Share
Explore BrainMass

Sarbanes-Oxley

For the first years after the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, many companies chose to go public in London (the AIM = Alternative Investment Market sponsored by the London Stock Exchange). Some are claiming that SOX is to blame.

Do you agree, or is there more to the story? Has the collapse of world financial markets over the past two years changed the pattern (though there haven't been all that many IPOs!)?

The desire of small public companies to escape from SEC reporting requirements, a related topic, is discussed at: http://bigfatfinanceblog.com/2009/04/08/the-dark-sides-bright-side-lower-compliance-costs/.

Solution Preview

For the first years after the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, many companies chose to go public in London (the AIM = Alternative Investment Market sponsored by the London Stock Exchange). Some are claiming that SOX is to blame.
It is not the Sarbanes Oxley Act that needs to be blamed but the companies that do not want to comply with its requirements that are to be blamed. After the Enron, Worldcom, etc scam, the Sarbanes Oxley Act was enacted to put a stop on such corporate scams that have the ability to defraud millions of innocent shareholders. the Sarbanes Oxley Act is necessary and so it has been enacted, compliance costs money to the companies. This is a cost they must bear to access public money. If London Stock Exchange does not have stringent laws like ...

Solution Summary

This solution gives you a detailed discussion on Sarbanes-Oxley

$2.19