Corporate Governance and Financial Engineering: Post-Sarbanes-Oxley Features

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was executed in 2002 for the enhancement of the finical sector through the support of checks and balances. There were concerns concerning the accounting standards. According to the Act, numerous modifications had actually to be made in the monetary reporting and business needed to be examined. Much of the business governance has actually been directed to the financial reporting and financial engineering is among the locations that have received much of the corporate governance attention given that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Bies 2002).

Since then, the concern of auditor's self-reliance has been on the front line in concerns to corporate governance. There has actually been a development in the number of organizations which has been caused by the frustration of external investors. These organizations have used ingenious financing strategies which are difficult to be comprehended by external financiers (Hoogervorst 2009:167). Corporations have presented risk-management tools which have replaced the ancients accounting requirements. This has made it possible for the discloser company's positions in regards to risk management and the techniques they utilize for public openness.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified writer

Proficient in: Business

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The majority of the creditors have welcomed monetary innovation and transparency which lays a basis for corporate governance (CCH Editorial 2008:144). In the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, problems were raised to supply corporate governance in personal companies. Much has not been carried out in these companies due to the fact that of the concentration on public business. For the last ten years financiers have been on the boost with a boost in the variety of investors therefore needing more concentration from business governance.

This is due to the fact that the board of directors has been helping with the business collapse. To suppress this, corporate governance needed directors to be chosen by bulk ballot. This is not a typical practice in most states but was initiated after the Act. Corporate governance does not allow a little number of the shareholders to vote, it needs plurality investors. As a reaction to these, the majority of the big business have actually currently amended their short articles of incorporation to consist of bulk voting for directors (Reuters 2008).

Another issue that has been emphasized in the corporate governance area for the public companies is the abandonment of practices that entrenches directors or current management. An example of such practices is the “poison pill” which was adopted by many companies in the period 1980-1990 (De Vay 2006: 102). This practice required that, if an individual acquired stocks more than the minimum shareholders stock without having the approval from the board, then the shareholders under the poison pill would be permitted to buy shares in huge amounts at a nominal per-share value. This was abolished through corporate governance.

Before the act was enacted, directors were elected for a period of three years in most companies but since then, the corporate governance area requires directed to be elected on an annually and provides the provision for removing directors if they fail to deliver (Reuters 2008). Another issue that has been tackled by corporate governance is director independence. Majority of the directors are required to be independent and in line with this most of the companies have gone ahead to put more stern standards for their board of directors which stipulates that more than 75% of the directors should be independent.

Most of the directors and officers are required to hold a certain percentage of their shares for the long term This has replaced the options which they previously had whereby they could dispose off their shares at will (Northrup 2006: 211). The issues required by corporate governance are complicated and costly for many companies and it remains a challenge (Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto 2004:50). With the current credit crisis, it is obvious that the financial institutions will continually be scrutinizing for them to be in line with what the corporate governance stipulates.