IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/12952.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Author

Listed:
  • Yael V. Hochberg
  • Paola Sapienza
  • Annette Vissing-Jorgensen

Abstract

We evaluate the net benefits of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) for shareholders by studying the lobbying behavior of investors and corporate insiders to affect the final implemented rules under the Act. Investors lobbied overwhelmingly in favor of strict implementation of SOX, while corporate insiders and business groups lobbied against strict implementation. We identify the firms most affected by the law as those whose insiders lobbied against strict implementation, and compare their returns to the returns of less affected firms. Cumulative returns during the four and a half months leading up to passage of SOX were approximately 10 percent higher for corporations whose insiders lobbied against one or more of the SOX disclosure-related provisions than for similar non-lobbying firms. Analysis of returns in the post-passage implementation period indicates that investors' positive expectations with regards to the effects of the law were warranted for the enhanced disclosure provisions of SOX.

Suggested Citation

  • Yael V. Hochberg & Paola Sapienza & Annette Vissing-Jorgensen, 2007. "A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002," NBER Working Papers 12952, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:12952
    Note: CF LE POL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12952.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1351-1408.
    2. G. Andrew Karolyi, 2009. "Discussion of A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 585-595, May.
    3. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    4. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-329, May.
    5. Paul Gompers & Joy Ishii & Andrew Metrick, 2003. "Corporate Governance and Equity Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 107-156.
    6. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    7. Leuz, Christian, 2007. "Was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 really this costly? A discussion of evidence from event returns and going-private decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 146-165, September.
    8. Diamond, Douglas W & Verrecchia, Robert E, 1991. "Disclosure, Liquidity, and the Cost of Capital," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(4), pages 1325-1359, September.
    9. Luigi Guiso & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2008. "Trusting the Stock Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(6), pages 2557-2600, December.
    10. Leuz, Christian & Triantis, Alexander & Yue Wang, Tracy, 2008. "Why do firms go dark? Causes and economic consequences of voluntary SEC deregistrations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 181-208, August.
    11. Lo, Kin, 2003. "Economic consequences of regulated changes in disclosure: the case of executive compensation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 285-314, August.
    12. John C. Coates IV, 2007. "The Goals and Promise of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 91-116, Winter.
    13. Vidhi Chhaochharia & Yaniv Grinstein, 2007. "Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Impact of the 2002 Governance Rules," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1789-1825, August.
    14. Lucian Bebchuk & Alma Cohen & Allen Ferrell, 2009. "What Matters in Corporate Governance?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(2), pages 783-827, February.
    15. Pankaj K. Jain & Zabihollah Rezaee, 2006. "The Sarbanes†Oxley Act of 2002 and Capital†Market Behavior: Early Evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 629-654, September.
    16. Haidan Li & Morton Pincus & Sonja Olhoft Rego, 2008. "Market Reaction to Events Surrounding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Earnings Management," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(1), pages 111-134, 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. G. Andrew Karolyi, 2009. "Discussion of A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 585-595, May.
    2. Benjamin S. Kay & Cindy M. Vojtech, 2015. "Corporate Governance Responses to Director Rule Changes," Staff Discussion Papers 15-02, Office of Financial Research, US Department of the Treasury.
    3. Docherty, Paul & Easton, Steve & Pinder, Sean, 2021. "Flights-to-control: Time variation in the value of a vote," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Drobetz, Wolfgang & von Meyerinck, Felix & Oesch, David & Schmid, Markus, 2014. "Board Industry Experience, Firm Value, and Investment Behavior," Working Papers on Finance 1401, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance, revised Dec 2015.
    5. Ahmed, Anwer S. & McAnally, Mary Lea & Rasmussen, Stephanie & Weaver, Connie D., 2010. "How costly is the Sarbanes Oxley Act? Evidence on the effects of the Act on corporate profitability," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 352-369, June.
    6. Abdioglu, Nida & Bamiatzi, Vassiliki & Cavusgil, S.Tamer & Khurshed, Arif & Stathopoulos, Konstantinos, 2015. "Information asymmetry, disclosure and foreign institutional investment: An empirical investigation of the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 902-915.
    7. Lixiong Guo & Patrick Lach & Shawn Mobbs, 2015. "Tradeoffs between Internal and External Governance: Evidence from Exogenous Regulatory Shocks," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 44(1), pages 81-114, March.
    8. Stefan Arping & Zacharias Sautner, 2013. "Did SOX Section 404 Make Firms Less Opaque? Evidence from Cross†Listed Firms," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1133-1165, September.
    9. Xue Wang, 2010. "Increased Disclosure Requirements and Corporate Governance Decisions: Evidence from Chief Financial Officers in the Pre‐ and Post–Sarbanes‐Oxley Periods," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 885-920, September.
    10. Stefan Arping & Zacharias Sautner, 2010. "Did the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 make Firms less Opaque? Evidence from Analyst Earnings Forecasts," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-129/2/DSF 5, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Szilagyi, P.G., 2009. "Shareholder Activism through the Proxy Process," Other publications TiSEM cc25d736-2965-4511-b100-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Greene, William H. & Hornstein, Abigail S. & White, Lawrence J., 2009. "Multinationals do it better: Evidence on the efficiency of corporations' capital budgeting," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 703-720, December.
    13. Li, Xi, 2014. "The Sarbanes–Oxley act and cross-listed foreign private issuers," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 21-40.
    14. Chia-Ying Chan & Iftekhar Hasan & Chih-Yung Lin, 2021. "Agency cost of CEO perquisites in bank loan contracts," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1221-1258, May.
    15. Paolo Polidori & D?sir?e Teobaldelli, 2012. "Corporate Criminal Liability and Optimal Behavior by Firms.Internal Monitoring Devices versus Managerial Incentives," Working Papers 1216, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & Politics - Scientific Committee - L. Stefanini & G. Travaglini, revised 2012.
    16. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2013. "Learning and the disappearing association between governance and returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 323-348.
    17. Abigail Allen & Melissa F. Lewis‐Western & Kristen Valentine, 2022. "The Innovation and Reporting Consequences of Financial Regulation for Young Life‐Cycle Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 45-95, March.
    18. Ana Albuquerque & Julie Lei Zhu, 2019. "Has Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act Discouraged Corporate Investment? New Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3423-3446, July.
    19. Bruno, Valentina & Claessens, Stijn, 2010. "Corporate governance and regulation: Can there be too much of a good thing?," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 461-482, October.
    20. Humphery-Jenner, Mark L., 2012. "Internal and external discipline following securities class actions," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 151-179.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nbr:nberwo:12952. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.