Sarbanes-Oxley: What They Think

I don't often spend a whole lot of time checking around for Sarbanes-Oxley (or Sarbox, or Sox, or whatever they call it where you work), but I found this post in Reason Magazine by Radley Balko on the topic quite interesting.

One-half of the duo that created the most suffocating piece of anti-business legislation in recent history is backtracking:

Was Oxley aware, his questioners asked, that the law that he and Senator Paul Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat, rushed onto the books five years ago after the collapse of Enron and WorldCom had contributed to a sharp decline in listings on U.S. stock exchanges? And, knowing what he knows now about the cost and effects of the law, would Oxley — who retired in January after 25 years in Congress — have done it any differently?

"Absolutely," Oxley answered. "Frankly, I would have written it differently, and he would have written it differently," he added, referring to Sarbanes. "But it was not normal times."

Mr. Balko makes a good point (you can read his blog here).  However, let's be honest - as suffocating as Sarbanes might be, let's be honest - Sarbanes created jobs where there were none, forced compliance on some of those that... weren't so honest, and all around might not be such a bad thing.  The jury is still out on the legislation, in my humble opinion.  And it is quite humble.

Of course, without Enron and WorldCom, we probably wouldn't have Sox.

See Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room.

I marveled at the gall.