruption, in badly skewed distributions of incomes, and in a lack of respect

for the rule of law. If only, the refrain went, those countries would adopt western,

and particularly American business practices, then the opening of financial markets

would have proceeded more smoothly, with fewer excesses and surprises.

Well, from the perspective of today, all that seems simplistic, to say the least. We

have had to recognize that our own stock market performances and accolades of

business performance exaggerated reality. Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, Arthur Andersen—now the New York Stock Exchange itself—have cast a different

light on things. We obviously have a lot of work to do here at home if we are to

restore confidence in our own securities markets and make good on our implicit

claim to be a model for the world economy.

There are those who would dismiss the scandals as the work of a few bad apples.

We are warned not to overreact, at the risk of undermining entrepreneurial energy

and the spirit of innovation.

Well, I do not want to overreact, but I have been at least as concerned by a sense

of denial or complacency.

I know perfectly well that the great mass of American businesses performs with

skill and honesty as they respond to the incentives and competitive pressures in the

marketplace. But we have seen enough examples of malfeasance, misfeasance, and

nonfeasance to know that we are dealing with more than isolated anomalies. The

egregious examples are a reflection of a wider willingness to cut accounting corners,

to press at the edges of acceptable business practices, to tolerate conflicts of interest,

and to find elaborate and questionable ways and means around established accounting principles and tax regulations.

The demand for a response and some basic reforms strikes me as entirely legitimate, just as the financial excesses of the 1890’s and 1920’s led to constructive

change that we now take for granted.

Accounting Reform and Sarbanes-Oxley

The accounting and auditing profession, sadly epitomized by the demise of Arthur

Andersen, has borne the brunt of the criticism and the reform effort. There is a certain justification in that.

The auditing profession bears a clear and unique burden of attesting to the validity and integrity of a company’s accounts. That responsibility of auditors, incorporated in law, runs to the investing public—to the market for private capital—

rather than to the companies that hire and pay them. Honesty in accounting and

reporting is, after all, the bedrock of the efficient allocation of capital.

There can no longer be doubt that internal conflicts within accounting firms greatly increased in recent years and became essentially unmanageable. All the big

accounting firms took a basic decision to become general business consultants and

advisers, sensing that those services would be more lucrative than the core auditing

function. In the process, the drive for revenues had the consequence of eroding the

auditing discipline that lay at the core of their professional responsibility.

This was an area, in my opinion and that of many others, that demanded a legislative response. If reliable accounting and auditing is essential to an effective capitalist system, I have come to realize what a demanding profession it is. There are

173

very large intellectual and practical challenges. It is not a matter of obstructive

technicians with green eye-shades, but a most demanding responsibility.

The sad fact is efforts at voluntary reform and professional self-regulation have

been weak and ineffective. The need for a legislative response became clear.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act appropriately deals with three crucial areas.

First, the conflicts associated with the spread of consulting services have been

sharply reduced. The sale of many nonaudit services to audit clients is now prohibited or restricted, leading all but one of the remaining ‘‘Big Four’’ accounting firms

to sell or spin off their lucrative high-tech consulting practices.

Second, auditing standards and review of actual auditing practices—both revealed

by events to have been inadequate—has been delegated to a new regulatory body,

the Public Company Auditing Oversight Board.

Third, the new Board, operating alongside the SEC under strong leadership,

should be able to maintain the degree of oversight and surveillance that we have

long assumed with respect to our securities market generally. In particular, the SEC

now has the leadership, the funding, and potentially the staffing to meet its responsibilities in a world of finance ever increasing in complexity.

In focussing on accounting, auditing, and the SEC, I do not want to lose sight of

the responsibilities of other so-called ‘‘gate keepers’’ in the financing process. Accounting firms were not alone in designing and encouraging elaborate schemes to

circumvent accounting principles, to dodge taxes, and to embellish and smooth earnings. Far from it, there were battalions of investment bankers, lawyers, consultants,

and financial engineers prepared to go to the edge or even beyond ethical practice.

Too often they have lent their professional authority to practices of their own clients

that fraudulently misrepresent operating results. In the process, investors are illserved and the long-term prospects for the business jeopardized.

I do not think our great schools of business can entirely escape responsibility. I

was taken aback a while ago when one of the leaders of Wall Street, sharing with

me his sense of distress about the perceived lapse of standards, commented ‘‘What

do you expect when our best business schools for 20 years have preached the doctrine that the only measure of success is the price of a company’s stock, with the

implication that any means of enhancing that price short of overtly criminal or unethical behavior is fair game?’’

As I overcame my surprise, I had to agree there was at least a grain of truth in

what he said.

Corporate Governance

Here, I would suggest, we are entering an area that is really beyond the ability

of law and regulation to address. The discharge of professional responsibilities and

methods of corporate governance—the arrangements made to run and oversee the

operations of our business firms—seems to me to require a rather different approach. The hundreds of thousands of businesses in the United States, from the

tiniest to the huge multinational corporations, can hardly be fit into a common pattern.

If government must tread with caution, there has been no shortage of comment

and debate. Dozens of conferences and commissions and learned essays have opined

on what, if anything, needs to be done. Long checklists of good practice have been

developed—the appropriate size of board, the independence of directors, the emphasis on the auditing committee, appropriate remuneration practices, and on and on.

Much of that strikes me as helpful.

But it is also clear one size cannot fit all. In the end, what will count is something

less tangible, something that cannot be fully reflected in any checklist of good practice.

Boards of directors tend to be collegial bodies. The natural instinct is to support

management. After all, they typically have been chosen by the chief executive officer; at the very least, he or she has heavily influenced the choice of directors. Or,

if the CEO is relatively new, the appointment is by the Board, and that also implies

a readiness and desire to provide strong support.

The CEO, in turn, naturally looks to the Board for counsel and support of strategic plans, of personnel appointments, succession planning, and the like. In effect,

the Board acts in support of management, which raises a rather basic question.

It is the job of the CEO to manage. The basic and unique responsibility of the

Board is rather different. It is to oversee—to satisfy itself that the CEO and his

team are acting with integrity and in the best long-term interest of the stockholders.

That implies a certain distance from the CEO, a skeptical eye, and a concern for

other ‘‘stakeholders’’ important to the success of the corporation. A priority must be

attention to the integrity of management.

174

In sum, directors need to maintain independence—independence in fact as well

as in form.

It seems to me, and increasingly to many others, that this is an area in which

we need a change from what has been embedded in American corporate doctrine.

The argument has been that combining the function of Chairman and CEO focuses

responsibility, assures a clear line of authority, and encourages quick and effective

decisionmaking. And so it does.

The difficulty is the ‘‘imperial CEO’’ may not leave much room for the Board to

provide really effective oversight. True independence requires effective Board leadership, leadership able and willing to shape the agenda and to encourage full and regular discussion without management present.

My point is that it is difficult at best—and sometimes not possible—for those contrasting responsibilities of management and oversight to be discharged by a single

person.

I realize the pattern of a nonexecutive chairman will not fit all companies. It may

well not be suitable for new ventures and small corporations, for privately owned

companies or in transitional circumstances. But I do think, for large public companies with widely dispersed ownership, a separation of the oversight and management functions should be recognized as preferable, as indeed is common practice

abroad. At the least, companies departing from that practice should be required to

explain and rationalize that decision, and to provide for a reasonable substitute such

as a ‘‘presiding’’ or ‘‘lead’’ director.

Executive Compensation

I suppose no issue has raised more questions about corporate management and

Board oversight than the matter of executive remuneration, in my mind justly so.

I have seen reference to a truly disturbing statistic. Fifteen years ago, the average

compensation of an American corporation reportedly ran to about 40 or 50 times the

pay of the average employee; today that ratio approximates 500 times.

What is it that today produces, as a matter of course, tens of millions of dollars

of compensation for CEO’s in a single year, and occasional pay-offs of well over $100

million? Does it indeed take that kind of pay to motivate top executives? Are the

powerful incentives involved really constructive, or have they encouraged excessive

risk and even unethical behavior?

Those are serious questions, too often ignored in what clearly became a kind of

competitive game, ratcheting pay higher and higher to maintain parity with one’s

peers.

One aspect has become rather clear. The escalating patterns of compensation over

the past decade or so are, directly and indirectly, a by-product of the wide-spread

use of stock options . . .

In the 1990’s, in the midst of the greatest bull market in all of history, those options paid off in amounts far beyond anything that could have been foreseen by the

Boards that granted them. The fact is the dramatic evaluation of the overall stock

market lifted almost all individual stocks. The result was companies granting stock

options richly rewarded their executives even when business performance fell below

average. There have been grotesque examples of leaders of failing companies ‘‘cashing in’’ not long before the default. It is hard to maintain that fixed price options

without downside risk truly aligned incentives with an ordinary stockholder.

The fact of the matter is that the enormous jump in total executive compensation

was a reflection of the largely unanticipated payoffs on stock options in the 1990’s.

In effect, a new norm was established for executive pay, aided and abetted by the

legions of compensation consultants quick to suggest to their clients the importance

of maintaining comparable—or more likely, above average—pay.

Look no further than the stated rationale for the amounts paid the executive head

of the New York Stock Exchange, once thought of as rather semi-public responsibility. The sums were justified as comparable to the pay of major financial companies, whose compensation is typically importantly in equity shares and stock

options.

There is no doubt that stock options can provide a powerful incentive. For cash

poor, risky, and innovative companies they may well have an important role. In any

case, the decision will appropriately be made by the dominant owner or owners.

That is a very different situation from the large, established public company, with

ample financial resources and widely dispersed owners without direct decisionmaking authority.

Conceptually, the idea that executives and employees should have a stake in the

financial performance of their own company surely makes sense. Equity ownership

in some amount—taking the risk of losses as well as gains—should help align interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
175

ests with owners. But taken to an extreme, particularly with heavy use of one-way

options, there are demonstrable dangers.

Again, I do not say this is a matter for legislation; it is rather a matter of encouraging appropriate patterns of corporate behavior. Good accounting practices have a

part to play. The strong and effective resistance in the past to the expensing of stock

options by American business cannot, I believe, any longer be intellectually defended.

Several leading American corporations have recently decided voluntarily to expense grants of options, an approach, I believe, that will soon become required accounting practice right around the world. Others have now gone further, deciding

to end fixed-price stock options entirely or to sharply reduce their use . . .

Conclusion

In sum, we are beginning to see real progress in bringing our practice of auditing,

oversight, and corporate governance closer to what we have long preached . . .

Most fundamentally, it seems to me, we as a society need to restore and emphasize the importance in the business world of strong professional values and ethical

behavior.

I know that cannot be legislated, certainly not in any detail. But I do not believe

either, as some have argued, it is all a matter of what we have learned at Mother’s

knee, beyond later influence.

Rather, it seems to me, there is the intangible but real matter of societal norms,

broadly understood and recognized, not just as a matter of professional and individual pride. What is at stake is the foundation of a truly democratic, competitive

market system . . .

If this new world of globalization is to be a prosperous and peaceful world—a

world in which a democratic system of capitalism is, indeed, the model—we would

better make sure our own markets are performing both effectively and ethically.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN P. ANDERSON

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC.

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee: I am Brian P. Anderson, Senior

Vice President and the Chief Financial Officer of Baxter International Inc. Baxter

International is a global health-care company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange, with approximately $8 billion in sales and 50,000 employees in more than

100 countries worldwide.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to join you today, along with my colleagues from the business community and others, to look at the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

1 year later. Looking back, 2 years after the Enron story became public, followed

by WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, and Global Crossing, one easily concludes that these

corporate governance and accounting scandals seriously threatened the public confidence that is fundamental to the efficiency of our capital markets, an essential

component of our free enterprise system. By passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of

2002, Congress took a bold step toward restoring public confidence and rebuilding

trust. The question before us now is whether this law, and the tools it provides for

reform, have accomplished the intended objective of restoring public trust through

meaningful change within corporate America.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act seeks to effect change through many avenues. For purposes of my comments today, I will address them within the fundamental structure

that comprises our modern corporate system: The shareholders/investors, the board

of directors, and the senior management of the corporation.

Beginning with the management of the corporation, I believe the most significant

aspect of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in this regard is the visibility and emphasis it

places on corporate executives to ensure that financial information is correct. Obviously, the public’s confidence in the integrity of financial reporting was seriously

eroded as a result of the corporate scandals, and the individual investors who invested their funds based on this information were ultimately the ones who were

most harmed by this failure. As you are aware, the Act places responsibility for ensuring enhanced and accurate financial statement disclosure not only upon management of corporations, but also upon public accountants and audit committees of

board of directors.

Among the measures designed to improve investor confidence in corporate reporting are (1) significantly enhanced and more timely financial and nonfinancial disclosure requirements, (2) CEO/CFO certification of periodic reports and (3) a redeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
176

signed approach to regulations of the accounting profession, including auditor independence. In general, my opinion is that these rules have served their intended purpose well. Issuer disclosure in both financial and nonfinancial arenas has improved

significantly and, perhaps just as importantly, management’s time, energy, and

focus on enhanced disclosure has increased, whether through disclosure committees

or otherwise. This necessarily serves to protect investors and ensure the reliability

of the financial information available to the investing public. One of the most positive outgrowths of this initiative will hopefully be an increase within corporations

of a climate of compliance.

For example, at Baxter, we formalized our disclosure committee and documented

our disclosure controls and procedures, which we found to be a productive and

worthwhile exercise. We found that, for a multinational company operating in over

100 countries, we had a very rigorous reporting and control environment; however,

there were improvements that could still be made. We view this as a living and

breathing process that, in accordance with the new rules, is reviewed on an ongoing

basis and refined as necessary.

On the other hand, I believe that it still remains to be seen whether the time,

effort, and expense required by issuers and management to comply with Section 404

of the Act (not to mention the independent auditors) will ultimately result in significantly enhanced internal controls and procedures. Please do not misunderstand my

comment: I believe management should acknowledge its responsibility for the adequacy of the company’s internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting, and should assess the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over

financial reporting. At this point, however, it is not obvious to me that corporations

today have mastered the most effective method of accomplishing this goal.

While I understand and agree with the intent behind Section 404 of the Act, the

time and costs involved are not insignificant or incremental. It will virtually double

Baxter’s internal and external audit costs. Complying with Section 404 of the Act

not only imposes significant and time-consuming obligations on reporting companies, but it also requires an attestation of management’s internal control report by

independent auditors. My overall concern here is that both reporting companies and

external auditors will spend an enormous amount of time, energy, and money to ensure compliance with Section 404 without necessarily achieving the desired outcome

of ensuring that companies have systems in place to identify potential weaknesses

in their financial reporting.

In general, however, I believe that the increased responsibilities and focus that

Sarbanes-Oxley has brought upon independent auditors is a positive development.

The importance of the public’s trust in accountants, particularly as it relates to audits of public companies, cannot be emphasized enough. In that regard, I believe

that Congress has, through Sarbanes-Oxley, successfully implemented important

and significant changes designed to ensure auditor independence. By severely limiting the kinds of nonaudit services that can be performed for audit clients, restricting relationships that can result in a lack of independence, establishing ‘‘cooling off’’

periods, and ensuring mandatory audit partner rotation, there should be significantly improved independence of audit firms from their public company clients.

In addition, I support the notion that the previous system of accounting firm selfregulation required substantial revision. Accordingly, I believe that the creation of

a Public Company Accounting Oversight Board will serve to enhance investor confidence in the value that independent auditors can bring to our corporate system.

The Act has also, through Section 202, solidified an important link between the

independent auditors and the audit committees of boards. At Baxter, we have had

several of these initiatives and processes in place for many years, including executive sessions between the audit committee and our independent auditors, and audit

partner rotation. We have, since the enactment of the Act, changed our practices

in the area of nonaudit work to conform to the new rules. Overall, I believe that

the new rules imposed by the Act with regard to public audit firms and their activities should result in significant positive change.

Turning to boards of directors, I believe that the Act has had and will continue

to have a significant positive impact on how boards interact with management and

each other. The exposure of serious problems around corporate governance and the

heightened awareness of this topic have served to put the public spotlight on issues

such as board independence, board qualifications, and the roles and responsibilities

of board committees. This can only improve accountability and responsibility of our

corporate boards, which, in turn, means better representation on behalf of the

shareholders.

At Baxter, we are proud of our strong commitment to maintaining the highest

standards of corporate governance. In 1995, Baxter became one of the first companies to adopt formal Corporate Governance Guidelines, long before corporate AmerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
177

ica was required to meet today’s new standards. Most of the new rules the Government now mandates are practices we have had in place for years. In fact, as a result

of Baxter’s many years of attention to corporate governance, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

as well as the proposed New York Stock Exchange rules, has not dramatically impacted Baxter’s practices.

The company’s corporate governance guidelines, which are annually renewed and

revised as appropriate, address issues such as board size, structure, composition,

qualifications, diversity, director term limits, retirement ages, strategic planning

and succession planning. Working with our chief corporate governance officer, the

board continually discusses Baxter’s governance practices, changing our policies

when necessary and identifying areas where we need to improve our performance.

The board recently adopted categorical independence criteria by which director

independence will be assessed. As of September 2003, 10 out of 11 directors were

independent under the new criteria, with Harry Kraemer, Baxter’s chairman and

CEO, being the only nonindependent director.

While our CEO and other members of our executive management team attend

board committee meetings to share their thoughts and perspectives, our board and

its committees also regularly meet in executive session without any members of

Baxter’s management team present. These ‘‘executive sessions’’ (where no management is present) are very important to help ensure the objectivity of the board. But

we recognize that these practices were not necessarily commonplace prior to enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, and we commend Congress for raising the bar for all companies.

With respect to shareholders, I believe the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has had, and will

continue to have a positive impact. While shareholder confidence was justifiably

shaken by corporate scandal and fraudulent behavior, there is a renewed energy

and optimism among shareholders these days. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as

the pending changes to be implemented by the New York Stock Exchange and

Nasdaq, have provided shareholders with confirmation that their government is attempting to eliminate opportunities for abuse. Debate is increasing regarding the

rights of shareholders and the matters over which they should have control, or at

least a voice. Shareholders are seeking control over executive compensation, increased access to the proxy statement, increased participation in corporate affairs,

and direct access to the board, including board nominations.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, looking back at what has occurred since the enactment of

Sarbanes-Oxley, I believe we see on balance a very positive and encouraging picture.

It is clear that, in light of the corporate governance and accounting scandals that

began to emerge 2 years ago, strong medicine was needed quickly to restore investor

confidence, create independent oversight, and eliminate the serious conflicts of interest that led to these abuses in the first place.

To those who feel that Sarbanes-Oxley may have gone too far, I would say that

the strong medicine appears to be working and that we must not abandon the treatment just because there may be some unwanted or unpleasant side effects. At the

same time, to those who might feel that Sarbanes-Oxley may not have gone far

enough, I would also urge caution and strongly encourage them to closely monitor

the impact of the law to make sure we have not tipped the balance too far in any

one direction.

Specifically, looking forward, I believe we must pay close attention to the balance

between Federal and State law, the potential erosion of the business judgment rule,

increased liability for directors, and the increasing hesitancy of qualified individuals

to serve on corporate boards, especially on audit committees.

Federal law historically has regulated the securities markets by requiring specified financial public disclosures from publicly traded companies. State law, on the

other hand, has provided guidance on corporate governance, such as corporate structure, shareholder rights, and the fiduciary responsibilities of directors. Although neither the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, nor the pending exchange proposals, technically create

a new cause of action for stockholders, some of the provisions within SarbanesOxley, as well as pending stock exchange rules, overlap into areas traditionally covered by State law, such as definitions of director independence and audit committee

composition and responsibilities.

In addition, with the balance between Federal and State law in flux, the State

courts are sending the signal that they too are expecting more from corporate

boards. The Delaware Supreme Court recently has reversed several chancery court

decisions that upheld director decisionmaking, and the decision of the Chancery

Court in In re the Walt Disney Company to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss

points to a willingness by the courts to second guess director decisionmaking and

question the good faith and duty of care elements of the business judgment rule.

The consequences of this trend may be the creation of a new standard of care for

178

directors that could dissuade some qualified, high caliber individuals from serving

as a director of a public company because of the uncertain potential liability.

Finally, I believe all three of the constituencies I have addressed—corporate management, corporate boards, and shareholders—would be better served if the SEC exercised its authority to implement more of the Sarbanes-Oxley provisions through

its well established and respected rulemaking process. The SEC has been granted

the authority to address unfair and inequitable situations that might arise out of,

for example, the Section 402 loan restrictions, or to provide guidance where there

are questions of interpretation, but the Commission has stated it will not do so.

Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate having the opportunity to appear before

this Committee today to underscore the importance of what you have accomplished

with the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and to express our strong support

for the overall goals that this legislation is intended to serve. As I hope I have articulated, I believe that Congress has addressed in a full and fair manner all aspects

of our public corporate system through legislation that impacts corporate management, corporate boards and corporate shareholders, and has taken a dramatic step

toward restoring public trust and confidence in our capital markets system. I would

be happy to respond to any questions you might have.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CASTELLANI

PRESIDENT, THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Good morning. My name is John Castellani, and I am President of The Business

Roundtable, an association of CEO’s of leading corporations with a combined workforce of more than 10 million employees in the United States and $3.7 trillion in

annual revenues. I appreciate this opportunity to share the Roundtable’s views on

implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and restoring investor confidence.

I would like to begin by commending this Committee for your efforts to strengthen

corporate governance and restore investor confidence over the past 2 years. The

Business Roundtable has been a leader in advocating corporate governance reforms

for over three decades, beginning in the 1970’s with our first statement on corporate

governance and continuing through the 1980’s and 1990’s with numerous publications addressing corporate governance best practices. In May 2002, we published our

Principles of Corporate Governance, a set of best practices designed to guide corporate governance practices and further U.S. companies’ ability to compete, create

jobs, and generate economic growth. The Roundtable strongly supported the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and we have supported the SEC’s efforts to implement it.

And a word of thanks to the SEC. Despite a tight rulemaking schedule, it took

the time to consider every rule, weigh its consequences, and solicit—and listen to—

input from investors, companies, and others.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act put a necessary spotlight on corporate governance and

financial reporting. Our members have viewed the Act as an opportunity to enhance

their corporate governance practices and financial reporting procedures. In addition,

Roundtable companies have implemented—voluntarily at this point—many of the

proposed New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq corporate governance reforms, with

independent boards of directors, entirely independent audit, nominating and compensation committees and written committee charters.

A recent survey of Roundtable companies shows that our members are committed

to living up to the spirit, not just the letter, of all of these reforms.

For example, 88 percent of Roundtable companies report increased involvement

in board and committee meetings by members of the audit, nominating, and compensation committees, and over 90 percent report increased involvement by the

board as a whole. In keeping with the spirit of the reforms, audit committees today

have taken ‘‘ownership’’ of the relationship with independent auditors, making it

clear that auditors report to the committee, not to management.

Roundtable companies also report a dramatic increase in director evaluations,

with 70 percent of companies performing director evaluations this year compared to

44 percent in 2002. As we stated in our Principles of Corporate Governance, directors should serve only so long as they add value to the board, and the recent rise

in director evaluations reflects companies’ renewed commitment to board quality

and accountability.

The Business Roundtable supports enhanced communications with shareholders,

and, to that end, we supported recent SEC efforts to increase disclosure about nominating committee processes and to require disclosure concerning shareholder comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:35 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 99603.TXT SBANK4 PsN: SBANK4
179

munications with the board. In fact, two-thirds of Roundtable companies have discussed with their nominating committees a process to communicate and respond to

shareholder proposals and inquiries. An equal number have a process in place to

communicate and respond to shareholder nominations of board candidates.

Moreover, the Roundtable has strongly supported the New York Stock Exchange

and Nasdaq proposals to require regularly scheduled executive sessions of independent directors. In fact, the independent directors of 55 percent of Roundtable

companies expect to meet in executive session five or more times this year. In many

cases, directors today are convening in executive session before or after each meeting of the full board.

The New York Stock Exchange also has proposed to require that a director be designated to preside at executive sessions of the independent directors. Our members

agree that it is important to provide leadership for a company’s independent directors. In our recent survey, 55 percent of Roundtable companies reported that they

have named an independent lead director as either an independent chairman, lead

director, or presiding outside director. This indicates the diversity of approaches to

board leadership that companies take, depending on their unique circumstances.

Finally, 8 in 10 Roundtable companies report that their boards of directors are

at least 75 percent independent, and 9 in 10 report that at least two-thirds of their

directors are independent, exceeding the proposed New York Stock Exchange and

Nasdaq listing standard requirements. As we stated in our Principles of Corporate

Governance, providing objective, independent judgment is at the core of the board’s

oversight function—a key to good corporate governance.

Although much progress has been made, implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley

Act is not complete. For example, the SEC provided an extended effective date for

its rules relating to internal controls over financial reporting to give companies and

their accounting firms time to comply on a better and more cost-effective basis. Nevertheless, these rules may prove to be the most costly of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

reforms.

I mention these costs not to begrudge them. Rather, many of the costs associated

with Sarbanes-Oxley are necessary and appropriate. At the same time, we need to

remember that business must satisfy the needs of a large set of stakeholders—our

shareholders, our employees, our customers, and the communities in which we operate. To do that, we must run our companies in an effective and ethical manner. In

this regard, good corporate governance should be equated with high value for all of

our shareholders and other stakeholders. We should not so overly focus on regulating the mechanics of corporate governance that we lose sight of creating that

value.

We need to be mindful of the potential for over regulation of corporate governance

becoming another overhang on the economy. The economy currently faces several

overhangs: The war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, the bursting of the bubble

of the 1990’s and the collapse of stock valuations, and the corporate scandals of the

past 18 months. We must be careful that we do not go so far in creating obligations

and restrictions in the name of corporate governance that we create another overhang. We do not want directors and managers to become so afraid to take risks that

we stifle the entrepreneurial spirit that is an essential characteristic of American

business.

All of us—Congress, the SEC, the securities markets, and the corporate community—have worked hard to restore investor confidence over the past 2 years, and

we are proud of those efforts. Nevertheless, as I said before, there is still work to

be done. The SEC should move expeditiously to approve the proposed New York

Stock Exchange and Nadsaq corporate governance listing standards, and companies

should continue—as they have been doing—to set standards for transparency, honesty, and fairness that go beyond the law and reflect a culture of integrity.

At the Business Roundtable, our companies will continue our work to improve corporate governance practices. We have a number of initiatives underway. First, we

are examining how we can better train both current and future business leaders to

enhance the role of ethics in their decisionmaking process. Second, we are working

to bring more sense and transparency to executive compensation. Finally, we are

continuing to develop and share best practices in corporate governance so that companies and their boards and management can learn what works most effectively.

Congress did its job in enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the SEC is doing

its job in implementing the Act. We recognize that the rest is up to us.

180

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH D. GRINSTEIN

CHAIRMAN, COINSTAR INCORPORATED

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Sarbanes, and Members of the Committee,

thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today to discuss the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Background

I am currently a member of the boards of directors of three small to mid-sized

public companies traded on Nasdaq: Coinstar Inc., F5 Networks, and Nextera Enterprises, Inc. Although a member of the boards of these companies, I appear here

today solely on my own personal behalf, and not as a representative of those companies. I am not authorized to comment on our own board deliberations.

Coinstar is a Bellevue, Washington-based company which develops, owns, and operates a network of automated, self-service, coin-counting and processing machines

that provide consumers with a convenient means to convert loose coins into cash.

Coinstar’s market capitalization is roughly $280 million and is listed under the symbol CSTR. I am an independent/nonemployee director and serve as Chairman of the

Board of Directors and serve on three board committees: the audit committee, the

compensation committee, and the nominations/corporate governance committee.

Consistent with proposed NASD rules, Coinstar has a majority of independent board

members.

F5 Networks Inc. is a Seattle company that provides integrated products and

services to manage, control, and optimize Internet traffic. F5 Networks would be

considered a mid-cap company with a market capitalization of roughly $500 million

and trades under the symbol FFIV. I am an independent, nonemployee director of

F5 Networks and serve on the audit committee and compensation committees of the

board. F5 Networks does not have a nominations committee. F5 Networks also has

a majority of independent board members.

Nextera, is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Nextera’s primary asset

is Lexecon, an economics consulting firm whose clients include major law firms and

the corporations that they represent, government and regulatory agencies, public

and private utilities, and national and multinational corporations. Nextera trades

under the symbol NXRA, and has a market capitalization of roughly $17 million.

I am one of three independent, nonemployee directors of Nextera, and I serve on

two board committees, the audit committee and compensation committee of the

board. Nextera does not have a nominations committee. As a closely held company,

Nextera is exempt from the board independence requirements of NASD rules.

In addition to my affiliation with publicly traded companies, I am an attorney and

sit on the boards of three privately held companies and am a founding partner of

Second Avenue Partners, a private venture capital firm in Seattle that provides

funding and support to Pacific Northwest early-stage companies.

Significant Tangible Benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley

My connection with public companies predates passage of the Act, and thus my

perspective on the significance of the changes brought about by the Act comes from

the perspective of one who has lived intimately with the preexisting obligations imposed on those responsible for governing publicly-traded companies. Further, my

perspective also comes from involvement in companies that have sought scrupulously to comply with their Federal disclosure obligations, have not been the

subject of investigations by Federal or State authorities, and where I have been

privileged to serve with a group of outstanding fellow directors, who have genuinely

sshould do the right thing.

As an initial matter, it is important to recall that prior to the date of the Act,

while the Nasdaq had certain requirements for listed companies such as requiring

audit committees, corporations are creatures of State law and State law does not

dictate how a company is to be governed. State law does however spell out the duties of directors such as the duty of care and loyalty. Nonetheless there was a growing understanding among public companies that certain corporate governance practices were better than others. Except as a matter of disclosure, there was no Federal

law concerning corporate governance and the Federal law simply required disclosure

of the company’s practices, most notably in connection with its proxy statements

and its annual and periodic reports.

Further, prior to passage of the Act the existing Federal and State proscriptions

against fraud and the Federal disclosure obligations were taken seriously and the

existing criminal sanctions were a significant deterrent to wrongdoing. There was,

however, a mood of complacency that had crept into the board rooms, especially in

181

the heady days of the bull market. This complacency led to excessive latitude being

given to management in the conduct of corporate affairs and less attention given

to the independent oversight function of board members.

This manifested itself in several ways: Boards gave undue deference to management in matters such as (1) compensation packages, (2) recommendations of management about corporate decisions, (3) accounting policy and disclosure matters, and

(4) nominations for future directors. This also meant that directors would frequently

not voice issues that could be viewed as questioning the judgment of management.

Directors serve for many reasons but often for the money and prestige associated

with board membership. Because management often controls the director selection

process, board members could be held hostage to that management. Although I have

not directly experienced this in my tenure, it seems that there are few directors that

may place undue importance on the money and prestige of board membership. This

may have caused some board members to acquiesce in management demands for

larger and larger compensation packages and to condone the reporting of the financial consequences of poor management decisions through issuing managementfriendly audit reports.

The notorious and well-known corporate scandals that prompted passage of the

Act have brought about a marked change in attitude in the board room. There has

been less deference being given to management initiatives. Questions that went

unasked before are being asked now. Board meetings are more frequent and board

members are better prepared at meetings. Management has provided us with more

information, we see more attorneys at board meetings, board committee charters are

being written or reviewed by outside counsel, and more attention is being paid to

corporate governance and structure. Boards are adopting written compensation policies, and tend to be more ‘‘hands on’’ with respect to pay-package decisions. Issues

that before would not have even been discussed, are being presented to the board

for discussion and advice.

It is difficult to isolate specifically those provisions of the Act that have had this

effect. I will point to just a few of the most important changes.

Audit Committees

I sit on three audit committees. The requirement for independent audit committees and the specification of their powers have been markedly strengthened by the

Act. Even on the boards where I sit that had adopted the best practices guidance

for performance of their duties even before the passage of the Act, the audit committee members have undertaken to take their duties even more seriously and their

powers have been strengthened. The auditors also appreciate more clearly than before that they work for the audit committees, not management. We see two important changes: Auditors are more responsive to our requests, and auditors are giving

more attention to their audits.

Consulting Services by Auditors

The audit committees on which I sit do not authorize our auditors to engage in

consulting services. Auditors do not invite the potential for conflict. This has been

a marked change wrought by both the SEC’s 2001 independence rules and the

changes adopted by the Act.

Internal Control Audits

Companies are now required to have quarterly internal control audits. Where before these internal audits may have been performed by our auditors as part of

nonaudit services, the auditor independence reforms have required us to look elsewhere for those services. There is increased competition for these services, increased

information to audit committees, and a renewed focus on responsibility—we are getting a good work product.

CEO/CFO Certifications

The certification process has been a disciplining process for executives and financial officers, and that disciplining process has filtered down to others within the

company who report to them. From the board’s perspective, it has provided us with

additional comfort as to our ability to rely on management’s representations concerning internal controls and the financial condition of the company.

Costs of Implementation

There can be no question that the Act has increased the cost to companies of compliance. For small and mid-cap companies these increased costs are a significant

drain on the bottom line. Such companies have fewer assets and less revenue over

which to amortize implementation and continuing compliance liabilities and expenses. In my personal view, the benefit in investor confidence and the improved

182

corporate governance that is taking place, is worth the cost. It is hard to put a

short-term price tag on the lack of investor confidence that was mushrooming out

of control at the time of passage of the Act.

In general, I estimate that compliance with the Act imposes a direct cost on a

small cap company of about $250,000 per year, and a larger mid-cap company of

closer to $1 million. Some of these costs are likely to be recurring costs, and some

of these costs are likely to be one time costs and could level off as we gain more

experience in administering the changes brought by the Act.

Let me summarize the components of those costs:

More Board of Director Time

Directors are compensated by a per-meeting fee and by the amount of time spent

on matters. Since enactment of the Act, we have had more frequent board meetings

and more frequent meetings of board committees. This is especially true in the case

on the audit committees. This translates into a direct increase in board fees.

Increased Auditor Fees

As I have noted, auditors are spending more time on engagements, and the direct

interaction between audit committees and the auditor has increased. Further, another direct increased cost is caused by the new requirement that annual and quarterly reports be issued more quickly. There is an increased demand on auditors to

conduct their review more rapidly before the quarterly and annual reports are filed.

This translates into a direct total increase in auditor fees.

Increased Insurance Costs

Companies have seen the cost of Director & Officer insurance increase by between

15 percent and 30 percent. In my experience this is an increase of about $100,000

in premiums for each $10 million in insurance coverage. As I understand it, insurance companies have not yet begun to see a substantial increase in actual outlays,

but the premiums have increased because of a perceived increase in risk; premiums

may level off in time as we have more experience under the Act.

Legal Fees

We see more attorneys at every phase of our work on boards. This includes work

on drafting or redrafting board or committee charters, attendance at board, and

committee meetings and on consultations with management.

Looking Forward

The Act was landmark legislation that was needed at the time and has had a profound impact on corporate America and the accounting and brokerage industry.

There has not been sufficient time to assess the impact of the changes brought

about by the Act, including the indirect benefit of increased investor confidence, and

the intangible benefit of better corporate governance. The direct Federal oversight

over the accounting profession was long overdue and I have already seen a marked

improvement in accountant responsiveness. I am optimistic that the Act strikes the

appropriate balance between federalization of certain aspects of corporate governance and increased Federal disclosure obligations.

There are some areas on which the Committee should pay particular attention.

The cost of initial compliance for small and mid-cap companies is significant for

those companies. If those costs increase and do not level off or decrease over time,

then these companies are faced with a long-term compliance cost drain. In particular, we have little experience with increased costs of litigation spawned by the

new duties imposed by the Act. If we see a significant increase in litigation costs,

then the Committee may want to consider enacting some safe-harbors to curb abusive and unwarranted litigation in the future.

As a venture capitalist, I am well aware that there are alternative sources of capital than the public markets and that at some point companies could be driven to

those alternative sources if the costs of being public financing keep escalating. However, I have seen no evidence that the Act has had that effect, for example that the

Act has driven companies that otherwise would have become public to those alternative capital sources.

Conclusion

Enactment of the Act was the right thing to do at the right time—a time of a

severe crisis in investor confidence in publicly traded companies. From my vantage

point, I have seen a subtle shift in the balance of power away from corporate management and toward independent members of boards of directors and ultimately

shareholders. There are a number of procedural and substantive rules adopted by

the SEC in implementing the Act and some of those rules have only recently been

183

implemented and there has not been sufficient time yet to assess their merit or to

evaluate their true costs. And I remain optimistic that as we gain more experience

administering the Act, the initial costs of implementation may be reduced substantially. But the increased costs of implementation and compliance of the provisions

of the Act are in my judgment a necessary price of restoring investor confidence in

publicly traded companies.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. TRUMKA

SECRETARY-TREASURER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Good morning, Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes. My name is Richard

Trumka and I am the Secretary-Treasurer of the American Federation of Labor and

Congress of Industrial Organizations. The AFL–CIO’s member unions sponsor benefit plans with over $400 billion in assets, and collectively bargained benefit plans

that union members participate in hold over $5 trillion in assets. For America’s

working families’ retirement security is in large part dependent on the integrity of

our capital markets.

The labor movement strongly supported the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of

2002. America’s working families owe a great debt of gratitude to Senator Sarbanes

for authoring the Act, and to this Committee, for passing what would become Sarbanes-Oxley in a bipartisan vote before the WorldCom scandal broke. Your leadership came at a time when many predicted Congress would do nothing in response

to the growing wave of scandal engulfing our Nation’s public companies.

I would like to review the key features of the Act that have markedly improved

investor protections.

• the Act put an end to most consulting by public company audit firms;

• the Act created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which

after a controversial start has proven to be a strong, yet flexible independent regulator;

• the Act requires independence and expertise on company audit committees, and

makes clear the importance of strong and independent boards generally;

• the Act bans loans to insiders at public companies, putting an end to a key executive compensation abuse; and provides for disgorgement of executive stock profits

in certain circumstances; and

• the Act reinforces the fundamental principle of our securities law—that companies

must disclose to investors what a reasonable investor would want to know before

making an investment decision, and that the obligation to do so truthfully rests

on senior management.

In the last year, these provisions have been impressively augmented by the work

of the SEC and the PCAOB. The SEC and its staff have stepped up and addressed

through rulemaking several vital issues, for example by ensuring that attorneys for

public companies act in the interests of the company, and not just in the interests

of the companies’ executives. The Commission has also followed the logic of Sarbanes-Oxley in properly demanding increased disclosure from powerful market actors like hedge funds that have been allowed to operate in secret.

The PCAOB is currently addressing the vital issue of financial controls at public

companies. I can tell you as the Chief Financial Officer of the AFL–CIO that proper

financial controls are critical to the responsible management of any large organization. The events of the last few years have shown the need to strengthen these controls at public companies, and to give company management who are trying to do

the right thing some guidance as to what are appropriate safeguards. We have confidence that the PCAOB will do just that.

More than a year later, we believe Sarbanes-Oxley is a success, not just because

of the specific provisions of the Act, but because of the tone the Act set and the message it sent. In the first proxy season after the Act passed, investors acted themselves to push companies to have really independent boards, to reign in executive

pay, and to manage their audit process more effectively. The AFL–CIO is very

proud of the role that unions and worker pension funds have played in these efforts

by sponsoring 360 such proposals, 48 of which received majority votes at company

annual meetings. These proposals led to real changes in executive compensation at

companies like GE, Coca-Cola, Tyco, Hewlett-Packard, and Alcoa.

184

We have also seen in recent events at the New York Stock Exchange, a powerful

message that runaway executive pay is simply no longer acceptable, even in the

case of individuals who have performed well.

Sarbanes-Oxley also serves as a guide to appropriate corporate governance in institutions that actually are not subject to the Act. Since May 8 of this year, I have

served as the Chair of the Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of

ULLICO Inc., a private company owned by unions and union pension funds where

there was serious wrongdoing by prior management. Among the first acts taken by

the new board the shareholders elected last spring was to move the company toward

voluntary compliance with the relevant provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, including

CEO certification of the company’s financial statements and the Act’s audit committee provisions.

However, the job begun by this Committee last year is not complete. Key elements

of the investor protection agenda remain to be enacted, here in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and at FASB, and the Public Accounting Oversight Board. While we are generally pleased with the work done at those agencies,

we believe there is still an unfinished corporate reform agenda that they and Congress should turn to.

In the remainder of my testimony, I would like to lay out some key elements of

what remains to be done.

First, our legal system continues to suffer from real deficiencies in the extent to

which both individuals and institutions can defraud the investing public and get

away with it. Despite your best efforts, Mr. Chairman, in many circumstances lawyers, accountants and investment banks can still aid and abet companies that commit securities fraud and enjoy immunity from investor lawsuits. This is wrong, and

really only Congress can fix it.

There are also areas where the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act has made

it easier to defraud the investing public and get away with it. Sarbanes-Oxley addressed one such area by lengthening the statute of limitations, but there are others

such as the PSLRA’s repeal of joint and several liability for securities fraud and the

blanket immunity it grants for ‘‘forward looking statements’’ that remain. Again,

these problems with the PSLRA can only be addressed by Congress.

However, as important as litigation can be to both deterring corporate wrongdoing

and dealing with its consequences, it can not substitute for real working corporate

governance and accountability on the part of company management. And as long as

CEO’s dominate the selection process for company directors, we simply will not see

at problem companies the kind of vigorous independent boards that we need and

that Sarbanes-Oxley called for.

That is why the labor movement believes the most important effort now underway

to address the continuing governance problems at our public companies is the SEC’s

rulemaking initiative to give long-term investors with a substantial stake in public

companies the right to have their board nominees included on management’s proxy.

Today, it is practically impossible for even the largest long-term investors, the

TIAA-CREF’s and CalPERS, to nominate and run their own candidates for the

boards of public companies. So we have elections in name only. At one company we

know of, Lockheed Martin, a former Enron director continues to be nominated by

management despite unprecedented shareholder opposition, and the only thing

shareholders can do is withhold their vote—they have no alternative candidate to

vote for.

And of course, CEO’s know that investors have limited options. They know they

can ignore shareholder votes on runaway executive compensation or company audit

policies, and there is little that shareholders can do. So we strongly support the SEC

and Chairman Donaldson’s efforts in this area, and fervently hope that what will

emerge from rulemaking is real access to the proxy for long-term investors.

Finally, I would like to note that despite everything that has happened, we still

have inadequate disclosure to investors of the facts of executive pay and what financial impact that pay has on the companies that award it. Despite FASB Chairman

Bob Herz’s hard work in this area, stock options still are not required to be expensed, a state of affairs that amounts to a subsidy to an inappropriate form of executive compensation. And as we have seen over and over again in the last year,

investors simply are not given enough information about CEO’s deferred compensation plans. While these are matters properly in the hands of the SEC and FASB,

they are key elements of the post-Sarbanes-Oxley agenda.

While much has been accomplished since Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, the work

of reform is not complete. There is no better evidence of that than the recent comments of one of the most influential people in corporate America, Ken Langone,

CEO of Invemed Associates, former chair of the New York Stock Exchange’s Compensation Committee, member of the Compensation Committee at General Electric

185

and three other public companies, and Lead Director at Home Depot. Mr. Langone,

who is actually responsible for the pay package the Stock Exchange offered Richard

Grasso and was involved in the pay and benefits offered to Jack Welch, remains

unapologetic. He has told the press that given the chance to vote for Grasso’s pay

package, he would do so again. As long as this is the attitude among key decision

makers in corporate America, there is work to be done.

Fortunately, the independent agencies that are active in the area of corporate governance are by and large stepping up to the plate. The SEC, the PCAOB, and FASB

have all responded admirably to both the specific mandates of Sarbanes-Oxley and

the tone set by the passage of that legislation. The labor movement urges this Committee and Congress as a whole to recognize that work, to fund it, and to protect

the independence of those agencies as they go about their vital tasks.

Let me conclude by expressing my deepest appreciation to the Committee on behalf of the working families of the AFL–CIO for inviting the AFL–CIO to appear

today, and our hope that we will continue to be able to work together on these vital

issues for all Americans. Thank you.