Oh!! LOOK, so far collectively my tears Runneth Abundantly, Do you all have that same “Abundance Feeding” in your heart as I do?
As if to compare that they are in a crisis, as other inverstor’s and the likes: a real fact for some in financial, emotional and physical crisis, but no, crying poor, Not the Fortune 1000 companies’?
May I have some money for the man crying outside?
Now, wouldn’t it be nice to think that this corporate governance act (Be) an act of positive mindset, in the long run for the corportate loser’s? These were internal controls remember> < that were solicited, granted topics, as audited by scandalous auditors Inc.
At least from my perspective Michael, the point is that audit firms are collectively screwing over companies more and more under some idea that everytime someone breaks wind it needs to be documented and approved. And as costly as it is financially, it’s even more costly to employees who are left trying to adhere to a bunch of senseless rules.
So Pete, I’d first like to say that auidt firms did not create SOX, the SEC did. Audit firms are not trying to screw companies; they’re doing their job and following the law. Think about how much extra work is being placed in the auditors lap, compared to employees of the these companies. Not only do they have to audit the financial statements, but they must gain an understanding of and audit the internal controls. And to make matters worse, the deadline for these audits has been pushed 15 days earlier. So, is it more costly for employees or the auditors?
Can someone tell me what exactly is this increased scope of work for consultants and auditors because of SOX? I understand that auditors now have more work to do. But what about consultants? Does SOX complinace involve a pure consultancy element too? I am aware that auditors will not be able to offer consultancy to their clients due to the independence clause. That means that a company which wants to comply with SOX will have to engage the services of an independent external consultant. How much of extra cost would this mean? My question is, if 1.4 billion dollars are getting paid to auditors for SOX work, how much of it is going to external consultants?
Everyone is just trying to get their extra piece of the pie. Obviously, Sarbanes is in line with their hands out too.
Does SOX apply to subsidiaries of US holding companies and the oficers f those subsidiraies who are domiciled in foreign countries
Oh!! LOOK, so far collectively my tears Runneth Abundantly, Do you all have that same “Abundance Feeding” in your heart as I do?
As if to compare that they are in a crisis, as other inverstor’s and the likes: a real fact for some in financial, emotional and physical crisis, but no, crying poor, Not the Fortune 1000 companies’?
May I have some money for the man crying outside?
Now, wouldn’t it be nice to think that this corporate governance act (Be) an act of positive mindset, in the long run for the corportate loser’s? These were internal controls remember> < that were solicited, granted topics, as audited by scandalous auditors Inc.
At least from my perspective Michael, the point is that audit firms are collectively screwing over companies more and more under some idea that everytime someone breaks wind it needs to be documented and approved. And as costly as it is financially, it’s even more costly to employees who are left trying to adhere to a bunch of senseless rules.
So Pete, I’d first like to say that auidt firms did not create SOX, the SEC did. Audit firms are not trying to screw companies; they’re doing their job and following the law. Think about how much extra work is being placed in the auditors lap, compared to employees of the these companies. Not only do they have to audit the financial statements, but they must gain an understanding of and audit the internal controls. And to make matters worse, the deadline for these audits has been pushed 15 days earlier. So, is it more costly for employees or the auditors?
Can someone tell me what exactly is this increased scope of work for consultants and auditors because of SOX? I understand that auditors now have more work to do. But what about consultants? Does SOX complinace involve a pure consultancy element too? I am aware that auditors will not be able to offer consultancy to their clients due to the independence clause. That means that a company which wants to comply with SOX will have to engage the services of an independent external consultant. How much of extra cost would this mean? My question is, if 1.4 billion dollars are getting paid to auditors for SOX work, how much of it is going to external consultants?