Talk:Sarbanes–Oxley Act

message: Does the article cited really have all those misspellings?  For example:
*"Understandable" where "understandably" was clearly meant?  
*"Shoed" where "showed" would be proper.
If not, these should be corrected; otherwise, a [sic] or three might be in order.
Robert A West 15:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Future of SOX 404 Compliance 

message: Do not put extreme POV unreferenced material in this article.  The SOX violation section was written with no attempt was made to write a balanced article.  User:x0000grb has only made contributions on this topic, and appears to have a conflict of interest. I find it difficult to assume good faith. Wikipedia is not a soapbox Bardcom (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending litigation section 

message: This section repeatedly uses the word "recently" which is very inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry.
Actual dates should be referenced, or at least reasonable time frames, so that future readers know when the heck something happened.
for example:
"The recently released Auditing Standard No. 5[17] of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which superseded Auditing Standard No 2., has the following key requirements for the external auditor:"
Auditing Standard No. 5 was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2007 and is effective for audits of fiscal years ending on or after November 15, 2007.
Reading this article in June of 2008 means there was nothing recent about those changes.Shelshula (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  This has been fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 4.2  - SOX Section 404: Assessment of internal control 

message: This article has been tagged as disputed for a long time.  Are the disputes still active?  If so, what are the remaining issues?  If not, can the page be cleaned up, so the tags can be removed? --Elonka 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tags. Looking at the article it seems that everything is solid. There should be a little more references but nothing major. --Patrick (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not solid.  It's disorganized, incoherent in places, and fails to fairly and neutrally address criticisms of the law--the few parts of the article that include critical academic work have unsourced rebuttals that violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  There's no mention of the constitutional problems with the PCAOB that could result in the entire law being invalidated. The "history & context" section is particularly one-sided.  THF (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about tagging the specific areas that need to be addressed?  Rather than having a blanket "this article is bad" tag at the top, use templates such as , , etc. --Elonka 19:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the whole article is bad. THF (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific on what exactly is bad about it? --Patrick (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted works for AEI, which is an anti-regulatory think tank.  He is a tough customer!  I've debated parts of this article with him in the past.  He would like the history and context part to be more balanced, but I don't think there is an "alternate history" of how SOX came to pass.  Big corporations got out of control and they got slapped down hard once it got really obvious.  He probably thinks the market would have handled this on its own (e.g., self regulation through "Financial Reporting Insurance" and resulting financial control ratings from auditors or rating agencies).  Would have resulted in a streamlined 404, most likely.  But that is an alternate reality that did not occur.  The Chairman of the SEC had been warning since the mid-1990's, but nobody listened until it became a crisis and we all lost a lot of money.  Sarbanes has gone on record multiple times with the storyline included and I believe the hearings are public record.  But he has some good ideas from time to time, which I've tried to include.Farcaster (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The tags at the top of the page seem very unnecessary.  I ill remove unless there is a substantive objection here.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello Charlie, SOX is costly for companies, particularly small companies.  I hope they exempt small companies.  SOX talks about internal company processes and how they are controlled (e.g., signoffs, reviews & approvals, audit committee independence, etc.).  Mark-to-market in the subprime crisis relates to forcing companies to write down assets that they cannot sell and is part of a separate accounting standard. In some cases, this write-down makes the company subject to a margin call.  In english, I loan you some money and you buy a mortgage-backed security.  Defaults on the mortgages paying cash into that security go up and nobody will buy that security on the open market.  So you bought it for $100 and you must mark it down to $50.  That triggers a clause in our contract that enables me to get my $100 back.  You see the problem...I gave you $100 and you must give me $100 back, but you can only sell the asset for $50 in the short run.  In truth, that asset might be collecting cash worth $75, but mark-to-market won't let you value it like that if accounting firms put their heads in the sand.  This bankrupted a lot of mortgage companies.  It isn't so much the mark-to-market as the margin call aspect.  Suspend the margin calls is a better idea.Farcaster (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute tags

message: :http://www.ftd.de/technik/it_telekommunikation/:Digitale-Dokumente-Deutsche-Firmen-spielen-auf-Risiko/415430.html
213.52.175.218 (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro-SOX Schto eto?

message: Is it worth adding that many economists are blaming the acts clauses on "Mark to Market" restrictions, as a significant cause of the current situation in the markets?     Charles Edward 00:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My sources above directly contradict that. 
Mark to market is a Sarbanes Oxley accounting rule that requires holdings, assets, and loans be valued at their current value. It was aimed at keeping company’s books on the up and up but it has devastated banks and mortgage lenders in the housing slump.
Do you have a source? Charles Edward 00:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, and good enough for me :) Thanks Charles Edward 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortgage Crisis 

message: This article, while clearly thoroughly-researched, does not let the casual reader find out what Sarbanes-Oxley is just by reading the first paragraph. It should be clear enough that someone who just wants to know what it's about can figure that out at the start. "is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002" is not very informative!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.31.78 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good.  Keep in mind that the term has come to represent more than the original legislation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the uneducated? 

message: I think it would improve the article if additional examples of tangible benefits to investors could be cited. I have added one involving Value Line ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 3-13675 In the Matter of Value Line, Inc., Value Line Securities, Inc., Jean Bernhard Buttner, and David Henigson, Respondents in which a Value Line portfolio manager made a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.Publisher Value Line may take earnings hit from SEC inquiryValue Line Settlement Marks End of Buttner ReignThe S.E.C. Is Investigating Fee Practices at Value Line The benefit to certain Value Line mutual fund investors was about $34 million. Value Line, execs to pay $45 mln in SEC case 
Vlanalyst (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tangible benefits of SOX to investors 

message: After reading both a low-quality, C-rated article (Internet Censorship)  and a high quality, GA-rated (Brown v. Board of Education), I found this article had more in common with the GA-rated article. While I agree that the introduction is lengthy for a synopsis, the article is thorough, well-researched, and readable. Although my knowledge of the SOX act is limited, I recognize that its passage and its advocates and critics are highly polarized. I am therefore impressed that the article maintained a neutral POV and granted equal attention to the SOX act's advantages and disadvantages. In addition, its summaries of papers examining the cost-benefit analysis of the act appear an unusual feature of a Wikipedia article, and one I find useful, because it gives the reader a starting point of academic papers and their findings to read for more information. IR393.awc211 (talk 16:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good Ashley, Sadads (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Public Policy United States Assessment 

message: I'm not sure how the section entitled "Benefits of Sarbanes Oxley Act on a long term basis" is intended to differ from the "Benefits to firms and investors" section. I'm not sure what the author was trying to construct here; it feels more like a thesis than anything else.  The first sentence claims sox "ensures reliable financial reporting" and "investors confidence is increased", but the given cite is an op-ed that seems to indicate the act intended to do this but reslts were mixed as of five years ago.  The next sentence claims "Companies are no longer able to manipulate inventories or stocks of products or sales as there is a real time reporting system in place"; complete nonsense that is again not supported in the cite from 2003.  
The claim of "ensures standard data entry system" is supported by a vendor whitepaper which speaks to data quality, but nothing directly linked to the act.  The last claim of ethical progress is covered in the "Benefits to firms and investors" section.  I'd love to re-write this to comply with our guidelines, but I'm not seeing anything realistic that is not already covered.  Would appriciate clarification on intent here. Kuru (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed a "New developments" section from the same author that was completely uncited and duplicates material in the "legal challenges" section.  I would prefer a discussion before this material is re-added. Kuru (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits of Sarbanes Oxley Act on a long term basis 

message: More than half of the criticisms section is based on an editorial, that itself doesn't even cite most sources. I realize addition info has been added from other sources to counter some of its claims, but it seems silly to even reference an editorial, especially one with so many factual errors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.238.160 (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A December 21, 2008 Wall St. Journal editorial stated . . . 

message: Last evening, in the Iowa debate of eight Republican primary election candidates, Newt Gingrich was passionate about repealing three Democrat supported legislation areas.  He, again, uses the umbrella term when referring to issues relating to 'Mark-to-Market'.  Here are my notes on what he said in his brief closing remark: 'I thank Fox and Washington Examiner.  Election is 15 months away.  We are in a crisis now—contact your representatives.  Repeal Dodd-Frank; repeal Sarbanes-Oxley; repeal Obamacare!  This summer, start saving American families from the pain they are in.  We need real leadership now!"  So you see, he remains adamant in criticizing this regulatory act and what has ensued.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the main FoxNews Headline for today: "2012 GOP Target Enron-Era Rules"; with the text: "Several GOP candidates say they seek to repeal at least part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, an almost decade-old accounting regulation, which they argue will ease burdens on businesses." One can presume that the part they mean is 'Mark-to-Market'. . . .  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/27/decade-old-accounting-regulation-becomes-popular-target-on-2012-campaign-trail/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: The Fox News article is very well written, by James Rosen, and ends with an interview quote of former congressman, (Republican) Michael G. Oxley of Ohio: “We didn't write [the law] in stone,” said Oxley to Fox News. “I think it's highly likely and probably a good thing that you'd have some revisions.” . . . Republican candidates mentioned in the article are Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newt Gingrich continues to hammer Sarbanes-Oxley 

message: I removed the statement that restatements have fallen after an initial spike after the act was passed.  The source does not support this contention, nor have I been able to find any other source with data beyond 2006. --Mattzell 8/23/11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattzell (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praise for Sarbanes-Oxley 

message: Hello,
I have a problem with one sentence written in the Article, it say so: "It does not apply to privately held companies."
But all the companies (more or less) except the governmental e.g. are privately held - through the shares - if not on any other way. 
To which companies is SoX then applicable?
--194.152.253.4 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a poor choice of wording. I'm not familiar with the quirks of American regulatory vocabulary in this field but the Act talks about issuers - that is, issuers of shares and bonds. It may be that whoever wrote that text in the article used "privately held" to mean an organisation that is controlled by a single owner, which would not have any other shareholders who need protection from deception by dubious accounting or misreporting. However, I believe such organisations could still be subject to SoX if they issue certain other pieces of paper, such as bonds - after all, somebody deciding to invest in some bonds would still need to base their decisions on financial statements and would therefore deserve SoX's protection from misleading statements. bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was generally correct; the act only applies to firms in which shares are publicly traded (not just a private corporate allocation, or non-corporate entities).  Many other regulatory agencies (e.g. state insurance) adopt "SarBox" compliant standards which essentially enforce the same rigor for non-public firms, which can lead to some confusion.  The private/public nature of the act is noted elsewhere in the article, so I'm not sure it needs to be re-added. Kuru (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  one sentence 

message: I would think many would find some simple statistics or examples of people and/or organizations that have been prosecuted under this law. I know that there have been some cyber-criminals prosecuted under it, notably U.S. vs. Kernell (which involved hacking into Sarah Palin's email account) which is not really what the law was intended for. 
Also, I cannot find any instances of a corporate executive actually ever being prosecuted under SOX for financial controls failure. If that is something that can be verified, it would be very informative, that the thing the law is designed to do is either not being enforced or companies are complying 100% with it. 208.46.106.5 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be the section that is most related to my concern... I am looking for FAILURES of SOX to prevent its targeted problems. In particular, it seems that the recent problems at Toshiba are just what SOX was supposed to order against. The doctor was out? Perhaps more likely that I just don't understand one or both sides of it, but I definitely understand that Toshiba screwed up big-time and had to postpone the regular shareholders' meeting for several months. (My general feeling is that you can't fix the game because the wannabe cheaters will violate ANY rule, including any rules imposed for SOX testing. Just a new target for scamming--or for legalized bribing of politicians to create new loopholes. Ergo, I am already highly skeptical of SOX, but that would be a POV and Wikipedia only wants facts--like how SOX failed at Toshiba.) Shanen (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosecutions 

message: The whole section in of itself is POV; I cannot find any adequate citations that would substantiate the whole section. I hope someone will be able to show us some citations that would guide us to a sensible understanding without POV being injected. Otherwise if there is a failure to show us an unbiased opinion of why this legislation passed, I would object to it being neutral as part of wiki standards.J.arellano619 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 2.1 : Patently biased and fails to show neutral citations. 

message: In the section "Clawbacks of executive compensation for misconduct" there is a common misspelling of Don Whalen's name, being listed as Dan Whalen.  Here is a link to one of our Audit Analytic's reports written by Don: http://www.auditanalytics.com/0002/view-custom-reports.php?report=41b4b4e7b20568a09a3b31aad2157fdb JMorgan at Audit Analytics 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noticed Name Misspelling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sarbanes–Oxley Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130325180106/http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/special_reports/2007/NY_REPORT%20_FINAL.pdf to http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/special_reports/2007/NY_REPORT%20_FINAL.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Sarbanes–Oxley Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714064622/http://fei.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=204 to http://fei.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=204
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822054403/http://www.aei.org/book/855 to http://www.aei.org/book/855
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430024647/http://www.theiia.org/research/research-reports/chronological-listing-research-reports/downloadable-research-reports/?i=248 to http://www.theiia.org/research/research-reports/chronological-listing-research-reports/downloadable-research-reports/?i=248
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714064622/http://fei.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=204 to http://fei.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=204
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430024647/http://www.theiia.org/research/research-reports/chronological-listing-research-reports/downloadable-research-reports/?i=248 to http://www.theiia.org/research/research-reports/chronological-listing-research-reports/downloadable-research-reports/?i=248
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512002939/http://www.glasslewis.com/downloads/Restatements2005Summary.pdf to http://www.glasslewis.com/downloads/Restatements2005Summary.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, there are some bad links that lead to ads and possible virus material. I found that footnotes 22 and 23 are two of multiple culprits. I'm trying to do some schoolwork on this but this article's broken links aren't helping me at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4580:1E04:1540:5FCB:98B2:ED12 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - looks like the domain expired and was bought out by scammers. I've found an alternate source for one of the documents, and removed the others. Kuru (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad links