Again, from Fawn. This is more information about how the permanent Sarbanes-Oxley 404(b) reprieve for non-accelerated filers was first voted down and then approved - both in the same meeting. More to come.
Read More
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Tags: audit costs, Non-accelerated filer 404(b) information, Sarbanes-Oxley
This is a study from the SEC. It contains very interesting information on 404 and the benefits investors found in companies which complied with 404.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Tags: Sarbanes-Oxley Articles & Information, audit costs, Non-accelerated filer 404(b) information, Sarbanes-Oxley
A 2007 study from the SEC of the benefits of Sarbanes-Oxley is listed below. There are some excellent statistics about costing trends. Now, our solutions are extraordinarily less expensive than the costs listed below but the information presented below is very meaningful.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Tags: audit costs, Non-accelerated filer 404(b) information, Sarbanes-Oxley
Jake Leon from thecaq.com commented:
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Tags: Sarbanes-Oxley Articles & Information, Announcements, 404, 404 audit, audit costs, Non-accelerated filer 404(b) information, Sarbanes-Oxley Training, Sarbanes-Oxley for Non-Profits
As expected, there has been a lot of talk about the Wall Street Reform Act and what company's may do/not do if the permanent reprieve is granted. This is a very interesting topic for us since we understand the need to lessen the financial burden of an audit but we often find it ironic that, even though our clients have been subjected to SOX 404(a) since 2007, they still are debating on changing up their 404 activities if the reprieve is granted. To that end, I have to ask the question, what do you expect to change for your company if the reprieve were to happen (given that most of the companies debating this issue have never been subjected to a 404(b) audit – I’m missing the trigger that would cause the need for this debate…could it be that most of them were only doing Sarbanes-Oxley work because of the fear of review by their external auditor and now that they may never be subjected to a full-blown 404(b) audit they may decide to do nothing?!?!?… (which would be fraud by the way per the 302/906 certifications and 10Q Item 4’s and 10K item 9’s but that is beside the point))?
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Tags: 404, 404 audit, audit costs, Non-accelerated filer 404(b) information, Sarbanes-Oxley
