IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jfrcpp/v19y2011i3p254-270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sarbanes Oxley's impact upon investor‐relevant risk types

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas V. Vakkur
  • Zulma J. Herrera

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to empirically analyze, with a greater degree of accuracy than is currently presented in the literature, the comprehensive risk impact of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Research to date is based upon a series of simple mean‐variance analyses and is therefore unreliable. Design/methodology/approach - Rigorous statistical methodology to include a highly representative dataset, difference‐in‐difference analysis, comprehensive controls, and fixed effects (firm as well as longitudinal). As a reliability check, the authors also employ several pre‐ and post‐tests. Findings - In support of Bargeronet al., the authors find that the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 significantly reduced firm risk. In particular, the law reduced firms' risk‐adjusted returns as well as “upside” risk. This is not a mere repeat of prior research, but a detailed analysis of the law's risk impact. Research limitations/implications - As a study of corporate risk, there are inherent limitations, as contained in every study of this type. First, the authors are unable to account for every single factor that might influence firm risk. However, their methodology represents a significant improvement over the current literature, and therefore produces more comprehensive, detailed, and reliable findings. Practical implications - The main practical implication is that Sarbanes Oxley, the most important and comprehensive US financial regulation since the New Deal, reduced firm (equity) risk. This represents a finding of enormous importance: comprehensive accounting regulation was never intended to alter firm risk, yet this study strongly suggests that it has in two specific ways. Social implications - As a result of this study, the cost to investors – the “social” cost – of this important regulation can now be analyzed more conclusively. In particular, the authors suggest Sarbanes Oxley reduced “upside” risk as well as firms' risk‐adjusted returns. This is of enormous potential importance to investors of all types. Originality/value - This study is original and hence important in several ways: the dataset is arguably an improvement – in terms of the degree to which it is representative of the US economy – over Bargeronet al., the most conclusive study of its type to date; the methods are a significant improvement over the current published studies in the literature; the risk measures analyzed are also entirely distinct and new from prior research in a manner that is important. Prior research, as based upon simple mean‐variance analyses, is unreliable.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas V. Vakkur & Zulma J. Herrera, 2011. "Sarbanes Oxley's impact upon investor‐relevant risk types," Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(3), pages 254-270, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:jfrcpp:v:19:y:2011:i:3:p:254-270
    DOI: 10.1108/13581981111147883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13581981111147883/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13581981111147883/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/13581981111147883?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen A. Ross, 2013. "The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 1, pages 11-30, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Bernard Colasse & Peter Standish, 2004. "The Development and Decline of Law in French Accounting Regulation," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 8(4), pages 407-429, October.
    3. Ang, Andrew & Bekaert, Geert & Liu, Jun, 2005. "Why stocks may disappoint," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 471-508, June.
    4. Donald Nordberg, 2008. "Waste makes haste: Sarbanes‐Oxley, competitiveness and the subprime crisis," Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(4), pages 365-383, November.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2249 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Bawa, Vijay S. & Lindenberg, Eric B., 1977. "Abstract: Capital Market Equilibrium in a Mean-Lower Partial Moment Framework," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 635-635, November.
    7. Coles, Jeffrey L. & Loewenstein, Uri & Suay, Jose, 1995. "On Equilibrium Pricing under Parameter Uncertainty," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 347-364, September.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Lewellen, Jonathan & Nagel, Stefan, 2006. "The conditional CAPM does not explain asset-pricing anomalies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 289-314, November.
    10. Kraus, Alan & Litzenberger, Robert H, 1976. "Skewness Preference and the Valuation of Risk Assets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1085-1100, September.
    11. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-465, June.
    12. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1997. "Industry costs of equity," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 153-193, February.
    13. Darren J. Kisgen, 2006. "Credit Ratings and Capital Structure," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(3), pages 1035-1072, June.
    14. Dybvig, Philip H & Ingersoll, Jonathan E, Jr, 1982. "Mean-Variance Theory in Complete Markets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 233-251, April.
    15. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
    16. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
    17. Bawa, Vijay S. & Lindenberg, Eric B., 1977. "Capital market equilibrium in a mean-lower partial moment framework," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 189-200, November.
    18. Bargeron, Leonce L. & Lehn, Kenneth M. & Zutter, Chad J., 2010. "Sarbanes-Oxley and corporate risk-taking," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 34-52, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicholas V. Vakkur & Zulma J. Herrera‐Vakkur, 2012. "Ripple effects: Sarbanes Oxley's impact upon investor risk in a global economy," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(2), pages 184-205, May.
    2. Chabi-Yo, Fousseni & Ruenzi, Stefan & Weigert, Florian, 2018. "Crash Sensitivity and the Cross Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 1059-1100, June.
    3. Andrew Ang & Joseph Chen & Yuhang Xing, 2006. "Downside Risk," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 19(4), pages 1191-1239.
      • Andrew Ang & Joseph Chen & Yuhang Xing, 2005. "Downside risk," Proceedings, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    4. Rocciolo, Francesco & Gheno, Andrea & Brooks, Chris, 2022. "Explaining abnormal returns in stock markets: An alpha-neutral version of the CAPM," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    5. Liu, Jinjing, 2023. "A novel downside beta and expected stock returns," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    6. Houda Hafsa & Dorra Hmaied, 2012. "Are Downside Higher Order Co-Moments Priced? : Evidence From The French Market," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 6(1), pages 65-81.
    7. Baltussen, Guido & Post, Gerrit T. & Van Vliet, Pim, 2012. "Downside risk aversion, fixed-income exposure, and the value premium puzzle," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 3382-3398.
    8. Botshekan, Mahmoud & Kraeussl, Roman & Lucas, Andre, 2012. "Cash Flow and Discount Rate Risk in Up and Down Markets: What Is Actually Priced?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(6), pages 1279-1301, December.
    9. Vendrame, Vasco & Tucker, Jon & Guermat, Cherif, 2016. "Some extensions of the CAPM for individual assets," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 78-85.
    10. Ravi Jagannathan & Zhenyu Wang, 2002. "Empirical Evaluation of Asset‐Pricing Models: A Comparison of the SDF and Beta Methods," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(5), pages 2337-2367, October.
    11. Sean A. Anthonisz & Tālis J. Putniņš, 2017. "Asset Pricing with Downside Liquidity Risks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(8), pages 2549-2572, August.
    12. Michael Dempsey, 2015. "Stock Markets, Investments and Corporate Behavior:A Conceptual Framework of Understanding," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number p1007, August.
    13. Chi-Hsiou Hung, 2007. "Momentum, Size and Value Factors versus Systematic Co-moments in Stock Returns," Working Papers 2007_02, Durham University Business School.
    14. Da, Zhi & Guo, Re-Jin & Jagannathan, Ravi, 2012. "CAPM for estimating the cost of equity capital: Interpreting the empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 204-220.
    15. González-Sánchez, Mariano, 2022. "Factorial asset pricing models using statistical anomalies," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    16. Atilgan, Yigit & Bali, Turan G. & Demirtas, K. Ozgur & Gunaydin, A. Doruk, 2020. "Left-tail momentum: Underreaction to bad news, costly arbitrage and equity returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(3), pages 725-753.
    17. Bollerslev, Tim & Patton, Andrew J. & Quaedvlieg, Rogier, 2022. "Realized semibetas: Disentangling “good” and “bad” downside risks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 227-246.
    18. van Dijk, Mathijs A., 2011. "Is size dead? A review of the size effect in equity returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 3263-3274.
    19. Usman Ayub & Samaila Kausar & Umara Noreen & Muhammad Zakaria & Imran Abbas Jadoon, 2020. "Downside Risk-Based Six-Factor Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM): A New Paradigm in Asset Pricing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Stefano Gubellini, 2014. "Conditioning information and cross-sectional anomalies," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 529-569, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:jfrcpp:v:19:y:2011:i:3:p:254-270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.