sarbanes-oxley

After Enron anyone fighting against Sarbanes-Oxley passage was laughed at for claiming it was over-broad.

It's another case of the cure (Sarbanes-Oxley) being worse than the disease (another Enron).

Sarbanes-Oxley is so onerous that it has killed the IPO market for small firms.

I have news for you - Sarbanes-Oxley makes high-level executives criminally responsible for a certain subset of the company's operations.

I've only become familiar with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but can you or someone elaborate on why this prevents companies from IPOing?

Might this be one of the unintended consequences of Sarbanes-Oxley?

Like it or not, Sarbanes-Oxley is the law (since 2002).

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX)'s primary provisions only apply to publicly-held companies.

Post Sarbanes-Oxley, it never makes sense to IPO, ever.

I started to read this article and saw no mention of Sarbanes-Oxley.

I think the lesson here is to find a balance between the overreaction that is Sarbanes-Oxley and the criminal frauds that were Enron/Arthur-Anderdon, WorldCom, etc.

Tech IPO is a bad metric though because ever since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, no one in tech wants to go public, because the requirements for a public company are stupid, costly and time-consuming.

Not anymore." It's interesting how it seems that inequality is an unintended consequence of Sarbanes-Oxley.

"It's interesting how it seems that inequality is an unintended consequence of Sarbanes-Oxley." No, it's a consequence of low interest rates.

"Oh, and good luck getting companies off Exchange Server." This is actually a good point, for reasons of compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.

Sarbanes-Oxley had a major impact on the way tech companies get funded such that I'm not sure how much signal is contained in tech company stocks today vice 1999 when the IPO was the standard "exit".