Sarbanes-Oxley Research Proposal Abstract the Term Paper

Download this Term Paper in word format (.doc)

Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formatting

Excerpt from Term Paper:

The use of statistical techniques including t-tests, ANOVA,
Pearson's Correlation Coefficient analysis and the use of predictive
statistics techniques in addition to those mentioned will be used.
Expected Results of Research
It is anticipated that the Act will be shown to have a statistically
significant effect on smaller firms choosing to stay private, and if they
are public already, to choose to either go back to being privately held or
be acquired. Further, it is expected that the results will show that those
small companies who had the greatest drop in market valuation will be the
most likely to be acquired by companies in their industries fulfilling the
roles of market consolidators. This will be because those companies acting
as market consolidators will have purchasing power and the need in building
out their broader market strategies to include smaller, more niche-oriented
firms into their strategic plans. For larger corporations the costs of
being in compliance will be shown as a factor influencing their decisions
to offshore not only their Sarbanes-Oxley compliance initiatives, but their
entire business process management (BPM) initiatives as well. The larger
corporations will be seen as offshoring all unnecessary processes and tasks
so they can concentrate on their core businesses, often looking for a 40%
reduction or more in achieving compliance by using Indian outsourcers to
attain cost advantages. In this regard it will be shown to be
statistically significant that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has in the end
contributed on average 30% of the net incomes of Indian outsourcers who
have become billion-dollar organizations as a result of serving large and
small publicly-held US corporations to become complaint with the Act.
References:
Columbus. 2006. Surviving Sarbanes-Oxley Audits. InformIT Magazine and
website. Accessed from the Internet on July 23, 2007 at location:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=415980&rl=1

Doogar, R. and R. Easley. 1998. Concentration without differentiation: a
new look at the determinants of audit market concentration, Journal of
Accounting and Economics 25: 235-253.

Doogar, R., N. Fargher and K. Hong. 2004. Leveling the playing field, or
crumbs from the table? The contestability of the audit market to middle
tier firms. Working paper. University of Illinois. May 2005.

Engel, E. R. Hayes, and X. Wang. 2004. The Sarbanes-Oxley act and firms'
going private decisions. Working paper. University of Chicago. May 2004.

Frances, J. and D. Simon. 1987. A test of audit pricing in the small-client
segment of the U.S. audit market, The Accounting Review 1: 145-157.

Government Accounting Office (GAO) 2003. Public Accounting Firms: Mandated
Study on Consolidation and Competition. United States General Accounting
Office Report to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs and the House Committee on Financial Services GAO-03-1158.

Hartman, T. 2005. The cost of being public in the era of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Foley and Lardner Presentation. June 2005.

Hay, D.C., W.R. Knechel and N. Wong. 2006. Audit fees: a meta-analysis of
the effect of supply and demand attributes, Contemporary Accounting
Research 23, 1 (Spring): 141-91.

Ireland, J.C. and C.S. Lennox. 2002. The large audit firm fee premium: a
case of selectivity bias? Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 17, 1
(Winter): 73-91.

Marshall, J. 2006. Are Foreign Issuers Shunning the U.S.? Financial
Executive 22, 8. 25-28.

Menon, K. and D.D. Williams. 2001. Long-term trends in audit fees.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 20, 1 (March): 115-136.

Rittenberg, L., Evenson, M. and Martens, F. Internal Control: No Small
Matter. Internal Auditor 63, 5. 47 51.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 2002. U.S. Senators Sarbanes and Oxley. Passed in
2002 by both U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Text viewed on
the Internet on July 23, 2007:
http://www.aicpa.org/info/sarbanesoxleysummary.htm

Skantz, T. and D. Dickins. 2005-2006. Can fee disclosure be trusted?
Regulation (Winter): 46-47.

Simon, D. T., and J. R. Francis. 1988. The effects of auditor changes on
audit fees: Tests of price cutting and price recovery. The Accounting
Review (April): 255-269.

Simunic, D.A. 1980. The pricing of audit services: theory and evidence.
Journal of Accounting Research 18,1 (Spring): 161-190.

Simunic, D.A. and M.T. Stein. 1996. The Impact of Litigation Risk on Audit
Pricing: A Review of the Economics and the Evidence. Auditing: A Journal of
Practice and Theory 15 Supplement: 119-134.

Sissell, K. 2006. Committee to Recommend Changes to Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Chemical Week 168, 31: 14.

Virtual Champions. 2006. Article from The Economist Magazine. June 1, 2006
print and online editions. Page 26.

Willis, R.J. and S. Rosen. 1979.…[continue]

Cite This Term Paper:

"Sarbanes-Oxley Research Proposal Abstract The" (2007, July 23) Retrieved December 10, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sarbanes-oxley-research-proposal-abstract-36542

"Sarbanes-Oxley Research Proposal Abstract The" 23 July 2007. Web.10 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sarbanes-oxley-research-proposal-abstract-36542>

"Sarbanes-Oxley Research Proposal Abstract The", 23 July 2007, Accessed.10 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sarbanes-oxley-research-proposal-abstract-36542


Read Full Term Paper
Copyright 2016 . All Rights Reserved