American Accounting Association - Current Issues in Auditing
AAA Digital Library

Current Issues in Auditing

Previous Article
A Top-Down Approach to Identification and Documentation of Critical Accounting Application Controls
SUMMARY: PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 prescribes assessing internal controls over financial reporting using a “top-down” approach. This paper describes a method for documenting internal c...
Next Article
Audit Partner Rotation: Evidence of Changes in Audit Partner Tenure as the Result of Mandatory Regulation in Australia
SYNOPSIS: This study examines rotation practices before and after the implementation of mandatory audit partner rotation policies in Australia. We focus on the incidence of long partner tenure. Despit...

You are logged in to this journal.

SOX Doomsday Predictions in Hindsight: Evidence from Delistings

Current Issues in Auditing 1 (1), A21 (2007);
doi: 10.2308/ciia.2007.1.1.A21

FULL TEXT OPTIONS   (FREE)
Download PDF (65 kB) View Cart
Lizabeth A. Austen and Denise Dickins
Lizabeth Austen and Denise Dickins are both Assistant Professors at East Carolina University.
Once the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) became imminent, many companies protested that complying with SOX provisions was too onerous and costly and would result in many companies choosing to withdraw from public trading. We investigate whether these doomsday predictions were well-founded based on a review of SEC Form 15 requests to delist and related news releases during the period 2002 to 2004. Our findings suggest that there has not been a significant increase in the number of requests to delist since the enactment of SOX. Furthermore, we find that of companies that delist, relatively few (4.7 percent) attribute their delisting to SOX. Companies that did attribute their delisting to SOX were smaller and less likely to be audited by Big 4 auditors, characteristics that have been previously found to be associated with poorer financial reporting quality. ©2007 American Accounting Association
History: Published 15 October 2007
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/CIAXXX/v1/i1/pA21/s1

KEYWORDS

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN:
1936-1270 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef American Accounting Association

REFERENCES (16)
View in Separate Window/Tab
  1. Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., D. W. Collins, and W. R. Kinney, Jr. 2007. The discovery and reporting of internal control deficiencies prior to SOX-mandated audits. Journal of Accounting and Economics 44(1): 166–192.
  2. Bryan, S. H., and S. B. Lilien . 2005. Characteristics of firms with material weaknesses in internal control: An assessment of Section 404 of Sarbanes Oxley. Working paper, Wake Forest University and City University of New York. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=682363&high=percent20materialpercent20weakness.
  3. Cole, B. M. 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley Act provisions to influence corporate accounting—Brief article. Los Angeles Business Journal (August 26).
  4. Cheng, C. S. A., J. L. Y. Ho, and F. Tian . 2006. An empirical analysis of the value-relevance of disclosure of material weaknesses under Section 404. Working paper, Louisiana State University and University of California, Irvine. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=&high=percent20marketpercent20reactionpercent20materialpercent20weakness.
  5. DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3: 183–199.
  6. Doyle, J., W. Ge, and S. McVay. 2007. Determinants of weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 44(1): 193–223.
  7. Engel, E., R. M. Hayes, and X. Wang . 2004. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and firms' going private decisions. Working paper, University of Chicago, University of Utah, and Emory University. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=546626.
  8. Foley & Lardner LLP. 2005. The high cost of compliance. (July 18). Available at: http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=2849.
  9. Hartman, T. E. 2004. The cost of being public in the era of Sarbanes-Oxley. Delivered at the 2004 National Directors Institute, Chicago, IL, May 19.
  10. Jaimeson, D. 2006. Blaming SOX for slump in IPOs seen as bum rap; Law advocates claim U.S. market has been hurt by globalization. Investment News (November 27). Available at: http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061127/SUB/611270726/-1/INIssueAlert04&ht=.
  11. Kamar, E., P. Karaca-Mandic, and E. Talley . 2006. Going-private decisions and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; A cross-country analysis. Working paper, University of Southern California, RAND Corporation, and University of California at Berkeley. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=901769.
  12. Leone, M. 2002. Can't give it away: Audit committee recruiting. CFO: Magazine for Senior Financial Executives 18(4): 3–4.
  13. Leuz, C., A. J. Triantis, and T. Y. Wang . 2006. Why do firms go dark? Causes and economic consequences of voluntary SEC deregistrations. Working paper, University of Chicago, University of Maryland, and University of Minnesota. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=592421.
  14. Paikert, C. 2006. New speaker may try mending SOX. Investment News (November 20). Available at: http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061120/SUB/611200731/1015&ht=.
  15. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2007. An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting that is Integrated with an Audit of Financial Statements. Auditing Standard No. 5. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
  16. Sayther, C. A. 2003. Report card on Sarbanes-Oxley: One year later. Financial Executive 19(7): 6.
RSS Library Card Alerts