Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings


Forum distribution:

Need to ask who would want less rigorous oversight of financial reporting, and why


For an early version of the academic research referenced in the column below (a version was subsequently published by the American Accounting Association in the August 2017 edition of its Journal of Practice & Theory, available here), see

Note: Questions have been raised about the reliability of statistics that seem to show recent reductions in the numbers of public companies, used as reported below to support arguments for more relaxed oversight requirements (see June 30, 2017 Wall Street Journal: "Upon Further Review, Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff").


Source: The New York Times | Fair Game, September 8, 2017 column

Business Day

Sarbanes-Oxley, Bemoaned as a Burden, Is an Investor’s Ally

Fair Game


Kenneth Lay, the former Enron chief executive, at a Senate hearing in 2002 after the company was felled by an accounting scandal.  Kenneth Lambert/Associated Press

Seismic accounting scandals like the ones that sank Enron and WorldCom in the early 2000s have, happily, been scarce in recent years. But they may well resurface if elements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the law created to curtail accounting fraud, are rolled back as some corporate executives are urging.

Tom Farley, president of the NYSE Group, which operates the New York Stock Exchange, is among those leading the charge. In congressional testimony in July, he criticized the law’s provision requiring auditors of publicly held companies to report on and attest to management’s assessment of internal controls on financial reporting. The requirement is costly and burdensome to companies, Mr. Farley said, and helps to explain why the number of public corporations in the United States is declining.

He urged lawmakers to review the requirement because markets had evolved since it became law.

Mr. Farley’s comments notwithstanding, it seems smart to have an outside auditor check on management’s oversight of financial reporting. If a company does not have solid controls in place, how can investors trust its financial reports?


Fair Game

A column from Gretchen Morgenson examining the world of finance and its impact on investors, workers and families

The Accounting Tack That Makes PayPal’s Numbers Look So Good Aug 4

Big Pharma Spends on Share Buybacks, but R&D? Not So Much

Jul 14

The Trump Effect on C.E.O. Pay

May 26

Meet the Shareholders? Not at These Shareholder Meetings Mar 31

Want Change? Shareholders Have a Tool for That

Mar 24

Your Mutual Fund Has Your Proxy, Like It or Not

SEP 23 2016

EpiPen Price Increases Could Mean More Riches for Executives Sep 1

Bloated Pay Came Before Hain Celestial’s Error AUG 19

A Simple Test to Dispel the Illusion Behind Stock Buybacks Aug 12

Investors Get Stung Twice by Executives’ Lavish Pay Package

Jul 8

How to Gauge a C.E.O.’s Value? Hint: It’s Not the Share Price

Jun 17

Fantasy Math Is Helping Companies Spin Losses Into Profits

Apr 22

BlackRock Wields Its Big Stick Like a Wet Noodle on C.E.O. Pay

APR 15

In Yahoo, Another Example of the Buyback Mirage

Mar 25

Stock Buyback Plans, Seen as Shareholder Boon, Can Backfire

MAR 11

FASB Proposes to Curb What Companies Must Disclose

Jan 2


Valeant Shows the Perils of Fantasy Numbers

OCT 30


Safety Suffers as Stock Options Propel Executive Pay Packages

SEP 13

Why Putting a Number to C.E.O. Pay Might Bring Change

Aug 9

Tech Companies Fly High on Fantasy Accounting

Jun 21

Stock Buybacks That Hurt Shareholders

Jun 5

Shareholders’ Votes Have Done Little to Curb Lavish Executive Pay

May 16


When the Stock Price Hides Trouble

Oct 12


An Unstoppable Climb in C.E.O. Pay

Jun 30 2013

When Shareholders Make Their Voices Heard

Apr 8


See More »


But investors do not seem to be a concern for Mr. Farley, who was speaking about the law (known as SOX) as an advocate for the big companies that list their shares on the New York Stock Exchange. “Designing, implementing and maintaining complex systems required to satisfy SOX’s internal controls over financial reporting requirements can command millions of dollars in outside consultant, legal and auditing fees, in addition to other internal costs,” he said.

Through a spokesman, Mr. Farley declined my request to expand on his views in an interview.

Since 1977, companies have been required by law to have effective internal controls over their financial reporting. But many failed to comply, as the subsequent accounting frauds and numerous financial restatements showed. That is why Congress decided in 2002, as part of Sarbanes-Oxley, to make auditors attest to corporate controls on financial reporting.

Lynn E. Turner, a former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a trustee of the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, said he knew well that many companies hate having auditors assess their internal controls. But the regulation has done a lot to prevent devastating accounting frauds, he said.

“Corporate frauds like Enron, WorldCom and Tyco cost investors hundreds of billions of dollars and the NYSE and Nasdaq trillions of dollars in lost market capitalization,” Mr. Turner said. “And they were a worldwide embarrassment to the United States.”

Critics of the provision on financial reporting contend that it has not prevented accounting fraud, but a new academic study shows otherwise.

The analysis concludes that the external auditor requirement on corporate financial reporting is a highly effective warning system for corporate fraud. The study was recently published in Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, a journal from the American Accounting Association.

Its authors are Matthew S. Ege, an assistant professor of accounting of Texas A&M University, and Dain C. Donelson and John M. McInnis, both of the University of Texas at Austin. They say their work is the first to link weak internal controls on financial reporting with a higher risk of undisclosed accounting fraud at public companies. And proof of this link is an important consideration when weighing the costs and benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley.

The academics collected auditors’ opinions on internal controls at companies with more than $75 million in publicly held stock — about 3,500 companies per year — from 2004 through 2007. They searched for those with material weaknesses. Then they compared their findings with reports of financial fraud in S.E.C. and Justice Department enforcement actions from 2005 through 2010 as well as settled securities class-action lawsuits during the period.

The exercise identified roughly 1,500 reports of material weakness at companies. And within three years, 127 of those companies faced legal actions that revealed fraud, the study said.

That’s not a big number. But here’s where the study gets compelling. Auditors had identified material weaknesses in financial reporting at about 30 percent of the companies that later disclosed accounting problems. Chief executives were named in 111 of the 127 fraud cases, and chief financial officers were identified in 108 of the cases.

“Over all, we believe this link should be of interest to regulators and the general public,” Mr. Ege said in an interview. “We need to ensure that entity-level weaknesses are being reported and not withheld.”

Here’s another reason to keep the financial reporting audit requirement: Research indicates that companies with weak financial reporting controls significantly underperform those with stronger setups. A 2007 study by Glass, Lewis & Company, for example, found that companies disclosing material weaknesses in their financial reporting during each of the prior three years were conspicuous market laggards.

Although critics of Sarbanes-Oxley prefer to focus on its vexing costs, an analysis in May by Ernst & Young, a big accounting firm, highlighted the law’s benefits. They include a “decreased severity of financial restatements and increased investor confidence,” the firm said.

Arguments like those raised by Mr. Farley of the NYSE Group and other corporate chiefs about accounting rules are nothing new, Mr. Turner said. During his years as the S.E.C.’s chief accountant, from 1998 to 2001, officials from the New York Stock Exchange would regularly request exemptions from reporting rules, he said. “I never once agreed to what they were asking for,” Mr. Turner recalled.

Clearly, investors will be hurt the most if this provision of Sarbanes-Oxley is watered down. Which raises a question, according to Mr. Turner: Why should a public company be able to raise money from investors if it can’t generate accurate reports for them?


A version of this article appears in print on September 10, 2017, on Page BU1 of the New York edition with the headline: Oversight Law Under Attack Aids Investors.


© 2017 The New York Times Company



This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.