Sarbanes-Oxley, Ten Years After -- Are We Having Fun Yet?

It has not been difficult, through this summer of discontent and turmoil in the world’s financial markets, to ignore with enthusiasm the comprehensively vacuous observations of the tenth anniversary of the Sarbanes-Oxley law. 

Readers will recall my long-held skepticism about that knee-jerk post-Enron exercise, going back to my July 20, 2002 observation in the International Herald Tribune about the preliminary Senate vote, that “any legislation receiving the bipartisan margin of 97-0 is bound to be fundamentally defective.”

Nor has the decade horribilis given any reason to change.

Of the smug and fatuous self-congratulations of the bill’s eponymous sponsors (webcast on July 30, 2012), the less said the better. As the English essayist Charles Lamb wrote about a blame-worthy poetic effort:

“It would be an insult to my readers’ understandings to attempt anything like a criticism on this farrago of false thoughts and nonsense.”[1]

Rather, some unasked questions should be advanced.

Regarding the self-interested back-patting of those with careers to be served by the inflictions of Sarbox –- the PCAOB’s members and staff and the spokesmen for the accounting oligopoly dependent on its compliance revenue:

“Would the elves in Santa Claus’s toy shop be expected to vote against Christmas?”

As for those purporting to see some claim of benefit, yet propounding no solutions to the continued eruptions of financial chicanery (here, here and here), the challenge remains that the cyclical nature of market bubbles makes inevitable a post-scandal period of cleansing and temporary return to virtue – political dynamics notwithstanding.  

Put another way, the storm of both scandal and outrage after Enron and WorldCom was bound to clear, no matter what. So instead of the wrong question, whether post-Enron corporate behavior is now improved, under both the Sarbanes-Oxley law and the law of unintended consequences, the proper operative question should be:

“Would financial reporting and assurance not be better if Sarbanes-Oxley had not been passed at all?”

First, American law since 1934 has pronounced it illegal to make false statements in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. So – as confirmed by the absence of prosecutions under the redundant Sarbox requirements for executive certifications of financial results (summarized by Michael Rapaport and Francine McKenna) -- that exercise has from the outset never been more than optics and cosmetics.

Second, a decade of PCAOB intrusion into the relationships between auditors and clients has engulfed the corporate reporting process in cost, paperwork and degradation of the assurance function (here and here) – while, into the bargain, failing either to advance coordinated global-scale assurance regulation and oversight in most of the world’s major capital markets (here) or to prevent (among others) the wave of securities malfeasance of off-shore origin, notably from China.

Third, as to the law’s centerpiece obligations on internal controls reporting and assurance, it was always true, even pre-Sarbox, that most decently-controlled companies would do reasonably well on compliance, most of the time – while a parade of horribles since then has made it clear that, for reasons of scope limitation or plain enforcement dysfunction, the law has been ineffectual against the rare but all-too-frequent and truly consequential cases.

A brief post-Sarbox sampler illustrates that – as generally true of large-scale challenges to risk identification and management -- it is the “outlier” cases that really matter:

• The control failures that brought down Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers

• The “buco nero” at Parmalat and the ghost employees at Satyam

• The in-house looting by the chief financial officers of Koss in Milwaukee and the city of Dixon Illinois

• The undetected Ponzi schemes of Bernie Madoff and Alan Stanford, unremarked by gate-keepers, regulators and out-of-control client advisors and abettors alike 

• The valuation fantasies behind the window-dressing at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

• The incentives-driven perversions in the mortgage businesses models of Washington Mutual, Countrywide and New Century

• The derivatives and trading fiascos at UBS, JP Morgan Chase, MF Global and now Knight Capital

What then is the purpose of law-making? Sarbanes-Oxley has manifestly not ameliorated the flaws persistent in the nation’s corporate reporting and assurance structures -- then of what use or benefit has it been? 

And, if only the mis-leading politically-motivated placebo that it appears, what more should be expected both of our elected representatives and of those aspiring to hold them to account?

 

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. Comments are always welcome, and subscription sign-up is easy and free, both at the Main page.  

 

 

---

[1] “On the Tragedies of Shakespeare,” 1811.

Comments

[Robert F. Kelley]

Perhaps I am both excited and amazed with the MARS landing of "Curiosity". I confess to both! Returning to the world of financial reporting and assurance. The crowd responsible for "Sarbox" would have difficulty finding MARS with a powerful telescope...much less of a chance of designing a method of analyzing what they had found. No, Jim, there is no fun. There is a need to turn to knowledge and ethics.

[goodsam]

I suppose we should also do away with the laws against murder. Laws have always incentivized those predisposed to obeying, not those whose passions demanded otherwise.

Public company internal controls pre-Sox had come to abyssmal shape. SOX helped provide incentive for most companies to return to the types of reporting controls that protect investors. If example after example of corporate malfeasance is your best argument against laws such as SOX, then perhaps the US should simply do away with all laws.

[Jim]

"Do away with all laws"? Of course not. But make and enforce the laws that society needs with insight and appreciation for their efficacy and their consequences, and not under the blinkered political passions of the moment.
Jim

[Tad DeOrio]

I thought the intent of SarBox was to assure that top executives installed controls to prevent fraud and malfeasance. The auditors identify 'material control weaknesses'.

Yet as the author states there have been many monumental 'control failures' since 2002 and I cannot recall reading of one prosecution under SarBox.