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

G. Karolyi
{"title":"Discussion of 'A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002'","authors":"G. Karolyi","doi":"10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00322.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the main contributions and findings of Hochberg, Sapienza and Vissing-Jorgensen's 'A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.' I offer a synopsis of the Journal of Accounting Research conference discussion of the paper as well as provide some broader perspectives on the two main lines of inquiry to which the paper contributes. The first perspective focuses on the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and, in particular, how this study and others face the challenge of benchmarking of the price and quantity effects of the Act. I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the authors' identification strategy that separates out firms whose insiders actively lobbied the Securities and Exchange Commission's rule-making process in the aftermath of SOX. The second perspective considers the motivations for and consequences of lobbying activity. I survey existing research in Economics, Accounting and Management which shows that lobbying propensity is predictable, confirms it is most likely to be conducted by agents most affected by the rule changes, but also warns that there are firm-specific, industry-specific, and even issue-specific factors that can complicate these interpretations.","PeriodicalId":10000,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","volume":"301 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Securities Regulation (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00322.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

This article discusses the main contributions and findings of Hochberg, Sapienza and Vissing-Jorgensen's 'A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.' I offer a synopsis of the Journal of Accounting Research conference discussion of the paper as well as provide some broader perspectives on the two main lines of inquiry to which the paper contributes. The first perspective focuses on the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and, in particular, how this study and others face the challenge of benchmarking of the price and quantity effects of the Act. I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the authors' identification strategy that separates out firms whose insiders actively lobbied the Securities and Exchange Commission's rule-making process in the aftermath of SOX. The second perspective considers the motivations for and consequences of lobbying activity. I survey existing research in Economics, Accounting and Management which shows that lobbying propensity is predictable, confirms it is most likely to be conducted by agents most affected by the rule changes, but also warns that there are firm-specific, industry-specific, and even issue-specific factors that can complicate these interpretations.
对“评估2002年萨班斯-奥克斯利法案的游说方法”的讨论
本文讨论了Hochberg, Sapienza和Vissing-Jorgensen的“评估2002年萨班斯-奥克斯利法案的游说方法”的主要贡献和发现。我提供了一个会计研究会议的论文讨论的摘要,并提供了一些更广泛的观点,对两个主要的调查线,其中论文的贡献。第一个视角侧重于萨班斯-奥克斯利法案(SOX)的影响,特别是本研究和其他研究如何面对该法案的价格和数量影响基准的挑战。我讨论了作者的识别策略的优点和缺点,该策略将公司的内部人员在SOX之后积极游说证券交易委员会的规则制定过程。第二个视角考虑游说活动的动机和后果。我调查了经济学、会计和管理学的现有研究,这些研究表明游说倾向是可预测的,证实了它最有可能由受规则变化影响最大的代理人进行,但也警告说,存在特定于公司、特定于行业甚至特定于问题的因素,这些因素可能使这些解释复杂化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信