Advertisement

Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 14, Issue 2–3, pp 440–452 | Cite as

Discussion of “The robustness of the Sabarnes Oxley effect on the U.S. capital market”

  • Trevor S. Harris
Article

Abstract

In this paper, I use anecdotal evidence and logical reasoning to suggest that, despite the use of an extensive database, it is not possible to conclude that passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act did not have an impact on companies’ delisting decisions. Moreover, the instrumental variables used to proxy for SOX effects are too weak and suffer from a significant endogeneity problem given that passage of SOX was driven by many of the economic and control problems that are used to control for market and company factors. I also discuss some broader issues about the trade-off between large sample statistical inference and anecdotal analysis for addressing practical questions.

Keywords

Sarbanes-Oxley Exchange listings Internal controls CEO incentives 

JEL Classification

C-12 G-18 K-22 M-42 M-48 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Meng Li and Svetlana Juster for research assistance.

References

  1. Butler, H., & Ribstein, L. (2006). The Sarbanes-Oxley debacle: How to Fix it and what we’ve Learned. Washington, DC: The Liability Project, American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Doidge, C., Karolyi, G., Stulz, R. (2007). Has New York become less competitive in global markets? Evaluating foreign listing choices over time. NBER, Ohio State University and University of Toronto, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  3. Engel, E., Hayes, R., & Wang, X. (2007). The Sarbanes-Oxley act and firms’ going-private decision. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44(1–2), 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fama, E., & French, K. (2004). New lists: Fundamentals and survival rates. Journal of Financial Economics, 73(2), 229–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flannery, S., Camp, J., Harris, T., & Fairfield, P. (2001a). Qwest: Listening to the 10-K. New York: Morgan Stanley.Google Scholar
  6. Flannery, S., Camp, J., & Harris, T. (2001b). Qwest: Listening to the 10Q. New York: Morgan Stanley.Google Scholar
  7. Hansen, B., Pownall, G., Wang, X. (2009). The robustness of the Sarbanes Oxley effect on the U.S. capital market. Review of Accounting Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11142-009-9094-7.
  8. Harris, T., Huh, E., & Fairfield, P. (2000). The Accounting landscape: Minefields ahead. New York: Morgan Stanley.Google Scholar
  9. Hartman, T. E. (2007). The cost of being public in the era of Sarbanes-Oxley. Milwaukee: Foley & Lardner.Google Scholar
  10. Leuz, C., Nasharr, A., Swanson, K., & Chatz, B. (2007). Sarbanes-Oxley: Was it worth it? Depaul Business & Commercial Law Journal, 5, 643–666.Google Scholar
  11. Leuz, C., Triantis, A., & Wang, T. (2008). Why do firms go dark? Causes and economics consequences of voluntary sec deregistration. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45(2–3), 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morgan Stanley Equity Research, Global Imaging and Apples to Apples Teams. (1998). Global imaging: Coming into focus. New York: Morgan Stanley.Google Scholar
  13. Patsuris, P. (2002). The corporate scandal sheet. Forbes.com.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Columbia Business SchoolColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations