IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/ohidic/2008-23.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Karolyi, G. Andrew

    (Ohio State University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Karolyi, G. Andrew, 2008. "Discussion of 'A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002'," Working Paper Series 2008-23, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:ohidic:2008-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cob.ohio-state.edu/fin/dice/papers/2008/2008-23.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gao, Meng & Huang, Jiekun, 2016. "Capitalizing on Capitol Hill: Informed trading by hedge fund managers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 521-545.
    3. Chen, Honghui & Kumar, Alok & Lu, Yan & Singh, Ajai, 2022. "Do Hedge Fund Managers Understand Politics? Political Sensitivity and Investment Skill," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    4. Minkwan Ahn & Samuel B. Bonsall & Zahn Bozanic & Yiwei Dou & Gordon Richardson & Dushyantkumar Vyas, 2020. "Have SFAS 166 and SFAS 167 improved the financial reporting for securitizations?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(7-8), pages 821-857, July.
    5. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    6. Yael V. Hochberg & Paola Sapienza & Annette Vissing‐Jørgensen, 2009. "A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 47(2), pages 519-583, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:ohidic:2008-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdohsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.