No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to investigate two issues. First, the authors test the effect of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) on audit quality after 10 years. Second, the authors test whether it was necessary to close all of the Arthur Andersen offices due to the misbehavior of a few (e.g. the Houston and Atlanta offices). Design/methodology/approach The authors have used conservatism (Basu) as a proxy for audit quality. Findings The authors find that, over the long run (10 years) after SOX adoption, there is a significant positive change in conservatism as compared to during the previous similar period. In addition, the authors find that only 6 of the 20 city-level offices of Arthur Andersen were less conservative than were their other Big 6 competitors in the same city. Furthermore, the results also suggest that some city-level offices of Arthur Andersen were engaged in more conservative accounting practices than were their competitors and the Houston Andersen offices. Originality/value This study documents, using empirical evidence, that the implementation of SOX is successful, and that one factor that helped lead to this success might be the harsh punishment on Arthur Andersen.

The collapse of Enron and its auditor Arthur Andersen was one of the biggest events in US corporate history and it had long-lasting repercussions in the corporate world. Following the Enron – Arthur Andersen scandal, the US Congress passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX). The legislation was designed to strengthen existing securities regulations and enacted harsh penalties on lawbreakers. SOX was one of the first and heavy responses to corporate fraud. Since the passage of SOX, debates revolving around the costs and benefits of it have prevailed and several studies investigated its effectiveness to prevent future financial crimes. This study first reviews the chronology of the events leading to SOX, followed by a brief discussion of the rules and regulations established by SOX. The empirical evidence presented by previous studies on the effectiveness of legislation and the harsh penalty Enron's auditor had received are assessed and evaluated.