Comments on: Has SOX Made New York Less Competitive in Global Markets? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/07/18/has-sox-made-new-york-less-competitive-in-global-markets/ Sponsored by the HLS Corporate Governance Program Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:42:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Mike Ligalig http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/07/18/has-sox-made-new-york-less-competitive-in-global-markets/#comment-3860 Mike Ligalig Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:05:08 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/07/18/has-sox-made-new-york-less-competitiv#comment-3860 In an article written by Tim Reason in CFO: Magazine for Senior Financial Executives (May 2005), a troubling paragraph says: "According to a March survey of 106 large-company CEOs who belong to the Business Roundtable, nearly half said Sarbox and other new compliance requirements would cost in excess of $10 million annually. An FEI survey the same month of 217 public companies with average revenues of $5 billion pegged the average 404-compliance cost alone at $4.36 million. Almost a11--94 percent--said the cost of compliance exceeded the benefits." In an article written by Tim Reason in CFO: Magazine for Senior Financial Executives (May 2005), a troubling paragraph says: “According to a March survey of 106 large-company CEOs who belong to the Business Roundtable, nearly half said Sarbox and other new compliance requirements would cost in excess of $10 million annually. An FEI survey the same month of 217 public companies with average revenues of $5 billion pegged the average 404-compliance cost alone at $4.36 million. Almost a11–94 percent–said the cost of compliance exceeded the benefits.”

]]> By: M. Hodak http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/07/18/has-sox-made-new-york-less-competitive-in-global-markets/#comment-3251 M. Hodak Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:05:36 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/07/18/has-sox-made-new-york-less-competitiv#comment-3251 The fifth point directly contradicts the findings of Kate Litvak's paper here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=876624 I haven't read your paper, but I have looked at Litvak's, and her methodology is rock solid. And it seems to me that versus your five points, the cross-listing test that Litvak did comes closest to a natural experiment. I admit it's rather squirrelly of me to criticize without reading your paper. I apologize and I will try to get to it before the semester begins, but please let me know if it addresses Litvak's argument. The fifth point directly contradicts the findings of Kate Litvak’s paper here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=876624

I haven’t read your paper, but I have looked at Litvak’s, and her methodology is rock solid. And it seems to me that versus your five points, the cross-listing test that Litvak did comes closest to a natural experiment.

I admit it’s rather squirrelly of me to criticize without reading your paper. I apologize and I will try to get to it before the semester begins, but please let me know if it addresses Litvak’s argument.

]]>