3 ms·
It's all pretty interesting that they are arguing for overturning Sarb-Ox because of oversight issues. I don't really understand why they set up a separate com
by iamelgringo 17y ago
It's all pretty interesting that they are arguing for overturning Sarb-Ox because of oversight issues. I don't really understand why they set up a separate commission in the first place instead of bringing in that type of oversight under the SEC.
Anyone have any insights?
- hristov 17y agoThis sounds like a result of the usual deal making and compromise in Congress. Sarbanes Oxley was passed during the Bush admin when republicans were pretty strong in Congress (don't remember whether there was complete republican majority at that time). In any event, the republican line was that regulation is always bad government is always bad (except for wars), and everybody can self regulate. Also, for some reason, some conservative politicians really hated the SEC and would never give it more responsibilities or funding. So this seems like an attempt to have it both ways -- have a law and have self regulation at the same time, by allowing a board of accountants to set up some rules.
- pmorici 17y agoI thought it was because since Enron, Worldcom etc... happened under the SEC's watch people didn't think it was effective hence the call of more independence for the new organization.