I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Also, companies have to keep data offsite, so hiding the paper trail is almost impossible now.

Shazam999: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Also, companies have to keep data offsite, so hiding the paper trail is almost impossible now.

I would gladly trade for an uptick in accounting scandals if it meant reducing the onerous requirements that Sarbanes-Oxley puts on businesses. It wastes paper, it wastes time, and it wastes money.

justinguarini4ever: Shazam999: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Also, companies have to keep data offsite, so hiding the paper trail is almost impossible now.

I would gladly trade for an uptick in accounting scandals if it meant reducing the onerous requirements that Sarbanes-Oxley puts on businesses. It wastes paper, it wastes time, and it wastes money.

Blame Enron.

In order to save our economy, I must kill our economy......In order to save jobs, I must eliminate regulations that already employs thousands of people, which also kind of help smaller investors in public companies......

I can't wait to live in the Dune techno feudalistic dark age that all these people at the top keep telling me is great for everyone.

EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

This.

If the external auditors had actually been doing their jobs, they would have found the BS accounting that Enron and Worldcom were doing and would have reported on it.

Sure AA gets a beaten into oblivion, but other than that, all of the other audit firms have been raking in the dough. Make changes to SOX and we'll have to bail them out.

Why anyone would be stupid enough to demand a pension after the last 30 years is beyond me.

It's much better to demand the cash up front and invest it yourself. There are other vehicles besides the stock market like corporate bonds that you can invest it in to be safe.

Never trust an employer, private or government, beyond your next pay check.

BizarreMan: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

This.

If the external auditors had actually been doing their jobs, they would have found the BS accounting that Enron and Worldcom were doing and would have reported on it.

Sure AA gets a beaten into oblivion, but other than that, all of the other audit firms have been raking in the dough. Make changes to SOX and we'll have to bail them out.

Deloite and Touche is being sued at the moment for not catching fraud at one of the mortgage companies they were auditing. Their defense is "they were really good at hiding the fraud". I doubt anything will come of it though.

justinguarini4ever: Shazam999: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Also, companies have to keep data offsite, so hiding the paper trail is almost impossible now.

I would gladly trade for an uptick in accounting scandals if it meant reducing the onerous requirements that Sarbanes-Oxley puts on businesses. It wastes paper, it wastes time, and it wastes money.

As someone who worked with SOx for a while. I can say this is definitely popular opinion, but is completely errant.

beta_plus: Why anyone would be stupid enough to demand a pension after the last 30 years is beyond me.

It's much better to demand the cash up front and invest it yourself. There are other vehicles besides the stock market like corporate bonds that you can invest it in to be safe.

Never trust an employer, private or government, beyond your next pay check.

Because DB pensions are extremely generous. The worker only puts in about 30% of the final future value of the pension. The pension never runs out (they pay you until you die), most are inflation indexed, and they usually have some formula that takes an average of the last few years of your salary.

A full DB pension can be worth $1-2million, for the average worker.

People thing corporations hate regulations, but mega-corporations lobby for these sorts of things to gain advantage and increase cost of entry for their competetors... or in this case get a whole lot of new work (auditors)

Hydra: Shazam999: Because DB pensions are extremely generous. The worker only puts in about 30% of the final future value of the pension. The pension never runs out (they pay you until you die), most are inflation indexed, and they usually have some formula that takes an average of the last few years of your salary.

A full DB pension can be worth $1-2million, for the average worker.

Could that explain why these pensions often show themselves to be completely "unsustainable" and often end up being the death-knell of the companies/governments that mistakenly offer them?

Yes, exactly. You have to think about the where the other 70% comes from. It ain't the magic money tree.

...as a programmer that has to deal with SOX compliance, i'm getting a kick out of this.

but before I can post this comment:
1. I need my business user & his boss to approve it to go to 'Preview'.
2. They need to sign off on the 'Preview'
3. I need to then schedule the change control department to submit the final comment for me.
4. Have a meeting to discuss the impact this comment has made, and schedule any further comments or responses to troll bait.

Shazam999: The pension never runs out

Also, housing values always go up.

Larofeticus: Shazam999: The pension never runs out

Also, housing values always go up.

It's not a market value thing. It's a contract - the company promises to pay you until you die. There's also a whole bunch of laws around what companies can and can't do with pensions, so it's really, really, really hard for the company to unilaterally change the conditions of the pension.

Hydra: robbiex0r: As someone who worked with SOx for a while. I can say this is definitely popular opinion, but is completely errant.

I'd like to see some evidence of fraud and abuse that has been found as a result of SOX rules and regulations that wouldn't have been found had SOX not been implemented.

Since you seem to be supportive of SOX, can you provide any of this?

Not legally, no. sorry :/

Hydra: Shazam999: Because DB pensions are extremely generous. The worker only puts in about 30% of the final future value of the pension. The pension never runs out (they pay you until you die), most are inflation indexed, and they usually have some formula that takes an average of the last few years of your salary.

A full DB pension can be worth $1-2million, for the average worker.

Could that explain why these pensions often show themselves to be completely "unsustainable" and often end up being the death-knell of the companies/governments that mistakenly offer them?

Pensions are safer for the employee over personal savings since they are lifetime. With people living longer and better medicine its possible in 50-75 years people could start running out of personal savings during retirement. There is not a risk with a pension.

The problem is the funding of pensions, companies were allowed to take from pension funds and when they went belly up the tax payer assumed the payments, which I think also drop to a lower amount. The other issues is funds weren't funded properly. Similar to social security when companies grew quickly they could pay a few retirees when they were expanding. As the number of retirees grew you end up with paying too much out and not contributing enough. There are now laws that insure proper funding levels. Pensions are not unsustainable but they do require a balance between input and output, companies need to contribute enough to reasonably insure future payments can be made, not just current payments. So if a company goes bankrupt the pension fund could still sustain future payments, maybe not forever but hopefully for the lifetime of the majority of retirees at which point the pension guarantee kicks in and the tax payers pick up the last few payments.

As an employee I like my 401K and IRA both pre and post tax since I have control, but its a balance to minimize tax exposure now and at retirement. I also like the idea of a pension because with individual accounts you need to plan your withdrawals based on life expectancy. If there is a medical advance and I live 20 years longer a pension will be there, an individual account may run out. Like most finances diversification means better security.

I'm normally pro-business right side, but loosening this regulation is bad all around. The point of SOX is to prevent cooking the books, this whole mortage crisis and events like Enron were caused by people cooking books.

SOX hasn't prevented a single crime. An overreaction to Enron, all it's done is add ridiculous hurdles to daily business transactions and put the large auditing firms (that through their incompetence and timidity allowed Enron to become a debacle) in de facto charge of enforcing procedures they themselves pretty much made up as they went along. Killing it would be more of a 'stimulus' than any further multi-billion dollar union payoffs.

Lt_Ryan: Hydra: Shazam999: Because DB pensions are extremely generous. The worker only puts in about 30% of the final future value of the pension. The pension never runs out (they pay you until you die), most are inflation indexed, and they usually have some formula that takes an average of the last few years of your salary.

A full DB pension can be worth $1-2million, for the average worker.

Could that explain why these pensions often show themselves to be completely "unsustainable" and often end up being the death-knell of the companies/governments that mistakenly offer them?

Pensions are safer for the employee over personal savings since they are lifetime. With people living longer and better medicine its possible in 50-75 years people could start running out of personal savings during retirement. There is not a risk with a pension.

The problem is the funding of pensions, companies were allowed to take from pension funds and when they went belly up the tax payer assumed the payments, which I think also drop to a lower amount. The other issues is funds weren't funded properly. Similar to social security when companies grew quickly they could pay a few retirees when they were expanding. As the number of retirees grew you end up with paying too much out and not contributing enough. There are now laws that insure proper funding levels. Pensions are not unsustainable but they do require a balance between input and output, companies need to contribute enough to reasonably insure future payments can be made, not just current payments. So if a company goes bankrupt the pension fund could still sustain future payments, maybe not forever but hopefully for the lifetime of the majority of retirees at which point the pension guarantee kicks in and the tax payers pick up the last few payments.

Yeah, but it's basically impossible for fund managers to predict the future, so there's no way to tell if a fund is balanced enough.

Anyhow, my wife can switch over next year to her company's DB pension. She will be fully vested in 15 years. So she can retire at 50. Whoot!

Shazam999: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Also, companies have to keep data offsite, so hiding the paper trail is almost impossible now.

No, it didn't remove any egregious accounting tricks. As long as you jump through the hoops the auditing firms demand, you can jigger your books as much as you d----d well please.

And no, companies don't have to keep data offsite. Again, as long as you've got someone giving the auditors the tongue-baths they want, you can do whatever you want.

justinguarini4ever: Shazam999: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Also, companies have to keep data offsite, so hiding the paper trail is almost impossible now.

I would gladly trade for an uptick in accounting scandals if it meant reducing the onerous requirements that Sarbanes-Oxley puts on businesses. It wastes paper, it wastes time, and it wastes money.



Well maybe if companies like Enron, Worldcom, etc. hadn't completely farked people over, it wouldn't be necessary. When the private enterprises of the United States can police their own, then I'll contemplate eliminating of this sort of regulation legislation.

I'm all for lining all the executives of those companies up, letting all the employees and investors take a nut-punch at them, then giving a loaded gun to the last guy in line who lost everything because of this crimes. Then again, I'm not a nice guy .....

BizarreMan: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

This.

If the external auditors had actually been doing their jobs, they would have found the BS accounting that Enron and Worldcom were doing and would have reported on it.

Sure AA gets a beaten into oblivion, but other than that, all of the other audit firms have been raking in the dough. Make changes to SOX and we'll have to bail them out.

Where is it written that (a) they would be bailed out or (b) they should be bailed out?

It wasn't just Arthur Andersen that was involved with Enron & Worldcom, PricewaterhouseCoopers was up to their necks in it too. And they were doing pretty much what the other large accounting firms were doing - giving favourable audits to boost their other business lines. Now they've become Soviet-style 'political officers' because SOX is one of the stupidest pieces of legislation out of Congress since Smoot-Hawley.

Shazam999: It's a contract - the company promises to pay you until you die.

I'm not questioning that a contract exists, or that the company must pay it. The point is that when the company becomes unable to pay then no amount of laws, contracts, or promises can reverse that and suddenly make new money appear to give to you.

If you're just about to retire then yes, you're probably fine. I'm under 30. I see news stories about failing and underfunded pensions all the time. I don't trust systems that want something now in exchange for security 30 years in the future. Especially with the amount of uncertainly and turmoil coming in the next 30 years. I believe can manage that myself just fine and if I can't then I'll only be harming myself.

This is all Bush's fault and the Republicans. I wish we could just make Obama dictator so he could fix all of the problems.

Shazam999: Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Like what. Please provide specificity into what the 'egregious accounting tricks' were that were done away with by Sarbox.

BizarreMan: This.

If the external auditors had actually been doing their jobs, they would have found the BS accounting that Enron and Worldcom were doing and would have reported on it.

Sure AA gets a beaten into oblivion, but other than that, all of the other audit firms have been raking in the dough. Make changes to SOX and we'll have to bail them out.

So wait, the accounting firms aren't doing their jobs, so SOX, which vastly expanded the need and demand for accounting firm services, is the answer?

Sarbanes: "The accountants farked up their audits while raking in the dough! They can't be trusted."

Oxley: "Totally. Hey, you know those onerous internal control requirements we're including in our bill. How exactly will we know that companies are doing them appropriately?"

Sarbanes: "No problem. The accountants will just have to do more work to audit the internal controls and sign off on them"

Oxley: "Brilliant!"

Larofeticus: Shazam999: It's a contract - the company promises to pay you until you die.

I'm not questioning that a contract exists, or that the company must pay it. The point is that when the company becomes unable to pay then no amount of laws, contracts, or promises can reverse that and suddenly make new money appear to give to you.

Oh no, I agree with you. But your comment made it sound like DB pensions were market based, when in reality they're based on unicorns and puppy dog tails. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

Debeo Summa Credo: Shazam999: Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Like what. Please provide specificity into what the 'egregious accounting tricks' were that were done away with by Sarbox.

Ok, let me rephrase this. They can't hide certain transactions.

If the external auditors had actually been doing their jobs, they would have found the BS accounting that Enron and Worldcom were doing and would have reported on it.

Oh, I totally agree. AA was totally in on it. The whole lot should've been sent to jail.

aelfheld: Shazam999: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Also, companies have to keep data offsite, so hiding the paper trail is almost impossible now.

No, it didn't remove any egregious accounting tricks. As long as you jump through the hoops the auditing firms demand, you can jigger your books as much as you d----d well please.

And no, companies don't have to keep data offsite. Again, as long as you've got someone giving the auditors the tongue-baths they want, you can do whatever you want.

Hmm, funny, because I know quite a few people that keep moving data (not just electronic storage, but boxes of papers) into off-site storage, solely because of SOX. They also have to jump through a few hoops to start the process, because you have to a third party involved, or something stupid like that.

aelfheld: SOX hasn't prevented a single crime.

How could you prove that it prevented a crime? What a silly argument.

beta_plus: Why anyone would be stupid enough to demand a pension after the last 30 years is beyond me.

It's much better to demand the cash up front and invest it yourself. There are other vehicles besides the stock market like corporate bonds that you can invest it in to be safe.

Never trust an employer, private or government, beyond your next pay check.

Because in some cases it islet of a ponzi scheme. There is no way they were withholding from your salary enough to pay you 80 percent of you last years salary for the rest of you life. Especially when you load up overtime and accrued vacation in that last year.

gidikh: ...as a programmer that has to deal with SOX compliance, i'm getting a kick out of this.

but before I can post this comment:
1. I need my business user & his boss to approve it to go to 'Preview'.
2. They need to sign off on the 'Preview'
3. I need to then schedule the change control department to submit the final comment for me.
4. Have a meeting to discuss the impact this comment has made, and schedule any further comments or responses to troll bait.

Come on now, SOX isn't that stupid. Its largely common sense.
Yes you need a change control process
No requestors can't be approvers
No testers can't be approvers
No builders can't be testers or approvers

ta-da!

I have to agree that some of the audit requirements are painful, but external audits are supposed to be thorough.

robbiex0r: justinguarini4ever: Shazam999: EnderWiggnz: I've never hears or seen anything that suggested SOX was more than an auditor full-employment act.

I'm not sure why people think it increases transparency or accountability, it was a smoke and mirrors act from the beginning.

Well it did remove a lot of the more egregious accounting tricks that were allowed before.

Also, companies have to keep data offsite, so hiding the paper trail is almost impossible now.

I would gladly trade for an uptick in accounting scandals if it meant reducing the onerous requirements that Sarbanes-Oxley puts on businesses. It wastes paper, it wastes time, and it wastes money.

As someone who worked with SOx for a while. I can say this is definitely popular opinion, but is completely errant.

seconded

if an audit does not hurt then its not thorough enough.

/been on both sides of the coin
//holy fark France needs to implement something like this

Wait-- is there actually someone alive who still thinks Sarbanes-Oxley was a good idea?

I have a better idea: exempt all companies from Sarbanes-Oxley and require all government agencies to comply with it.

sometimes people have to poop

mediablitz: Shazam999: It's not a market value thing. It's a contract - the company promises to pay you until you die. There's also a whole bunch of laws around what companies can and can't do with pensions, so it's really, really, really hard for the company to unilaterally change the conditions of the pension.

Boy do I have a book for you to read:

Retirement Heist (new window)

Just finished it and it is maddening what corporations, in conjunction with Congress, have done to fark the American worker out of their pensions. PRIVATE pensions mind you (before the 'GUBMENT UNIONS SUX!!!' idiots jump it).

Saw it was written by Ellen Schultz and that's all I need to tell me that the book is garbage. She is well known in the pension actuary field as the poster child of "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Thanks for the reference though, as I should take a look to see what she is complaining about this time (and to see if her 10%/90% of truth to misinterpretation ratio still holds).

If I'm reading the gist of this thread correctly, the majority of people posting here feel that less business regulation is good, and that profitability is better than accountability.

I expect to see a Chesire smile any second now.