Disciplinary measures in response to restatements after Sarbanes-Oxley
Jeffrey J. Burks
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2010, vol. 29, issue 3, 195-225
This study examines whether boards discipline CEOs and CFOs more severely for accounting restatements after passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The disciplinary actions I focus on are job termination and reductions in bonus payouts. Boards have incentive to take the highly visible action of terminating a manager to satisfy demands by outsiders for more vigilant corporate governance after SOX. However, terminating an executive entails the risk of hiring an inferior replacement and other costs. Imposing these costs on the firm and shareholders may not be justified after SOX because the severity of the restatements declines significantly. Despite the pressure on boards to appear vigilant, I find that when disciplining CEOs after SOX, boards gravitate away from termination and toward bonus penalties, a development commensurate with the less severe restatements of the post-SOX period. In contrast, boards appear to strengthen disciplinary action against CFOs after SOX despite the decline in restatement severity.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (17) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jappol:v:29:y:2010:i:3:p:195-225
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy is currently edited by L. A. Gordon
More articles in Journal of Accounting and Public Policy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Nithya Sathishkumar ().