Capital Commerce

Sarbanes-Oxley Reform Needed For Stimulus?

By Matthew Bandyk

Posted: June 29, 2009

Yesterday Thomas Friedman wrote about some ideas to improve America's capacity for innovation.  Here were some (emphasis added):

Barrett argues that we should also use this crisis to: 1) require every state to benchmark their education standards against the best in the world, not the state next door; 2) double the budgets for basic scientific research at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology; 3) lower the corporate tax rate; 4) revamp Sarbanes-Oxley so that it is easier to start a small business; 5) find a cost-effective way to extend health care to everyAmerican.

I'm going to expand on point number 4. It might seem strange to think that Sarbanes-Oxley has anything to do with small business. After all, the law deals with the financial reporting requirements of public companies. Sure, there are public companies that are much smaller than others, and public companies with not that many employees, but these are phenomenally successful companies that represent only a tiny fraction of all the businesses in the country. They are very complex enterprises compared to your average business.

But the effects of Sarbox end up being felt outside the relatively small number of public companies.

The rise of Sarbox has come at the same time as a decline in venture capital. Obviously the recession has a lot to do with it, but many argue that Sarbanes-Oxley was dampening venture capital investment before the recession. The more complicated auditing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements has decreased the number of IPOs, as even Eliot Spitzer pointed out when he was New York AG. So there are lower potential rewards for entrepreneurs to start fast-growing companies that have a shot at going public one day. Only a few will succeed, but it helps the economy to have as many as we can trying. Sarbanes-Oxley makes it less worthwhile to try.

It also increases costs for businesses that don't even have the intention of going public.  According to Jeff Cornwall:

However, the impact of Sarbanes-Oxley will not just be on public companies. Sarbanes-Oxley is already influencing commonly accepted standards of many private small businesses and non-profits. That means that even though these small organizations do not technically fall under this law, accountants are beginning to act as if they do in some areas of reporting. This is primarily to limit the accountant's liability in case an outside investor moves toward litigation, or in the case of a non-profit, if someone challenges the financial management by the board.

The Sarbanes Oxley Act creates new types of customer-owners!

Deep in your heart, deep in your gut, you know that there is something wrong but you do not know exact what and as a single individual what you can be about this? Seven years after The Sarbanes Oxley Act in the US we finally have a customer centered business model.

Get ready for a total upheaval in consumer buying, consumer purchases that produces automatic savings caused by a new customer centered corporation owned by the customers.

http://www.productequityvalue.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=2

Paul Katchings of CA @ Aug 06, 2009 11:23:40 AM

Accountability & Innovation Not Contradictory Except to Madoff Enthusiasts

The Deregulationists would like to sabotage transparency and accountability in any size business, and particularly for small businessmen like Bernie Madoff can pull off their flim flam without any oversight. Creating imaginary speculative bubbles is not entrepreneurial innovation and if anything our economy needs the transparency of SOX even more so now to let investors analyze the feasibility of real innovation with real information - not just creative accounting.

Credit to the volume of Thomas Friedman's ideas that at least some are bound to be good, but expanding on his worst ideas reflects an immaturity that chooses to ignore the currents issues facing the country. At this point in time its obvious we need more regulation to clean up the mess we are currently in, not less.

More telling is what you choose to ignore - Friedman endorses providing healthcare for everyone. Reforming US healthcare is newsworthy, timely and real innovation that will benefit small businesses(and large corporations too).

Paul of WA @ Jun 29, 2009 14:54:07 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!