From Forbes:
A recent report claims competition between financial centers is increasingly a function of access to talent and regulatory and legal environments. There is increasing concern that the United States is losing on both counts due to increasing legal and regulatory constraints and restrictive immigration laws:
1. Sarbanes-Oxley. A majority of business leaders interviewed for the report believe the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has helped improve corporate governance, transparency and accounting standards in the United States. However, many are also concerned that the costs of compliance may be discouraging foreign firms from listing in the United States in favor of markets such as the United Kingdom, where costs of compliance are lower.
Beyond the issue of increased costs is the implicit extra-territorial reach of U.S. authorities via Section 404 of Sarb-Ox.
===
Sarbanes-Oxley struck me as the essence of good government. I thought that, rather than drive capital away, it would draw quality players: if a company lists in the US, you know it's legit.
I've been seeing more and more about S-O's impact on American economic comopetitiveness, and it raises an interesting question: how do you balance the net good of stringent government oversight against the net bad of capital loss?
A recent report claims competition between financial centers is increasingly a function of access to talent and regulatory and legal environments. There is increasing concern that the United States is losing on both counts due to increasing legal and regulatory constraints and restrictive immigration laws:
1. Sarbanes-Oxley. A majority of business leaders interviewed for the report believe the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has helped improve corporate governance, transparency and accounting standards in the United States. However, many are also concerned that the costs of compliance may be discouraging foreign firms from listing in the United States in favor of markets such as the United Kingdom, where costs of compliance are lower.
Beyond the issue of increased costs is the implicit extra-territorial reach of U.S. authorities via Section 404 of Sarb-Ox.
===
Sarbanes-Oxley struck me as the essence of good government. I thought that, rather than drive capital away, it would draw quality players: if a company lists in the US, you know it's legit.
I've been seeing more and more about S-O's impact on American economic comopetitiveness, and it raises an interesting question: how do you balance the net good of stringent government oversight against the net bad of capital loss?
