Who Are The Losers In SEC's SarbOx Rule Change?
from the sorting-it-out dept
Over the years, there have been a lot of complaints about the high cost of Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, although some have argued that these costs have tapered off as companies have gotten used to the requirements. Still, many are relieved about a new SEC decision to ease audit requirements, which should have the effect of reducing compliance costs. Not all companies may be enthusiastic, however. Offering tools and services to aide in compliance has itself become a big business, particularly for a number of software firms. Some are now wondering, then, whether easing the regulations will result in a serious hit to profits at these companies. One analyst believes that the rule change could result in a 7% hit to US IT spending, which comes at a time when there's already concern about corporate tech spending. Of course, the fact that there may be some losers from the rule change doesn't mean that the rule change is a bad thing. To the contrary, money spent just to be in compliance with some regulation is pretty much a deadweight loss to the economy. Furthermore, while IT vendors may see a short-term hit on account of the rule change, they should benefit from a less risk-averse climate and customers with more money to spend on productive investments.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the losers
This sort of reasoning will keep the confiscatory tax system going. "How can we reform the system--think of all the accountants and lawyers who would be affected by implementing a simple tax system!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the losers
When simple tax system is a sales tax = rich dont pay taxes.
This is a much more complicated problem if it's intended to not only burden the 97% of us with only 3% of the money. (made up figures, though from the other probably made up figures I've read, they're fairly accurate)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the losers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good concept for finance, taken to an annoying e
Like ISO 9000 compliance, you tell them what you do, and then they check to see that you do it. If you tell them you let anyone onto any server that doesn't directly contain the financial content, they don't care, you pass.
There is no good rule of thumb for IT security or procedures, especially since the best practices are always changing, and if you are working under a new model, the old models no longer apply.
Perhaps in the financial departments SOX is useful, but I would be happy to see it leave the IT/Ops/Engineering departments for good. Less money and time wasted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOX Cost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The investors are the losers
You don't have to put up with Sorbanes-Oxley. You only have to tolerate it if you want to be a corporation. Being a corporation gives you freedom from liablity, and a few really good tax advantages. If the audit was too much of a burden, they'd change their business basis (oh, yeah. Most of these leeches couldn't really do anything. They make their living running something someone else built into the ground.)
I don't think it's taxes. It just that when some poor schmuck looks at a balance sheet and an income statement for these guys it isn't inscribed in fairy dust on a pile of bull crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I won't be investing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich people don't buy stuff?
When simple tax system is a sales tax = rich dont pay taxes."
SAY WHAT?
not trying to threadjack ... but, are you saying rich people don't buy things? I would say that this is the great equalizer? If they wanted to spend any money they would have to pay. If they bought off shore they would pay tp bring it back ... pretty simple. I guess it's much better now when they can hide their assets in off shore accounts ... etc. Once again, you can't hide that house, or that car you have to register, or that plane, or that snickers bar. not to mention the money businesses would be saving, and the commerce it would attract to the US because companies wouldn't be moving to these off shore tax shelters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]