PointofLaw.com

FORUM FEATURED DISCUSSIONS PoL COLUMNS LEGAL EXPERTS ARTICLES BOOKS PODCASTS LINKS MASTHEAD ADVANCED SEARCH

FORUM

« Harold Meyerson on Enron | FDA scandal! Or is it? »

May 17, 2007


Pollock on Sarbanes-Oxley

AEI's Alex Pollock writes on American.com:

[W]e can say there are two competing theories:

A. Sarbanes-Oxley is bad for investors because the costs are excessive relative to the benefits, and

B. Sarbanes-Oxley is good for investors because it protects them and makes them willing to pay more for securities.

Theory B is usually used as an argument for keeping Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 mandatory, but it is actually a great argument for making it voluntary.

Posted by Ted Frank at 07:59 AM | TrackBack (0)



categories:
Corporate Governance









 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.