The recent wave of corporate governance failures has raised concerns about the integrity of the accounting information provided to investors and resulted in a drop in investor confidence (Jain, Kim and Rezaee, 2003; Rezaee and Jain, 2003; Rezaee, 2002). These failures were highly publicized and ultimately led to the passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX, July 30, 2002). The changes mandated by SOX were extensive, with President George W. Bush commenting that this Act constitutes “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.” Similarly, the head of the AICPA commented that SOX “contains some of the most farreaching changes that Congress has ever introduced to the business world” including an unprecedented shift in the regulation of corporate governance from the states to the federal government.
Although SOX proposed sweeping changes, the scope of the events that led to the passage of the act and the consequences of the resulting regulatory changes have yet to be systematically studied. Specifically, it is unclear whether there really was a widespread breakdown of the reliability of financial reporting prior to the passage of SOX or whether the highly publicized scandals were isolated instances of individuals engaging in blatant financial manipulations. And if it were the former, how did the passage of SOX affect firms’ financial reporting practices? Moreover, some argue that these frauds occurred after 70 years of ever increasing securities regulation, suggesting that more regulation may not be the answer (Ribstein, 2002).