Market vs. Regulatory Responses to Corporate Fraud: A Critique of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
74 Pages Posted: 23 Oct 2002
There are 2 versions of this paper
Market vs. Regulatory Responses to Corporate Fraud: A Critique of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Abstract
The crashes and frauds of Enron, WorldCom and other companies have reinvigorated the debate over regulating corporate governance. Many pundits have called for corporate regulation to restore confidence in the securities markets. These recommendations appear to be supported by the fact that neither the contracting devices that were supposed to control managers, nor efficient securities markets, worked to prevent or spot the problems. Congress responded with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. But this article shows that, given the limited effectiveness of new regulation, its potential costs, and the power of markets to self-correct, new regulation of fraud in general, and Sarbanes-Oxley in particular, is unlikely to do a better job than markets.
Keywords: Enron, securities regulation, securities fraud, Sarbanes-Oxley Act, corporate governance, corporate law
JEL Classification: K2
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Economic Consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
By Ivy Zhang
-
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Making of Quack Corporate Governance
-
Corporate Governance and Firm Value: the Impact of the 2002 Governance Rules
-
Market Reaction to Events Surrounding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Earnings Management
By Haidan Li, Morton Pincus, ...
-
Why Do Firms Go Dark? Causes and Economic Consequences of Voluntary SEC Deregistrations
By Christian Leuz, Alexander J. Triantis, ...
-
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Firms' Going-Private Decisions
By Ellen Engel, Rachel M. Hayes, ...
-
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Security Market Behavior: Early Evidence
By Zabihollah Rezaee and Pankaj K. Jain