[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 404: WILL THE SEC'S AND PCAOB'S NEW STANDARDS LOWER COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR SMALL COMPANIES? ======================================================================= COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JUNE 5, 2007 __________ Serial Number 110-26 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ house ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36-101 WASHINGTON : 2007 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Louisiana STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Ranking Member HEATH SHULER, North Carolina ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland CHARLIE GONZALEZ, Texas SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD AKIN, Missouri RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado MELISSA BEAN, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania DEAN HELLER, Nevada BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee YVETTE CLARKE, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana VERN BUCHANAN, Florida HANK JOHNSON, Georgia JIM JORDAN, Ohio JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania Michael Day, Majority Staff Director Adam Minehardt, Deputy Staff Director Tim Slattery, Chief Counsel Kevin Fitzpatrick, Minority Staff Director ______ STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES Subcommittee on Finance and Tax MELISSA BEAN, Illinois, Chairwoman RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona DEAN HELLER, Nevada, Ranking MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana STEVE KING, Iowa HANK JOHNSON, Georgia VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania JIM JORDAN, Ohio ______ Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology BRUCE BRALEY, IOWA, Chairman WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Louisiana DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee, Ranking HENRY CUELLAR, Texas ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin SAM GRAVES, Missouri YVETTE CLARKE, New York TODD AKIN, Missouri JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma ......................................................... (ii) ? Subcommittee on Regulations, Health Care and Trade CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas, Chairman WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Louisiana LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia, RICK LARSEN, Washington Ranking DAN LIPINSKI, Illinois BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania MELISSA BEAN, Illinois STEVE KING, Iowa GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JIM JORDAN, Ohio ______ Subcommittee on Urban and Rural Entrepreneurship HEATH SHULER, North Carolina, Chairman RICK LARSEN, Washington JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska, MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine Ranking GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland YVETTE CLARKE, New York MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana DEAN HELLER, Nevada HANK JOHNSON, Georgia DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee ______ Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight JASON ALTMIRE, PENNSYLVANIA, Chairman CHARLIE GONZALEZ, Texas LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Ranking RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia (iii) ? C O N T E N T S ---------- OPENING STATEMENTS Page Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M.......................................... 1 Chabot, Hon. Steve............................................... 2 WITNESSES PANEL I Cox, Hon. Christopher, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission..................................................... 4 Olson, Mark W., Public Company Accounting Oversight Board........ 7 PANEL II Greenwood, Hon. James C., Biotechnology Industry Organization.... 21 Casey-Landry, Diane, America's Community Bankers................. 23 Scott, Hal, Harvard Law School................................... 25 Heesen, Mark G., National Venture Capital Association............ 28 Hirschmann, David, U.S. Chamber of Commerce...................... 30 Schmalzl, Richard, Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP.................... 32 APPENDIX Prepared Statements: Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M.......................................... 45 Chabot, Hon. Steve............................................... 47 Cox, Hon. Christopher, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission..................................................... 49 Olson, Mark W., Public Company Accounting Oversight Board........ 56 Greenwood, Hon. James C., Biotechnology Industry Organization.... 75 Casey-Landry, Diane, America's Community Bankers................. 84 Scott, Hal, Harvard Law School................................... 93 Heesen, Mark G., National Venture Capital Association............ 99 Hirschmann, David, U.S. Chamber of Commerce...................... 104 Schmalzl, Richard, Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP.................... 111 Statements for the Record: Independent Community Bankers of America......................... 119 Institute of Management Accountants.............................. 126 (v) FULL COMITTEE HEARING ON SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 404: WILL THE SEC'S AND PCAOB'S NEW STANDARDS LOWER COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR SMALL COMPANIES? ---------- TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2007 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in Room 2360 Rayburn House Office Building,Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Velazquez, Larsen, Clarke, Ellsworth, and Chabot. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN VELAZQUEZ Chairwoman Velazquez. I call this hearing to order. This afternoon the Committee will examine implementation of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and consider whether the new standards that the SEC and PCAOB approved last month will lower compliance costs for smaller companies. Small firms continue to be supportive of the intent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and many have benefited from the stronger corporate government's culture that it encourages. What we continue to find is that many aspects of complying with SOX, and particularly those associated with Section 404, are disproportionately impacting small companies. These continue to make me believe that these new regulations should be delayed. This additional time is especially important for smaller companies which often operate with limited human and financial resources and may be unreasonably burdened by these high costs. We may jeopardize some of our country's most innovative endeavors if we fail to adequately balance investor protection with the associated regulatory burden. Last month new management guidance and an auditing standard for Section 404 were approved. The result of nearly 2 years of work, this new standard seeks to make Sarbanes-Oxley compliance more efficient and cost effective for companies of all sizes. While I am encouraged by this, I am concerned about the proposed timeline under which small firms will have to comply with the new regulations. An important step to mitigating this will be, prior to the SEC's approval of the auditing standard, the Commission should undertake a full analysis as prescribed by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This will ensure that this regulation is appropriately tailored. Earlier this year Ranking Member Chabot and I wrote to Chairmen Cox and Olson and expressed our concern that the proposed implementation timeline was inadequate to assess its effectiveness. Postponing the December 2007 and December 2008 deadlines by at least 1 year would allow for the new standards to be tested and for evidence to be collected that could confirm that the new standards do, in fact, lower costs for small firms. Small businesses are significant sources of research and development, job creation and innovation in our economy. It is critical that the SEC and PCAOB work to ensure that SOX 404 is implemented in a way that contributes to increased investor confidence, but that also does not hamper America's competitiveness. Postponing the compliance deadlines for at least an additional year would allow us to make this determination. A delay will also provide training for small companies and auditing firms. It will also permit the PCAOB's efficiency inspectors to assess whether audit firms are implementing the new standards in the manner intended. At a minimum these steps will help ensure a more effective implementation of these new standards and recognize the unique situation that many companies find themselves in. These new standards come at a time when small businesses are already spending 45 percent more than larger firms on regulatory compliance. To ensure that these burdens become more manageable we should not be piling new regulations on until they have been thoroughly reviewed. Today's hearing will help us accomplish this, and by doing so, it will demonstrate that a delay is necessary to better balance the cost and benefits of these new standards. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Chairman Cox and Chairman Olson and also to thank the members from the second panel that are traveling from across the country to be here to shed some insight regarding the implementation of Section 404 on small firms. Now I recognize Mr. Chabot for his opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. CHABOT Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for holding this hearing on Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and its impact on small businesses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been described as the most important and far-reaching securities legislation since the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which were passed following the stock market crash back in 1929. Signed into law in 2002 in response to the bankruptcy of Enron Corporation, the WorldCom scandal and other corporate failures, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a private-sector, nonprofit organization that oversees public company auditors and enacts auditing standards. The act also restricts accounting firms from performing a number of other services for companies which they audit and requires new disclosures for public companies and officers and directors. While the act has generally been viewed as necessary to restore public and investor confidence in our capital markets and improve the reliability and transparency of commercial financial reports, concerns have been raised about the burden and cost of compliance for small- and medium-sized companies. One of the most controversial provisions, Section 404, management assessment of internal controls, requires management and auditors to assess internal controls over financial reporting and requires external auditors to report on management's assessment and certify to the effectiveness of internal controls. The Securities and Exchange Commission greatly underestimated the amount that it would cost small businesses to comply with Section 404. According to an April 2006 Government Accountability Office study, small businesses expend a disproportionately greater amount of time and money as a percentage of revenues compliant with Sarbanes-Oxley than large public companies. Firms with $1 billion or more spend 13 cents per $100 in revenue for audit fees to comply with Sarbanes- Oxley regulations, while small businesses spend more than $1 per $100. It is generally agreed that Sarbanes-Oxley has had a positive effect on investor protection and confidence, but its burden on small business has not only affected their bottom line, but also their competitiveness in our global academy. GAO found that small businesses used resources for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance rather than for other business activities. Recently, the Kauffman-RAND Center for the Study of Small Business and Regulation said that Sarbanes-Oxley caused small firms to exit the public capital market. Last year the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it would delay the application of Section 404 to the smallest companies until later in 2007. Earlier this year the chairwoman and I together urged the SEC to delay implementation of the new internal control standards to allow small businesses additional time to comply. On May 23, 2007, this year, the SEC announced it would not allow such an extension. At its May 23, 2007, meeting the SEC adopted rules designed to reduce costs for compliance with Section 404 for all businesses. In addition, the Commission adopted proposed rules examining the general disclosure requirements for small companies wanting to go public. This represents an excellent opportunity for the Commission to examine the cumulative impact of its rules on small companies and reduce those while still striving to maintain investor confidence. Madam Chairwoman, I commend you for holding this hearing on Section 404 compliance. I want to note that in addition to our panel of experts we have with us an attorney from Cincinnati, my district, who has real-world experience in helping small public company clients to deal with the challenges of Section 404 compliance. I look forward to this hearing from each of our witnesses. We want to thank them in advance for their testimony. And I also want to welcome to Washington, D.C., my brother, my younger brother, 10 years younger, Dave, and his wife Ellen who are with us today with their four beautiful children and they are in the back there. How about the whole family stand up back there. Kids, come on and stand up. We don't have visitors up here all that often. There are a whole bunch of them there. So those are Chabots back there. And that's how we pronounce it, even though it gets pronounced all different ways up here. Chairwoman Velazquez. And welcome to my club. Mr. Chabot. Exactly. That's right. I yield back my time. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Our first witness is our former colleague, the Honorable Christopher Cox. He is the 28th chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He was appointed by President Bush on June 2, 2005, and unanimously confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2005. During his tenure at the SEC Chairman Cox has brought groundbreaking cases against a variety of market abuses, including hedge fund insider trading, stock options back-dating and securities scams on the Internet. Prior to joining the Securities and Exchange Commission, Chairman Cox served for 17 years in Congress where he held a number of positions of leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives. Honorable Christopher Cox, you are welcome and we are very grateful that you are here with us today. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER COX, CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Mr. Cox. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for your gracious introduction to my colleagues. I am very, very honored with the opportunity to be here, along with Chairman Olson, to talk about this very important subject. The Committee has a very important charge, and we share a good portion of what you are responsible for within our sphere at the Securities and Exchange Commission. We all have a responsibility to the millions of small businesses in America and, in that way, to our economy. For our part, the SEC is charged by statute with the protection of investors, fostering efficient markets and the promotion of capital formation. Small business needs all of these in order to survive. So like every member of this Committee, the SEC is completely committed to fostering a climate of entrepreneurship. That climate is necessary to help promote small business growth, and it is necessary to the creation of the many jobs and goods and services in our country that are produced by small business, Today, as every member of this Committee well knows, there are over 6,000 public companies that are smaller businesses that still aren't required to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Generally that is every public company with securities registered with the Commission if it has less than $75 million in public equity. The Commission has, as you have noted, delayed Section 404 compliance for smaller companies precisely because of the disproportionately high costs that they face compared to larger companies. Our experience in the first 3 years of compliance after the enactment of SOX told us that the way that 404 was being implemented was too expensive for everyone. And imposing that system on the smallest companies would impose unacceptably high costs from the standpoint of the companies' investors who would have to pay the bills. So the Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board set out to address the unique concerns of small business; and as you are aware, the Commission has carefully phased in application to the 404 requirements. We have repeatedly deferred 404 compliance for smaller companies with the very positive result of this determination to phase in 404 for smaller companies being that we and they have had and will have the opportunity to field test the requirements first. Now we are using what we have learned thus far and we will continue to use what we learn to lessen the burden for smaller companies that eventually will have to comply with Section 404. We have little doubt that the SEC's new guidance, specifically for management, and the PCAOB's new standard, which Chairman Olson will talk about in a little more detail in a moment, will be of significant help to smaller companies when, beginning with their SEC annual filings in 2009, they eventually comply with the audit provisions of Section 404. In the meantime, for their filings in 2008, they will have to comply only with the management assessment portion of Section 404. For this purpose, the SEC's new guidance should be especially helpful. It is written in plain English. It suggests that certifying officers at smaller companies ask themselves two basic questions: First, do my employees understand what they need to do to prepare reliable financial statements; and second, what information do I need to be sure that they have done those things. The answers to these questions needn't be complicated or costly. And certainly our guidance won't make them so. In fact, the guidance clearly highlights the areas where cost-effective implementation has been a challenge for small companies in the past so that these pitfalls can be avoided, and it explains how a small company might approach 404 differently than a large company. None of this should be unduly difficult for most companies, and it certainly does not require the 404 audit that has had smaller companies so concerned about cost. As we meet here in mid-2007, the requirement of an internal control audit under Section 404 won't apply to smaller public companies with calendar and fiscal years until their filings in the spring of 2009, almost 2 years from now. In the meantime, those smaller companies can begin to get ready for full SOX 404 compliance by undertaking their own assessments of internal controls beginning with their SEC reports in 2008. So, in response to suggestions that the Commission should extend 404 compliance for another year, the answer is that smaller companies won't be required to come into full compliance with SOX 404 until their report is due in March 2009, almost 2 years from now. This schedule gives smaller companies the benefit of doing an initial internal assessment of their controls without the added burden and cost arising from an external audit. We fully expect that by the end of 2008 management's familiarity with the 404 process and its documentation of internal controls will make it easier and less expensive to do an external audit than it would have been under the previous system. Madam Chairwoman, the focus of this hearing is on whether the SEC's new guidance for management and the PCAOB's new standard for auditors will lower compliance costs for small companies. The answer to that question is "yes." we expect the unduly high costs of implementing Section 404 of the act under the previous auditing standard will come down. They should come down because now a company will be able to focus on the areas that present the greatest risk of material misstatements in the financials. That is what the law has always intended we be focused on. It is always what investors care about; it is what is important for achieving reliable financial reporting. Compliance costs should come down because the new SEC guidance that has been developed specifically for management will allow each small business to exercise significant judgment in designing an evaluation that is tailored to its individual circumstances. Unlike external auditors, management in a smaller company tend to work with its internal controls on a daily basis. They have a great deal of knowledge about how their firm operates. Our new guidance allows management to make use of that knowledge, which should lead to a much more efficient assessment process. Compliance costs should also come down for the minority of smaller public companies that had already complied with Section 404 under the old auditing standard. In recognition of the fact that many of those companies have already invested considerable resources in the design and the implementation of their processes the Commission's guidance does not disrupt or require any changes to what they are now doing. While these smaller companies should benefit from the top- down, risk-based, materially focused and scalable nature of both the SEC's new guidance and the PCAOB's new auditing standard, they should not have to expend new resources to do so. The goal of our collective efforts in this area, the SEC and the PCAOB, is to implement Section 404 just as Congress intended in the most efficient and effective way to meet our objectives of investor protection, well functioning financial markets and healthy capital formation by companies of all sizes. We won't forget the failures that led to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the first place, and we won't forget that for small business to continue to prosper, both strong investor protection and healthy capital formation must go hand in hand. These past few weeks have witnessed several positive steps for small business at the SEC. Not only are we approaching the finish line in our work to rationalize and improve the 404 process for smaller companies, but also we are tackling several other issues of importance to our Nation's small businesses. The most important of these is our effort to modernize and improve capital raising for small business and to simplify SEC reporting for small business. Many of these proposals would implement key recommendations made by the Commission's Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies. Our concerns for small business go hand in hand with our responsibility to protect investors. It is, after all, investors who are injured and whose money is lost when the small businesses in which they invest can't get affordable access to new capital. Madam Chairwoman, the SEC takes extremely seriously and equally seriously each element of its tripartite mission. The 404 reforms, the capital-raising improvements that I just mentioned and the reporting simplifications that we proposed to benefit small business will, I am certain, help our country to accomplish all three of these objectives. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Commission, and of course I will be happy to answer your questions. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you Chairman Cox. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cox may be found on page 49 of the Appendix.] Chairwoman Velazquez. Our next witness is the Honorable Mark Olson, who became chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board on July 3, 2006. The PCAOB is a private-sector, nonprofit corporation created by the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002 to oversee the auditors of public companies. Prior to his appointment to the PCAOB board, Mr. Olson served as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee. Before becoming a member of the Federal Reserve Board, Mr. Olson held a number of positions in the banking industry and was a partner with the accounting firm, Ernst & Young. Welcome, sir. STATEMENT OF MARK W OLSON, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD Mr. Olson. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot and members of the Committee, I am delighted to be here today on behalf of the PCAOB. I am pleased to be here with Chairman Cox, whom we have worked closely with in this effort. The full text of my statement has been submitted for the record, but I would like to make a couple of summary comments and then be happy to answer any additional questions that you might have. I think at the outset it is important to remember--and I know that all the members of the Committee do, but just as a reminder--the 404 does not apply to all small businesses. Section 404 applies to small businesses that choose to access the U.S. capital markets; and that is a critical distinction, because in exchange for your willingness to access the U.S. capital markets, the management has been asked to accept a heightened level of responsibility for the internal controls over financial reporting. That new responsibility, I think, helps provide stability to the U.S. capital markets, but very importantly, it helps build confidence in markets for the average investor. And that is critically important because, as all of the members know, I am sure, over half of U.S. households are now equity holders in one form or another. In my mind, it is the essence of Sarbanes- Oxley 404. And I agree with Ranking Member Chabot when he says that is probably the most significant legislation since the 1933 and the 1934 Acts. But what it does is provide a level of confidence that wasn't there before. But it is the third time Congress has chosen to act and to act in a way that has mandated internal controls over financial reporting. The first was the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the second was in FDICIA. That said, we are working in a number of ways to specifically focus on small business at the PCAOB in two particular ways that I would like to highlight: first of all, the fact that most of the registrants that registered with us, the accounting firms, the auditing firms that registered with us, are themselves small businesses. I was surprised, when I looked closely at the statistics regarding the PCAOB, that there are 1,700 accounting firms, auditing firms, that have registered with the PCAOB, which means that there are 1,700 firms that either now do or wish to audit companies that are traded in the U.S. public markets. Of those 1,700, 1,000 them are in the U.S., and of those 1,000, only 150 have 5 or more publicly traded companies that they audit. So 800-some--850 roughly--firms that register with us either audit fewer than 5 or are not listed currently as the auditor of any, but they choose to. And that number is growing so that there is an increasing number of small firms around the country. There are 129, for example, in New York alone and 1934 in Ohio alone that fit this category. Also we have been working very hard to make sure that as we get closer to the implementation for the small, nonaccelerated filers that the small firms can be ready; and let me give you a couple of examples of what we are doing. First of all, we are hosting seminars around the country for the small accounting firms and, in some cases, members of audit committees. We have done those with 21 different firms in 14 different markets, that have been attended by over 2,000 people, where we have acquainted them with the PCAOB; but more importantly, helped them understand and recognize the extent to which the responsibility will be for auditing under Section 404, particularly for the nonaccelerated filers. Point number two is that we are working with a group of 12 accounting firms now to specifically focus on developing guidance for the smaller firms, so that as they are getting ready to audit on 404, we can help them identify how they would identify the key controls and how they would identify a control environment that would be more applicable to a small firm, so that it can reach the point that you mentioned, Congresswoman, when you talked about the disproportionate burden that would fall to small business if we don't aggressively address that point. That is precisely the effort that is under way. Point number three, Chairman Cox indicated, which we have just passed and sent to the SEC for their review, the AS 5, the scalability portion of that adjusted standard, specifically focuses on ways that we can be scalable to address the smaller and less complex businesses. And I think, very importantly, as Chairman Cox mentioned, the fact that we are now linking the AS 5 with the management guidance that have been produced by the SEC will in fact answer the question that you asked at the outset, which is, will the revisions bring costs down. And I agree with the chairman, there is no reason why those costs should not come down because of the fact that we have made the standard that much more scalable and that we have reduced the wording that would have resulted in unnecessary procedures being made by the external auditor. As to the delay, the bill was passed, as I said, in 2002. It has now delayed full implementation until 2009. To delay it a year, until 2010, would mean that full implementation would have taken the equivalent of four terms in the House of Representatives. And I think, in our judgment as we have looked at the manner in which we have delayed, and particularly what the SEC has done in staging the dates of compliance, it seems to me that there is adequate time built into it now for the firms to be ready. [The prepared statement of Mr. Olson may be found on page 56 of the Appendix.] Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you, sir. Chairwoman Velazquez. Chairman Cox, I know that you will not be able to stay to hear the testimony of the second panel of witnesses this afternoon, so I want to pose to you the question that I expect will be central to the second panel of witnesses. Will you support further postponing SOX 404 compliance dates for smaller public companies? Mr. Cox. Chairwoman, I think because this has been the subject of my formal testimony and also Chairman Olson's, that I should ask you with respect to the upcoming panel--by the way I want you to know that the SEC will be here in full force to listen to that testimony-- Chairwoman Velazquez. I understand. Mr. Cox. --but to make sure that we are addressing ourselves to the same question, are you focused on the 404 audit? Chairwoman Velazquez. Yes. Mr. Cox. Because I think what we have taken pains to explain is that while there will be required compliance with 404(a)--404 is very short, it has part (a) and part (b), and 404(a) compliance will kick in for smaller companies in 2008 and 404(b) won't kick in until filings in 2009. Chairwoman Velazquez. And I will have a question for you in terms of those dates. Mr. Cox. Right. And so is what you are asking, are we thinking about 2010? Chairwoman Velazquez. Well, Mr. Chairman, in reading the testimonies that will be presented here this afternoon and in the meetings that we have had with the sectors that will be impacted by this, it seems that small companies do not feel that because they will have until 2009 to comply with the PCAOB--that the problem is that in order to comply with the SEC in 2008, they will have to incur expenses that have to relate to 2009. And I am going to ask you this question so that you can see why there is so much concern, not about the fact that you are coming here and saying, "But they will not have to comply with those guidelines until 2009," but in order to comply, for the 2008 reports that they have to present to SEC in 2008, they will have to incur expenses that are supposed to be related to the reports that they have to submit to the PCAOB in 2009. In your testimony-- Mr. Cox. Madam Chairwoman-- Chairwoman Velazquez. I am going to try to explain in this question. In your testimony you highlight that a further delay in the compliance date is at this point unnecessary. Explaining this point, you emphasize that small companies will not have to come into full compliance until March 2009. This reasoning assumes, however, that management is willing to sign annual reports for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2007, without an outside auditor's review. Because of reasonable concerns about potential liability associated with information included in such reports, I expect that the December 2007 deadline is likely to force a number of smaller public companies to implement both the SEC's and PCAOB's new standard during the second half of 2007. Do you agree that this is a likely consequence of the SEC's existing SOX compliance timeline for smaller firms? Mr. Cox. No, Madam Chairwoman, but I think it is very useful to have that question asked publicly and answered publicly. That is not at all the intention of what the SEC is doing, nor is it the intention of what the PCAOB is doing, I think fair to say, although I will let Chairman Olson comment for the PCAOB. What we are seeking to do is completely the opposite, and that is to stage compliance for smaller companies. There is absolutely no question, given all of the evidence that we have received--and as you know, we have been very carefully consulting with small businesses across America in a variety of formal ways. All of the evidence that we have received suggests that the costs that are of particular concern in Section 404 compliance relate to the 404 audit. As a result, by letting management for the first time have guidance directly from the SEC on what it should do as a company--not relying on its auditors, but what it should do to assess its own internal controls--and to be sure that its style is scaled for smaller companies so that their approach needn't be the same as it is for a large company, we think that they will have a very different opportunity than they would have had if they had to comply with what I am going to call "old 404" and "old AS 2." after they have a year's experience with that process and after they get to watch other larger companies work with the new standard, AS 5, then and only then would they be required to file, themselves, financial reports that include as part of the integrated audit a 404 audit. Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Olson, you don't see the concern coming from small companies regarding compliance with PCAOB's and expenses that they will have to incur in order to comply with SEC by the year 2008? Mr. Olson. Well, we do see the concern. I think a number of things have been done to alleviate--I think the concern and the linkage between the management guidance that the SEC has just come out with on their 404(a) and the new audit standard that we have done on 404(b) help address that issue. I think it is very important because the management guidance was designed as guidance for management, obviously. And what that guidance does is to outline for the management of a company that is already very much aware of the internal control environment that they have. And for the companies that already have good internal controls, the management guidance will still be that important guidance; but for companies that have postponed taking a careful look at their internal control environment, this will tell them what management is to do. And as you indicated, they will be required to file that a year from now. Then the external auditor, which is the standard that we have provided--the external auditor will then have until the following year to have completed the audit. Part of what was not addressed--and I think that this is part of the concern--is that in the AS 2, the AS 2 guidelines which were very specific were sometimes taken as the de facto standard for management. What the SEC has done now is to give them a much more manageable guideline that I think will help address that concern. Chairwoman Velazquez. Well, let me ask you both, didn't you think that small companies will seek an outside audit opinion in order to sign off on the submissions, as requested by the SEC? Mr. Cox. Of course they will have audited financials. Chairwoman Velazquez. But you said that, no, the costs will be lower since they don't have to comply until 2009. But in order to comply with the report that they have to send to you, they will have to seek an outside auditor's opinion. Mr. Cox. But that audit, just to be clear, if we are talking about 2007 and 2008, that audit will not be a 404 audit of the company's internal controls, but rather it will be the financial audit that is necessary for all public companies and has always been necessary for smaller public companies. Chairwoman Velazquez. Let me ask you, in your testimony you confirm that the new standards will reduce SOX 404 compliance costs for small firms. In this afternoon's second panel, we will hear testimony from experts indicating that it is impossible to know whether compliance costs will go down until the new standards are implemented in a small business environment. Can you share with the Committee how you know that the new standards will lower compliance costs for smaller companies and by how much you expect the compliance costs to decrease? Mr. Cox. Well, of course the benchmark for measuring any reduction that might be anticipated in compliance costs has to be what it costs today to comply. There are companies, including companies with a below-$75 million public float that have, for whatever reason, come into compliance early, and those companies provide a benchmark. There is absolutely no question that AS 5 is going to be more flexible for the reasons that I outlined, more top-down, more risk-based, more materiality focused and more scalable than it is predecessor, AS 2. For all of those reasons compliance is going to be much less costly. The necessity for what I would consider to be redundant, unnecessary or immaterial work will be eliminated. The focus will be on what truly matters. This is not to say that it will be a cost-free exercise. But what we are seeking to do is bring the costs more in alignment with the benefits. Since this is real work, it is intended to produce real benefits. The investors are paying; the investors deserve those benefits. Chairwoman Velazquez. But you come here, sir, and you testify to the fact that this is going to lower compliance costs, that they will go down. In 2003, the Security and Exchange Commission forecast that the average cost of SOX compliance will be $91,000; this forecast proved to be a significant underestimate of the actual compliance costs. My understanding is that the SEC intends to release the new management guidance and auditing standard without a cost estimate. Can you tell us why this is? Mr. Cox. In fact, the cost-benefit analysis that the law requires, that the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires, will be included as part of our submission to the Office of Management and Budget, which I believe we are making today--if not today, it will be tomorrow. And with respect to that 2003 analysis of what SOX compliance was expected then to cost, as you know, in 2003 I was a Member of the House of Representatives and a member of the Financial Services Committee; and like you, I voted for the legislation with the understanding that Section 404 would provide great benefits to the country and to investors and then would not be unduly burdensome or cause waste. The evidence that we have all seen since then indicates that not only was that estimate wrong, but I think our estimation as legislators of what was going to happen in consequence of 404, modeled as it was on FDICIA, was also in error. And that is why I am so firmly convinced that this needs to be changed to bring it into alignment with congressional intent. Chairwoman Velazquez. Well, I am a member of the Financial Services Committee, and I do support the spirit of the law. And we all know the problems that we saw in terms of corporate America scandal. We understand that. In my role as the Chair now and ranking when we passed the law, I consistently raised the issue about the impact that Section 404 would have on small companies. The fact of the matter is that we have the Regulatory Flexibility Act that requires for agencies to conduct a full economic analysis, impact analysis of the regulations. What we have seen and what we have read about the regulatory flexibility analysis that you have conducted, it looks to me to have been quite limited; and we are concerned about that. So I would like to see if you have more data or information as to the regulatory flexibility analysis that you conducted to share with this Committee. Mr. Cox. Well, of course we will share with the Committee any analyses that we have that you think would be of interest to you. Beyond that, I think it is important to point out that because we are staging compliance for smaller companies differently from larger companies who will have to come into compliance in 2008, we will have the benefit of that year. And if the Commission learns that our estimations are in error, that what we intend to happen is not what is happening, then we will have the opportunity to consider further postponement of compliance. Chairwoman Velazquez. I am glad to hear that. And now I will recognize Ranking Member Chabot. Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And, Chairman Cox, I will begin with you if I can. Would you review for us what educational efforts the Commission is undertaking for small businesses to make them more aware of the new Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance requirements? Mr. Cox. I would be pleased to do that. We are right now in, essentially, the planning stages for that effort because we don't yet have a new standard that is in effect. And our management guidance, while it is, as I mentioned, going to be 404(b), the review will not be completely final for a short while. When that occurs and when we can go out and talk about our new management guidance and our new audit standard, we intend to have a special focus on communicating with small business, not only in the usual ways through speech making and our liaison with small business, but also through our Office of Investor Education and Assistance. We hope to prepare brochures that will be specially designed for small business to accompany the management guidance, which already was written with small business in mind, meant to be flexible and so on. And I will do everything that I can in a small business friendly way to communicate in ways that small business can understand without hiring expert help. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Should the SEC be concerned that some small businesses are deciding to list their stocks on foreign exchanges in order to raise capital and avoid compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404? Mr. Cox. Yes. There is no question that when companies list in the United States that are stronger investor protections. And so to the extent that U.S. investors are going to end up owning any of these issues, we are all better off from an investor protection standpoint if that activity occurs in the United States. So we are focused, as you might imagine, on ensuring that our regulations and our entire theme is focused on getting the maximum amount of investor protection with the maximum amount of activity in U.S. capital markets. Mr. Chabot. If the Commission prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis, did it estimate the cost of compliance for small companies seeking to go public? Mr. Cox. While we do not have a dollar figure attached to that, it is, as I mentioned, because we will have the benefit of a year of real-world experience before that requirement kicks in. Mr. Chabot. I yield to the chairwoman. Chairwoman Velazquez. In order to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, you have to do a full cost analysis, so where is the cost? Mr. Cox. We did in fact comply fully with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, including Section 607. Chairwoman Velazquez. But then you have a cost. What will be the cost for small companies to comply? Mr. Cox. Well, all I can tell you beyond that, because I have been assured by both the Commission's counsel and the Division of Corporation Finance that this is the case, that the very same package that we are providing to OMB, I believe this day, we will be able to happy to provide in real time to the Committee. Chairwoman Velazquez. And will you commit with this Committee that if it doesn't have a full cost analysis, compliance will be delayed until such an analysis is conducted? Mr. Cox. Yes, of course; and compliance is already delayed. But I will absolutely assure this Committee both today and prospectively that we will be in full compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Mr. Chabot. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Olson, I will turn to you now if I can. There is no doubt that the audit standard requires a fair amount of exercise of independent accounting judgment by auditors. What is the likelihood that the exercise of such judgment will increase the cost of audits? Mr. Olson. Congressman, there is an element of accounting judgment that goes into many accounting transactions, and-- because even as precise as our accounting standards are, there still is a significant amount of judgment it involves. The role of the PCAOB when we do the inspections is that we look at the manner in which the accounting has been audited. So--it is the audit component of it that we look at, and so what we do is, we look at the extent to which the auditing standards have been followed with respect to the accounting, and where we see accounting treatment that we think is questionable, it is at that point we refer that to the SEC. But--it is the audit component that we look at, but one of the reasons, as I think you are pointing out--and it takes a great deal of skill to do this--is the fact that there is a lot of judgment required in many of the accounting treatments. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Will the board entertain recommendations from smaller companies and their auditors as they gain experience with the new audit standard in an effort to further reduce the cost of the audit standard? Mr. Olson. We meet continuously with the accounting profession, with the audit profession, in a number of venues; and our examination process is very dynamic, which is to say that we are changing it continuously as we learn more. You may remember, as you know, that we are a 4-year-old organization; we have completed 3 full years of doing inspections, and it was an inspection methodology that we had to build from scratch. So we have been developing that continuously and we have been working to improve it continuously. As we have learned more and as the environment has changed, and more importantly, as the auditing profession has changed, we have changed our approach too. So the answer to that is definitely "yes." Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I am pleased to hear that, and I would strongly encourage the board to take into consideration what the small business folks and the auditors say as time goes on, as they become more familiar with it. And so I am glad to hear that. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Chairwoman Velazquez. Ms. Clarke. Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing today on this very critical issue. We must ensure that these new guidelines being discussed today provide small business the relief they so desperately need. I would like to also just sort of highlight, Madam Chair, your focus on the unintended consequences of this timeline that is set forth to implement AS 5 and the management guidelines. The roll-out is where we really need to focus right now, and I think that has been some of what you have been hearing from the Committee. Chairman Cox, I wanted to ask that while the SEC approved new management guidelines on May 23 to help navigate the burdensome provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, your administration said it was not necessary to give smaller companies additional time to comply with Section 404. But now it appears, based on your testimony here today, that you are willing to reconsider your decision. Can you explain to us, why the sudden change in your position? Mr. Cox. Well, I don't believe that I have been articulating different positions. I am merely trying to make it clear that there are different timelines in place. The management guidance that we are talking about is a separate piece from AS 5, which the PCAOB is talking about. That is going to go into effect a year later for smaller companies, so we already have a built-in delay until 2008 for management guidance and 2009 for AS 5, the PCAOB's audit standard. And then, in response to the Chairwoman's question about what would happen if we learned as a result of the built-in year of experiential base that we will have looking at AS 5 being utilized by our companies, if that doesn't turn out as we intend, would we then consider further extension, the answer to that is absolutely "yes." And that has been our view consistently. We expressed that at our recent public meeting. I think all the Commissioners are of that view. It is expressed in the formal written testimony that we provided though this Committee. And by the way, because we are a five-member commission and that written testimony presented, it has been voted upon and approved by all five commissioners. So I think I speak very much for all members of the Commission that is our view. Ms. Clarke. And let me ask, you told Congress that your administration would not require smaller public companies to have a Section 404 audit until the new guideline and the new auditing standard were available. Now that you are reconsidering delaying the rules, what standards will you examine to develop effective guidelines for small businesses? Has that been identified? Mr. Cox. Well, in fact the very guidance that we are talking about hasn't yet gone into effect. No smaller companies yet had the benefit of it, and we don't have any empirical basis to know whether it is achieving its intended result. But very soon we will. And we have done our level best at the SEC, and I assure you at the PCAOB, that people have been working very, very hard on this with small business uppermost in mind, to make sure that this, unlike what preceded it, which in the case of the SEC was absolutely nothing--there was no guidance for management and people had to rely for the guidance on auditors--and in the case of the PCAOB was AS 2, that this will be much better and different. And so we will soon benefit from all of that from companies that have already had to comply with SOX 404. And as I said, I strongly believe this is going to result in lower costs for them. That is the intent. It should. And then a year later, when smaller public companies come on line, they should have the benefit of all of that experience and knowledge, and we should be very highly confident at that point that this is going to work as intended. Ms. Clarke. Well, I would like to suggest, Mr. Cox, that you make sure that this Committee is briefed as you go along through this process; and that the triggers that are in place to alert your agency as to whether there is going to be an undue burden, that you closely monitor that. I think that SOX 404 is critical. It is very important to the investors and to the public trust. However, we don't want to sink businesses in the process that are not at a capacity to be able to absorb these new regulations in a way in which it will be meaningful for their entry into the public arena in providing us with the goods and services that we require as a nation. So I hope that you will really monitor that very closely. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Larsen. Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few questions, Chairman Cox. Glad to have you before the Committee. I am sure you are enjoying it as much as we are. A quick question; this is certainly related to Mr. Chabot's question about investor protection versus the listing in foreign exchange markets. Are you seeing, assuming it has a relationship to what we are dealing with, but maybe not direct, maybe indirect--are you seeing a difference between new listings being more predominantly focused on foreign exchange markets versus a migration of existing public companies? Rather than choosing to enlist here for their initial public offering, choosing somewhere else versus existing public companies seeking to raise dollars elsewhere or list separately overseas, is there a difference at all in that which you are seeing as a result of SOX? Mr. Cox. Well, the focus has been on IPOs. And of course it is much easier to make that election up front. But particularly with respect to smaller companies we have not seen a great deal. There is no question that the vast majority of offerings occur in the United States and not oversees, albeit if one takes a look at the percentage changes in overseas markets, such as AIM, you will see the trend is up. Mr. Larsen. With regards to the management guidance and AS 5, I just want to get this straight. What exists to ensure that the 404 guidance and AS 5 won't migrate to companies above the line? That is, we want to ensure that small businesses can comply so we are giving them some extra time. Can we be assured that--obviously we want SOX to be implemented for the reasons we saw a couple of years back; can we be assured that no one else is going to come and try to raise that line of who has to comply? That is, it is going to be focused on small businesses for the delay, and as we see this thing test out, can we be assured that higher cap companies aren't going to return and say, well, we want in on this too, we want to be delayed too? Because we are seeing problems with some of these smaller companies and we experience the same delays, can we be assured that the SEC is going to stay focused on moving forward with SOX compliance? We are really only talking about helping out the small business side on this. Mr. Cox. In fact we were talking about helping out all companies, but as you point out, in a very different way. With smaller companies it has been through deferral while we craft a better, more suitable standard that they could comply with in a scalable way. With larger companies they are already in compliance with 404; they have had to comply. And so what we are doing for them is changing what had been an overly complicated and overly expensive and cumbersome standard to one that is more flexible and more focused on the true material risk about which investors care the most. And so, in that way, I think that the new standard will benefit companies of all sizes. But there is no reason to think that we are going to take companies that are already in compliance and tell them they can come out of compliance. Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Ellsworth. Mr. Ellsworth. Madam Chairwoman, I don't have any questions for this panel. Chairwoman Velazquez. I do have more questions. Mr. Olson, the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the biotechnology, electronics, semiconductor, telecommunications and venture capital industries have all recommended that the new standards should include a revenue filter. As I understand it, the new standards employ neither a gross revenue number nor an indicator, like product revenue. Why did the SEC and PCAOB opt not to follow the recommendations of the advisory committee? Mr. Olson. That is a very good question. We looked at the extent to which we could make the standard scalable particularly for small business, and as you may recall, in the standard that we have produced in December the whole portion on scalability was focused on small business. And as we looked at that carefully the debate that went on was whether or not--what were the thresholds or what were the metrics that would determine whether or not a firm should be in one category or another. And what we carefully wanted to avoid was having what we would call buckets, that we would pull this amount of revenue or this amount of revenue and then have that apply to everybody in that category. What we wanted to do instead was to have a standard that was idiosyncratic; that is to say, that could focus on the size and complexity of that individual company. And the manner in which the standard is now written, it is part of the auditor's responsibility to define at the outset the extent to which size and complexity impact the manner in which they have scoped the audit. So I think that in fact we have addressed it in a way that will be more applicable to the specific needs and the specific size and complexity of the entity itself. For example, I know that there are some very small banks, not very many of them, but there are some very small banks that have very complex balance sheets, and they will take one sort of internal controls. There are also some very large companies that are relatively not complex and the control structure that they would put in place ought to reflect that. With particular respect to the technology industry what you tend to get is some very well-capitalized companies that have very low revenue. I think for that reason they are saying we in fact should be put in a category with some smaller firms. In effect, we have done that by the manner in which we have redone the scalability section by removing the small business focus and making it applicable to entities of all size. Chairwoman Velazquez. Chairman Cox, would you like to comment on that? Mr. Cox. Just technically, the SEC has not yet voted on AS5. We will have an opportunity after exposure to public comment to do so. So far we have been able to collaborate with the PCAOB on drafting it, and I am certainly very familiar with the discussion that you just had. Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Olson, since the new standards are principle-based and provide flexibility for auditors to employ their professional judgment, the standards will create significantly lower compliance costs only if they are implemented properly. This means that the PCAOB's efficiency inspectors have a very important role to play if the new standards are to result in lower SOX 404 compliance cost. So my question is how many efficiency inspectors doesPCAOB have on staff and what month would the PCAOB begin inspecting audited firms' implementation of the new standards? Mr. Olson. First of all, you are exactly right. In terms of the implementation, it is my sense that we have the words right in the new standard and the key to it being more cost effective is the implementation. With our inspections of auditing firms, the inspections include right now that we look at the efficiency and the effectiveness on the audit of internal controls over financial reporting only for those companies at this point, of course, that are the accelerated filers. The same people do both. And there are about 250 that we have in the field right now who are doing those inspections. Chairwoman Velazquez. Two hundred fifty. Mr. Olson. Two hundred fifty. When we get to the point-- and, remember, it is the expectation that as the audits are done that these will be integrated audits, so the audit of internal controls and the financial audit will be done in an integrated fashion. So it is important as we look--as we go out and do the inspections that we are looking at both simultaneously. We would like to have in the area of 300 or so inspectors. We think at that level we will have a full complement. That is not exactly a fungible commodity out there, people with audit experience, so we are having trouble finding enough good people. Chairwoman Velazquez. Chairman Cox, both the PCAOB and SEC have used the term "right size" to describe what the recent revisions will do to audits. What is meant by this term and what do you envision a success? Mr. Cox. This is related to the discussion that the Chairman and Madam Chairwoman just had about complexity. Companies come in all different shapes and sizes. The check- the-box mentality was thought to be the Achilles heel of AS2. AS5 takes a completely different approach. Our guidance for management takes this same principle-based approach and also permits reliance on judgment, reliance on the work of others. It permits focus on materiality, on things that truly matter to the financial statements. By focusing on the control environment of a particular company and making sure that what management understands it is tasked to do is to assess its internal control system, not to design an internal control system that is reverse-engineered for the audit, it is going to make a big change. Chairwoman Velazquez. What do you envision a success? How would you measure it? Mr. Cox. In two ways. We hope to get higher-quality financial statements because we are focusing on the jugular and no longer focused on the capillary. We are also hoping to reduce the cost of compliance. This is not alchemy. Chairwoman Velazquez. But you don't have the cost yet, the cost of compliance, do you have it? Mr. Cox. We certainly have current costs and we will very quickly have empirical evidence about costs under the new standard and the new guidance. Chairwoman Velazquez. I am sorry; what was your answer about the fact that you don't have a cost for compliance? Mr. Cox. It is our estimate that costs will be significantly lower for the reasons that we described. The precision of our estimate is going to be in the putting, if you will--that is to say, since companies are already in compliance with a standard that we believe is more difficult than what we are replacing it with, there is no one who has worked on this that doesn't believe that costs ought to come down. This is the purpose of the exercise. Chairwoman Velazquez. If it doesn't come down? Mr. Cox. Then of course we will revisit it immediately. Chairwoman Velazquez. What would be the time line for that? Mr. Cox. With respect to smaller companies, which I know you are focused on intently in this Committee, the point of having an opportunity to look at this for a year first is so that we will have the benefit of that experiential base. Chairwoman Velazquez. Okay. Any other member has a question? Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the interest of getting to the next panel I will just have one final question here, and either or both of the witnesses could answer if they want to. Do you believe that the audit standard places the proper emphasis on fraud risk, or should the standard be further amended to impose a greater focus by the auditors on fraud risk? Either one or both are welcome. Mr. Olson. Congressman, one of the significant revisions that we made in the final draft was to move up within the standard itself the focus on fraud risk, because we think that is very important and we wanted to make sure that the standard highlighted the procedures that they ought to be taking in order to attest for fraud risk exposure. So I think with respect to the audit component of it, have given it appropriate priority in the standard. Chairwoman Velazquez. I have a last question for Chairman Cox. Next month when the SEC receives public comments on AS5, e small business community will be able to comment on the proposed new auditing standard. So what input will be most likely to encourage you to support a further extension of the SOX 404 compliance for small companies? Mr. Cox. I think that input would have to be in parallel with comments on AS5 because AS5 doesn't contain the schedule. I honestly don't want to tell the small business community what they should be telling us. I think our point is we need to listen, we need to be attentive to what they have to say. But we will be. I think-- Chairwoman Velazquez. And you will be listening. Mr. Cox. The important thing is that we are taking this very, very seriously because we know, not only for companies that are already public but for companies that have no publicly traded shares and no IPO plan, their ability to raise capital near term is in some measure a function of investors' sense that someday they will be able to tap the public markets. So for companies of all sizes, not just those on the verge of an IPO, this is really important, and we understand that. Chairwoman Velazquez. Any other member? Mr. Chabot. Madam Chair, one final question. Sorry. Mr. Cox is now obviously the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, but before--as you mentioned--that, he had a distinguished career here in the House of Representatives. I'm curious: Is it more fun to be up here asking the questions or answering them? You don't have to answer that but you are welcome to. Mr. Larsen. I am sure it is a great pleasure for him to be here answering our questions. Mr. Cox. Well, you gave me the option of not answering. I will say being invited to a congressional hearing and offered the opportunity to not answer questions is truly enjoyable. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I yield back. Chairwoman Velazquez. No other member has any comment or question. Then the first panel is excused and I want to thank both Chairmen Cox and Olson for their time, and I welcome you back. I especially remind you, once again, the answers that we are expecting regarding the Regulatory Flexibility Act, full cost analysis, it is important for us too. With that, I excuse the first panel. I will ask the second panel of witnesses to take their seats and the hearing will resume shortly. [Recess.] Chairwoman Velazquez. We are going to resume our hearing. I want to welcome you all and thank you for your patience. So our first witness is the Honorable James C. Greenwood. He is President and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington, D.C., which represents more than 1,100 biotechnology companies. Prior to that he represented Pennsylvania's Eighth District in the U.S. House of Representatives from January 1993 through January 2005. While serving in Congress Mr. Greenwood was a leader on health care issues, authoring numerous bills signed into law, including legislation to promote pediatric labeling for pharmaceuticals and reform medical device review and approval. You are welcome. It is good to see you back here in the House of Representatives. You will have 5 minutes to make your presentation. STATEMENT OF JAMES C. GREENWOOD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION (BIO) Mr. Greenwood. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Velazquez, Ranking Member Chabot, and other members, I thank you for providing the opportunity for us to testify before you today on reforms to the Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. I am Jim Greenwood, President and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. I am privileged to be here today on behalf of BIO, an organization, as the Chairwoman said, of more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, and other organizations in all 50 U.S. States and 31 nations. The promise of biotechnology is immense, as our members combine in biology and technology to deliver new treatments for unmet medical needs, improved crops that are more drought- resistant and have reduced environmental impact and create cheaper, more environmentally friendly fuels and consumer products. Biotech is one of the most innovative, high-growth sectors of our Nation's economy and one in which the United States maintains global leadership. First, I would like to start by providing a short answer to the Committee's question posed in the title of this hearing as to whether or not we believe the SECs and PSAOB's new standards will lower compliance costs for small companies. In summary, it is a marginal "yes." as this Committee well knows, it has been the implementation of section 404 that has gone awry. The situation that many emerging biotech companies face is that funds that would be otherwise spent for core research and development of new therapies for patients are instead having to be used for overly complex controls or unnecessary evaluation of controls. As a conferee for this legislation in 2002, I know it was not intended to be a windfall for auditors nor pile on the compliance costs for small companies. The scale of the problems that section 404 has created suggest that Congress should closely monitor the implementation of these revisions to ensure that its original intent is achieved. It is critical to ensure that these new rules provide the greatest possible flexibility and scalability for small public companies. For most biotech companies, the actual cost of section 404 compliance, including both internal cost as well as external auditor costs, are substantial. In fact, the opportunity costs of section 404 for smaller companies can be even greater, impeding the ability to invest in and, in some cases, to continue critical research and development activities for treatments of an array of diseases from cancer to multiple sclerosis. The current problem with section 404 are not merely growing pains. Current implementation of section 404 imposes the same requirements, steps and reviews by the same individuals year after year. The Commission and the PCAOB have taken steps to address the problems that have manifested in the implementation of section 404. Both agencies suggest that these new requirements are to be scaled, risk-based, and flexible. While the SEC's final guidance is not yet public, we hope that it will provide a more flexible principles-based set of rules for management. On the other hand, the new standards adopted by the PCAOB could still be improved to enhance flexibility and auditor judgment. Furthermore, one could fairly say that in its revisions to its initial December 2006 draft, the PCAOB has actually taken a step backward. Included in both the Commission's and the PCAOB's draft proposals were objective measures auditors could use in determining what is a smaller company, mainly one with a market capitalization of less than $700 million and reported annual revenues of $250 million or less. This was consistent with the recommendation of the Advisory Committee of Small Public Companies. Who suggested that an objective test, particularly a revenue filter, be used as a tool to define a smaller public company than scaling the audit. Unfortunately, this definition of the small company has been removed from the final PCAOB- adopted rule. Rather than maintaining the proposed objective definition of a smaller company and then expanding it to include the subjective criteria that could also be applied to parts of larger companies, an approach which BIO supports, the PCAOB removed the objective criteria altogether, and that is our largest complaint. By eliminating any reference to market capitalization or annual revenues, the PCAOB has taken away the only objective criteria for scalability included in the rule. In doing so, PCAOB appears to have moved from the presumption that a company meeting those thresholds is a small company that should be subjected to a scaled, less burdensome audit, to a presumption that every enterprise should be subject to the fullest, most comprehensive audit, unless the auditor determines otherwise using the subjective criteria in the rule. As a result of this change BIO believes that the new standards may do less than the PCAOB's initial December 2006 revisions to counterbalance the incentives for auditors to be overzealous in their work. Consequently, while we were hoping for greater relief, it is now clear that PCAOB rules will lead to substantially lower audit fees or reduced burden on emerging biotech companies. BIO has consistently advocated for scalability indicia that are most reflective of complexity, and we still believe that both the SEC and the PCAOB should recognize product revenue as an important indicator of complexity. In addition, BIO member companies have raised concerns that after changing auditors they experience new interpretations of material weakness. Even within the context of a principles- based approach to auditing, some further clarification on this guidance is needed. BIO believes that clarification in the PCAOB-adopted rule should accomplish this. Lastly, we strongly believe that a rigorous economic study of the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of section 404 is imperative to understanding if the current reform proposals are meeting the objectives, and I believe that the SEC analysis is qualitative and not quantitative, in answer to the Chairwoman's questions. We urge the SEC to provide an additional exception for non-accelerated filers. The Commission has the ability to make the much needed changes that we have mentioned. In conclusion, BIO appreciates the efforts that both agencies have taken to improve SARBOX implementation. It is unclear, though, whether these reforms will fully match the rhetoric surrounding their adoption. However, we remain hopeful that this is just the first of several steps that both the PCAOB and the SEC will take in reducing the unnecessary burdens of Sarbanes-Oxley on America's emerging and innovative companies. I thank you for your time and your consideration of BIO's views and I would be happy to answer any questions. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Greenwood may be found on page 75 of the Appendix.] Chairwoman Velazquez. Our next witness is Diane Casey- Landry. She is President and CEO of America's Community Bankers, a national trade association committed to strengthening the competitive position of community banks. Prior to joining ACB in 2000, Ms. Casey-Landry served as Principal and National Director of Financial Services for Brand Thorton LLP. Her past experience also includes serving as Executive Director of the Independent Community Bankers of America, and as a bank examiner for the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Welcome, and you have 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DIANE CASEY-LANDRY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICA'S COMMUNITY BANKERS (ACB) Ms. Casey-Landry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot and members of the Committee. I am Diane Casey-Landry, President and CEO of America's Community Bankers. Thank you for holding this very important hearing today and for the invitation to appear today to present to you our views on section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the recent changes on the management guidance and auditing standards made by the SEC and the PCAOP. America's Community Bankers is the national trade association for the Nation's community banks of all charter types and sizes. Our members represent $1.7 trillion in assets, they are located across this country and they are both stock, public and private, as well as mutually owned institutions. Sarbanes-Oxley was a well-intentioned law, and ACB has also supported strong internal controls under the banking laws and regulations. No other publicly traded company is subject to the same scrutiny as a publicly traded bank. Because banks have been governed by numerous internal control reporting and assessment requirements long before Sarbanes-Oxley became law, this creates both unnecessary and duplicative burdens on the banking system. The FDIC Improvement Act of 1991 dictates bank management's responsibility for financial statements and internal control assessments and attestations. This law actually served as the model for section 404. However, the implementation of 404 has been much more costly and burdensome. As a meaningful reduction of this burden, ACB is supporting H.R. 1508, which has been introduced by Representatives Greg Meeks and Tom Feeney, which would create an exception from Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 based on a company's size. We are also supporting, similarly, the provision in H.R. 1869 which would relieve community banks with up to $1 billion in assets from the costly internal controls attestation reports of Sarbanes-Oxley, a similar change which was made by the FDIC 2 years ago for the FDICIA banks and which ACB had requested. We applaud the efforts of both the Commission as well as the PCAOB to improve the implementation and reduce the compliance costs of section 404 through this principles-based approach. We are, however, very disappointed that the SEC decided against a further extension of the compliance states for non-accelerated filers despite several requests for such a delay, including one from this Committee. Accelerated filers have had 3 years of experience with the implementation process and they are the best able to incorporate changes brought about by the SEC and the PCAOB's recent action. Community banks that are non-accelerated filers are very much concerned about the cost and burdens of compliance. Non- accelerated filers are the very companies that can least afford to add personnel, consultants and systems to comply with section 404. This is particularly true if the Commission's new management guidance and the PCAOB's revised auditing standards prove unsuccessful in reducing the costs and other burdens associated with implementing section 404 as a result of the actions by the accounting firms who have to implement these changes. With the filing deadline just 6 months away, we remain hopeful that additional consideration for a reasonable 1-year extension be given on this important issue. We are also calling upon the Commission to update the Exchange Act threshold for registration OF a public company from the 500 shareholder level that was first imposed in 1964. Changes in market composition and participation illustrate a need for the threshold to be moved to a much higher range in order to provide overdue regulatory relief for smaller companies that choose to be public but choose not to be listed on an exchange. Much has been said about the impact section 404 has on our capital markets and on our Nation's ability to compete, and the situation is really very grim from the standpoint of small companies. Section 404 compliance costs have caused many companies to either remain private or to consider going private because the costs associated with being a public company outweigh the benefits. For community banks, mergers and acquisitions are frequently motivated by regulatory burden and they often cite section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley. For example, as of today, the America's Community Bankers NASDAQ index is comprised of 517 banking companies. It has a market capitalization of $193 billion. Every year since the index inception in 2003, approximately 50 companies have left the index primarily because of mergers, but also because of delistings. ACB has estimated that as many as 20 percent of the departures each year from the index are because of a decision to delist, triggered primarily by efforts to reduce burdens created by Sarbanes-Oxley. And when community banks disappear, local communities lose. Notwithstanding the importance of internal controls, there must always be balance with the costs and burdens imposed on smaller public companies, and part of achieving this goal is to reduce the amount of unnecessary regulatory burden hampering the ability of small companies and small community banks to compete domestically. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued work on this important issue and I would be pleased to answer any questions you will have. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Casey-Landry may be found on page 84 of the Appendix.] Chairwoman Velazquez. Our next witness, Mr. Hal Scott. He is the Nomura Professor of the Program on International Financial Systems at Harvard Law School. He teaches courses on international finance and securities regulation. Professor Scott is the director of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation and past Governor of the American Stock Exchange. Before joining the Harvard faculty, Professor Scott clerked for Justice Byron White. Welcome, sir. STATEMENT OF HAL SCOTT, NOMURA PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRAM ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Cabot, and members of the Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on this important issue on behalf of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation which I will refer to, just to make it clear that it is our committee versus your Committee, as the CCMR. I would ask that my full written statement be incorporated into the hearing record. The CCMR is independent and bipartisan, composed of 23 corporate and financial leaders drawn from the investor community, business, finance, law, accounting and academia. CCMR issued its interim report on the state of the U.S. public equity capital markets on November 30th 2006. The CCMR's purpose is to explore a range of issues related to maintaining and improving the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets. In my remarks today I would like to make three central points: First, the debate over section 404 is a debate about the health and future of small business as much as anything else, because the costs of compliance, as you well know, fall hardest on those entities least able to afford them. This issue is about Main Street, not Wall Street, and it is important that you are focused on that. Second, you are right to press on the questions of costs of compliance. As I will explain in a moment, neither we nor the SEC or PCAOB know the answer to your question, and that is a big problem if we are regulating in the dark on something so central to the U.S. company. Third, there is an action that the SEC can take that would be helpful here. It should again delay applying both its rules and the PCAOB's rules to small business so we can develop a stronger factual record on the question of cost. There is no denying that the costs of section 404 have been significant. According to the Financial Executives International, on a per-company basis SOX implementation costs are 4.4 million in the first year, 3.8 million in the second year, and 2.9 million in the third current year. Despite the trend downward, 78 percent of the 200 executives surveyed by FEI said the cost of SOX section 404 still outweigh the benefits. Recent actions by the SEC and PCAOB are a mixed bag. On the positive side, certain important improvements have been made that were called for by our committee. We strongly support a top-down, risk-based approach that allows auditors and management to make use of their judgment in tailoring their evaluations of controls to the individual circumstances of companies they audit, so-called scalability. We support eliminating the requirement for an auditor to examine management's evaluation process. We support the increased flexibility provided for auditors to rely upon the work of others and to limit the testing of low-risk controls. Finally, we also commend the PCAOB's focus on fraud controls. While we are supportive of these actions, we remain very concerned about something that the agencies should have done but have not. They have failed to provide a quantitative standard for material, as applicable to both section 404 and financial statement audits. Our committee recommended that materiality for scoping an assessment should be defined as it was traditionally, in terms of a 5 percent pretax income threshold. This standard will be consistent with the overall risk-based approach advocated by both the SEC and the PCAOB. In cases where the 5 percent test would not be meaningful, the agency should allow companies and their auditors to exercise their reasoned judgment. We are very concerned that without a presumptive quantitative standard, the costs of compliance with section 404 will not be sufficiently reduced. Our committee also recommended the completion of a thorough cost-benefit analysis before the revised standards were applied to small companies. This the agencies have not done. Instead they intend to apply the new standards to all companies, big and small, at the same time: 2008, the management standards; and 2009 for the auditing standards. To our way of thinking it is a real problem that no real cost-benefit analysis has been done for any companies, at least as part of the proposal. This appears inconsistent with the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley and Administrative Procedures Act, as explained in more detail in my written testimony, as well as sound public policy. With all due respect, it is not sufficient for the SEC to release a cost-benefit analysis with apparently no empirical evidence after adopting its rule. If the agencies were to begin by only applying the standards to companies over $75 million in capitalization savings, they could field test for the cost of the standards--I know I am running over my time, I will wrap up shortly. They could field test for the cost of the standards to the smallest of these large companies, for example, those between 75 to 100 million in market capitalization. This could give us a good idea what the cost would be for even smaller companies. Bear in mind that for small companies that have been not yet required to apply section 404, a key issue is how much the new standards will bring down first-year costs. Historically, $4.4 million. Our committee found that a substantial portion of the 404 costs, as high as 75 percent, were due to the management's implementation of 404. Thus, these costs are not avoided by only deferring to the PCAOB auditing rule. The SEC's management rule goes into effect this year for 2008 statements. In our view, if the SEC determines the benefits justify the cost after field testing, the results of this determination, both for management and for auditor implementation, should be made public as part of a rulemaking procedure so that we all have a chance to see what the data is and to comment on it. Everyone-- companies, Congress and the public--is entitled to know and comment on what the cost reductions would be. By the way, Madam Chairwoman, one further thought. You made the point, and I think quite insightfully, that it raises a significant problem to implement the management part of the 404 before we implement the auditing part, because this puts the management of these small companies in a position of having to certify with high liability without the comfort of an auditor review. I don't think this is a tenable situation for the management of small companies to be in. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you, Professor Scott. [The prepared statement of Mr. Scott may be found on page 93 of the Appendix.] Chairwoman Velazquez. Our next witness is Mr. Mark Heesen. He serves as President of the National Venture Capital Association. Since joining NVCA in 1991 he has worked on behalf of NVCA's 480 member companies to demonstrate the positive impact of venture capital investment on the United States economy. Prior to coming to the NVCA Mark was an aide to a former Governor of Pennsylvania. Who was that? Mr. Heesen. Dick Thornburg, many, many years ago. Chairwoman Velazquez. Welcome. STATEMENT OF MARK G. HEESEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL VENTURE CAPITAL ASSOCIATION (NVCA) Mr. Heesen. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Venture-backed companies accounted for 10.5 million U.S. jobs and $2.5 trillion in revenues in 2006. Venture-backed companies such as Google, Genentech, Starbucks, FedEx, Intel and Microsoft were all once small and privately held, waiting for the opportunity to go public. Today the next Microsoft is waiting, but has yet to go public because of burdensome SOX compliance. In 2006 there were only 57 venture-backed IPOs on U.S. exchanges but there were also 17 venture-backed IPOs on foreign exchanges, something unheard of before Sarbanes-Oxley. What is even more concerning is that what we are now seeing is that companies that are viable U.S. IPO candidates are deciding to be acquired instead of going public, mainly in an effort to rid themselves of the SOX burden. Imagine if Google had been acquired by Microsoft or if Genentech had been acquired by J&J. Perhaps the innovation would have survived, but the market value, the jobs, the revenues all would have been diluted substantially. We commend the SEC for its recognition of the SOX problem, yet we do not believe that the combined SEC and PCAOB guidance goes far enough to effect the necessary changes to relieve the SOX burden for our smaller companies. We believe that three drivers are critical in this regard: First, we are gravely concerned that the accounting profession will not change its high-cost practices and the guidance provided by both the SEC and the PCAOB regarding materiality is not specific enough to compel them to do so. Second, the algopathy that exists for 404 audits leaves no choice for small companies in terms of service providers. Lastly, because of these first two concerns it is imperative that prior to adoption all proposed measures are fully field tested to confirm that they indeed will reduce costs. One area of guidance that we have had significant concern about is the determination of what is material to sound financial reporting. The original SOX language set the probability threshold extremely low. Any area in which there was, quote, more than a remote likelihood, unquote, for an error to result in a material mistake on the financials was required to be examined, documented and reported to the company's audit company. This language comprised just about everything. Proposals put forth by both the SEC and PCAOB suggest changing this language to, quote, reasonable possibility, unquote. This general statement does nothing to distinguish itself from the original language, leaves everything open to interpretation, and will do little to reduce costs. Although we support the move to enact principles-based guidance, we feel there should be an objective threshold if we are going to properly balance risk and cost. Since SOX was enacted, the relationship between the Big Four accounting firms and venture-backed companies has become increasingly problematic. Many of our small companies have lost the attention of their Big Four auditors, who are favoring larger public companies that offer lucrative 404 auditing engagements. Those who do maintain their Big Four relationships do so at a 404 cost that averages close to a million dollars annually. As Sarbanes-Oxley allows only for accredited accounting firms to complete 404 audits, our companies are basically held hostage to this oligopoly. We would not have these concerns if we had any comfort level that the Big Four accounting firms support SOX reform, but the profession has publicly warned the supporters of reform that, quote, they shouldn't expect a dramatic reduction in costs, unquote, with the adoption of these proposals. Anecdotally, our members are already being told by their auditors don't expect much, if any, savings in audit fees from the proposals as they are presently written. While one would believe that private companies can bypass the Big Four and engage a second-tier accounting firm, this is frankly not a viable option. Investment banks that take these companies public or sell them require a Big Four audit as a sign of a clean bill of health. There is no competition. The SEC should allow and Congress should support the ability of accredited accounting professionals beyond the Big Four to perform 404 attestations. By doing so we will create a healthy, competitive ecosystem where the market will set the right place for services rendered. Despite an urgent need for reform we will ask today that the SEC move forward cautiously while formalizing the proposed guidance. Blindly adopting recommendations without field testing them first would be akin to a venture capitalist purchasing a company without doing due diligence. Field testing ensures that, one, the recommendations will indeed reduce costs; two, all the players, including the accounting profession, are operating in the spirit of reform; and three, that there are no unintended consequences. Field testing will also allow the SEC to make the adjustments as necessary without having to reopen a new process. Let's prove that reform works before declaring victory. In conclusion, we are really at a critical inflection point. The good work of all involved will be for naught if the accounting profession does not get on board with cost reduction or if implementation of these proposals fail. Taking the time to field test and placing the needed pressure on the Big Four to join the effort is required. We have waited way too long for this reform to take place, but we are willing to wait longer to make sure reform is right. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Heesen. [The prepared statement of Mr. Heesen may be found on page 99 of the Appendix.] Chairwoman Velazquez. Our next witness is Mr. David Hirschmann. He is the Senior Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President of the U.S. Chamber Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness. Mr. Hirschmann is a member of the U.S. Chamber's management committee and in this position helps shape the strategic direction of the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million businesses. Prior to joining the U.S. Chamber in 1992, Mr. Hirschmann worked as a legislative director for former Congressman Toby Roth. You are welcome. STATEMENT OF DAVID HIRSCHMANN, PRESIDENT, U.S. CHAMBER CENTER FOR CAPITAL MARKETS COMPETITIVENESS, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Hirschmann. Thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez, for having me here today, Ranking Member Chabot, and members of the Committee. I want to join the fellow panelists on this Committee in commending you for holding the hearing and I would like to make really four points: First, we welcome the changes that the SEC and the PCAOB have made to try to reflect in their rules what Congress intended. We view the PCAOB's new auditing standard as well as the SEC's guidance for management as significant steps forward. We do think Chairman Cox and the Commission and Chairman Olson and the Board should be commended for the leadership effort they are putting in and we believe they are trying to get it right. However, we will only know these efforts have been successful after we see how they are implemented by the auditors and companies and enforced by the PCAOB. Third, until we have a full year of experience, we agree with others who have called for a delay in implementing the new rules. We believe it would be a mistake to make small businesses the guinea pigs for the application of these new rules. It is important to remember that these rules are in place for fiscal years that are currently running. In other words, they are going to apply to activities that have happened in companies already for 5 months; and management and the accounting staff, which is very limited in small companies, are having to prepare already for an activity, even though they won't file the reports the next year, it is for things that are currently happening. So in a way, small businesses are already having to comply with rules that have not even been published. This is profoundly unfair and sets up a train wreck because, at the end of the day, the SEC won't know why it failed, if it does fail, and we hope it doesn't. They won't know if it was because the calendar they put in place was unworkable or the new rules themselves have not achieved the job. We think this is an avoidable train wreck that can be handled by a further delay. Fourth, we urge Congress and the SEC to work together to address the additional critical issues that are making it harder and harder for leaders of smaller public companies to access the capital markets in order to grow their businesses and create jobs. The Chamber strongly supported many of the reforms in Sarbanes-Oxley, including more active and independent boards and board committees. Effective internal controls are an essential part of good financial governance for all companies. However, the implementation of section 404 has led to costs and compliance burdens which are far beyond what Congress intended and well in excess of any benefits that can be accrued to shareholders and management. This is amplified among smaller public companies to the economies of scale. Companies feel they are getting less effective advice from their auditors, and auditors are increasingly being second- guessed by their new regulator and the trial bar. The result is predictable. Companies increasingly find the cost of being a public company outweigh the benefits. For well over a century this has been the greatest country on Earth for entrepreneurs and innovators to access low-cost capital to start and expand a business. Transparent and liquid markets have been a key part of this. The flawed implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 has a disproportionate impact on the cost of capital for small businesses that have already had to comply. For example, a $1- to $2 million compliance price tag is an enormous burden for companies that have $3 million in net income. Literally, we have heard from companies that are forced to choose between providing health care to their employees, buying new equipment, investing in R&D, or complying with section 404. That is an impossible choice to put a growing company through. As Chairman Cox has noted, Congress never intended for the 404 process to become inflexible, burdensome and wasteful. The Chamber has consistently called for a series of changes to fix Sarbanes-Oxley 404, clarifying the terms such as material weakness, significant deficiency and materiality, ensuring that the rules are both risk-based and scalable, allowing for greater use of the work of others, providing specific guidance for IT systems and controls. We believe the SEC and PCAOB have tried to address each of these areas and others; however, we remain concerned about the extent to which the new standards will improve on-the-ground implementation. We also understand that SOX 404 has become somewhat of a catch-all term to refer to a broader set of issues facing public markets and smaller public companies in particular. U.S. companies are facing changing retroactively applied accounting rules that are ever-increasing in complexity. As a result one in ten public companies is forced to restate their earnings last year. This system is not working for companies, for investors and for auditors. America's securities class action litigation system is broken. It provides an inadequate compensation to injured parties without deterring future wrongdoers. It fails to protect small, undiversified investors who seldom receive more than pennies on the dollar, while attorneys on both sides rake in millions of dollars in fees. The system is not working, and security regulators struggle to keep up with the speed of technology changes in today's rapidly changing markets. The system is not working and our Nation is losing a key competitive advantage much. The challenge is clear and the voices are growing. We need to work together to ensure that U.S. capital markets remain the fairest, most efficient, transparent and attractive in the world. Chairman Velazquez, Ranking Member Chabot, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues and for paying such serious attention to such important issues as capital formation in our country. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Hirschmann. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hirschmann may be found on page 104 of the Appendix.] Chairwoman Velazquez. Now I recognize Ranking Member Chabot for the purpose of introducing his constituent. Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I have the distinct honor to recognize our next witness who is actually from my congressional district in the city of Cincinnati. It is Richard G. Schmalzl who is with Graydon Head & Ritchey, which is one of the top law firms in our area. He got his law degree, J.D., from the University of Virginia School of Law and LLM from Georgetown University Law Center. He is a partner with the firm, as I mentioned, of Graydon Head & Ritchey which is in Cincinnati, Ohio. Mr. Schmalzl serves as co-chair of the firm's Business and Financial Client Service Department. His law practice has an emphasis on securities law, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, venture capital, corporate governance. Mr. Schmalzl's recent publications include an article entitled "Sarbanes-Oxley: Coming Soon To Your Family Business." we welcome you here this afternoon, Mr. Schmalzl. STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHMALZL, PARTNER, GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY LLP, CINCINNATI, OHIO Mr. Schmalzl. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman Velazquez, Ranking Member Chabot and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on the new 404 standards. My name is Dick Schmalzl and I have practiced securities laws for 25 years, primarily in Cincinnati, Ohio. I work closely with large and small public companies in a variety of industries. In recent years I have been on the front line with CEOs, CFOs and boards of directors in helping them become Sarbanes-Oxley compliant. I hope the Committee will find my real-world experiences helpful to your consideration. The views I share with the Committee today are my own views and should not be attributed to my law firm, Graydon Head & Ritchey, or to any client of my law firm. I will address three primary topics: One, the most significant problems that 404 has caused for public companies, particularly small public companies; whether the new standards are likely to effectively address those problems; and thirdly, to urge the Committee to continue to evaluate the bigger picture of whether 404 is serving its intended purposes. My first topic is--I want to emphasize for you based on my firsthand experiences--the three most troubling real problems that 404 has caused. First, as you well know, public companies are experiencing at least a doubling of out-of-pocket audit costs. We all know, and it has been well documented, these costs are disproportionately burdensome to the smaller public companies. The second problem that sometimes doesn't get as much attention is substantial internal human resources must be devoted to 404 compliance. This is especially problematic for smaller companies who, even though they have highly qualified CFOs as controllers, these persons must also play key roles in operating and growing their businesses. Compliance takes away from their ability to enhance shareholder value. The third problem is that 404 has been a major contributor to a deteriorating relationship between public companies and their independent outside auditors. If companies have to ask their auditors for advice on how to account for certain items, the simple act of asking the question has raised the risk that the company would be deemed to have a material weakness in their internal control even though the outside auditors often didn't have definitive answers either. So companies stopped asking questions. They use their best judgment or hire a different audit firm for advice, even though that second firm doesn't know their business as well as their main auditors. This is not healthy in light of increasingly complex accounting rules. These problems have also had more far-reaching consequences as some of my fellow panelists have noted. Public companies are increasingly looking at going private. For smaller public companies, their boards and officers would probably not be prudent fiduciaries if they didn't at least examine the going- private alternative. Also, successful private companies and dynamic new ventures have virtually no aspiration to go public, regulatory burdens being the number one obstacle. When I talk to potential clients and existing clients about going public, they dismiss that idea out of hand. Thirdly, even investment banking firms are looking for ways to avoid SEC registration for their clients by setting up unregistered stock trading systems. These developments are not healthy for small companies that want to grow by accessing the public capital markets or for U.S. markets in general. My second primary topic is whether the new standards will effectively alleviate these most troubling 404 problems. I want to commend the SEC and PCAOB on their extraordinary efforts in identifying and analyzing these problems. I believe, and my clients seem to agree, these new standards do an excellent job in theory to address the above problems. However, a high level of skepticism exists as to whether the new standards will work in actual practice. Out-of-pocket audit costs are not expected to reduce significantly, by 10 to 15 percent at best. One of my small non-accelerated filers has already been told by its accounting firm that instead of having a 125 percent increase in audit fees, it may only be 100 percent; i.e., a doubling of their cost. Also, no substantial reduction at all is expected in the internal resources needed to comply with the new rules. And then, most importantly, significant concern exists whether the outside auditors will buy into the new standards. Without auditor buy-in, these standards can't work. Company officers realize that the auditors have all the power, and they have to do what the auditors want in order to obtain a clean 404 audit report. The SEC and PCAOB can only strongly emphasize to auditors the importance to buy in, but the regulators are probably limited in their ability to do this. Also accountants likely and reasonably are concerned about their risk of liability, and perhaps some protection from liability would be warranted here as well. I think everyone who has spoken here today, except the SEC and PCAOB, have agreed that more time is needed for implementation. I certainly echo that feeling. With respect to 404(a) and 404(b), management cannot put these controls in place without knowing their auditors are going to sign off. Lastly, I want to ask the committee to continue to evaluate the bigger picture of Section 404. Cost effectiveness is not the only problem. My conversations with officers and directors of public companies are uniform; they do not believe that 404 has significantly improved the quality of their financial reporting. Rather, they think it has created a lot of additional documentation, much of which is minutia. They also believe that they had good internal controls before 404 came into play and continue to do so. And perhaps most importantly, they are adamant that 404 will not prevent another Enron type fraud. In summary, I would like to say, the implementation of 404 has been a significant burden for public companies, particularly smaller ones. While the new standards provide some relief, 404 compliance is likely to be burdensome on public companies for years to come. Small public companies need more time to comply, if not a permanent exemption. And lastly, the jury should remain out and continue to evaluate whether 404 works at all. I appreciate the opportunity to have addressed these issues with you. I will welcome any questions that you might have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schmalzl may be found on page 111 of the Appendix.] Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Professor Scott, I would like to address my first question to you. You chair the Capital Markets Regulation Committee and you examined the high cost of SOX 404 compliance and even recommended that smaller public companies should not be directed to implement SOX 404 until compliance costs are contained. In fact, your committee recommended a thorough cost- benefit analysis of SOX 404 should be conducted before a small company would be directed to become SOX 404 compliant. In your estimation, how long will it take to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the new standard, and what sort of data should be collected? Mr. Scott. I am going to give you my guess on these questions because I have not really thoroughly considered them and talked to a lot of people. But I would say that this certainly could be done within a year. We would need a year of actual implementation of these standards to large companies, to all companies other than the small companies, so we could assess what the impact would be. As I said, during that period, what we should be doing is looking at the closest cohorts to the small companies, the $75 million to $100 million companies, because that will give us a pretty good idea of what the impact is going to be on the smaller ones. Also, during this year of implementation to the large companies, which under the SEC's proposal won't fully be done until statements are filed in 2009. So I would say that we are really talking about doing this between 2007 today and during 2008. And I think, in addition to kind of getting information from the closest cohorts, they could interview in depth small companies. I sit on a board in which the auditors come forward, as does management, and tells us what it is going to cost. And I think we could have the SEC and PCAOB interview these small companies and ask them directly, what are these standards going to cost you? What are the auditors going to charge? How would you estimate the time and effort management was going to spend? And as I said, Madam Chairwoman, the highest percentage of these costs is for management. So it is really no answer to tell us that we are going to defer the auditing piece of this for small companies and implement the management piece let alone the problem that a number of us have referred to, that the management is left high and dry without any real comfort from the auditors because they are not going to have to be Section 404 compliant for another year. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Hirschmann, you heard me asking this question to Chairman Cox regarding the fact that under the existing time line smaller public companies will not have to issue SOX 404 compliance financials until the spring of 2009. Corporate executives however will not sign a management report without an auditor's attestation. Will you find small companies have to comply with both standards in advance of the December 2007 deadline? Mr. Hirschmann. I think the result is predictable here, unless we grant the delay. I think it is a very good question. I think what you will see is that companies will have two choices: Either they will go ahead and get their auditors involved, and because this is coming out late in the year, they will have to compete for attention of the auditors and may have trouble doing so because the audit firms are not fully staffed yet to provide that for smaller companies this year. So they will have a very difficult environment with a very high cost if they try to go that route. Or they can try to do it without their auditor. But if they do that, they risk that next year their auditor will come in and say, wait a minute, what you did last year was not adequate; we are finding material weaknesses here. And that is an invitation for lawsuits and litigation and impacting the price of stock and really setting back the entire company. So you are really putting small businesses with two bad choices. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Greenwood, I know that your members, many of which are small research and development companies, are particularly concerned about the cost of complying with SOX 404. Since the new standard of scalable and principal-based, why aren't they sufficient to address your members' concerns about high compliance costs? Mr. Greenwood. Thank you. Fundamentally because, without the objective standard of using market capitalization and/or revenues, we think what will happen is that, given that the auditors have double incentives to maximize the compliance requirements--one, their fees; and, two, their liability--they want to err, their tendency is to err on the side of requiring more. So that is why we fear that our companies will not gain access to the scalability benefits of the changes. One of the things that is unique about our companies, I think unique entirely to the sector, is that a biotech company may begin with a molecule that its scientists think will cure some kind of cancer. They then have years of research and years of development. Then they go into phase one clinical trials, phase two clinical trials, phase three. They make an application before the FDA. They may have another year to wait. All of that might take 10 to 12 years or more and may cost hundreds of millions of dollars and yet they haven't earned a penny in all of that time of revenue. And so, if you think about it, I had the honor to chair when I was chairman of the Oversight Investigation Subcommittee, to chair investigations into companies like Enron and Global Crossing. And what would those scandals have been? They were largely about officers of companies who had stock options who wanted to exercise those stock options, who wanted the value of the stock to continue to inflate, who falsely stated earnings and revenues in an attempt to meet the street's requirements and keep the stock pumped up. That doesn't apply to these companies. These companies have no revenues. They have no earnings. They only have investment. And when you take a company that needs to spend all of its money on research and development and then take significant segments, sections of those invested dollars and use it for compliance that provides really no value to the investor, it is truly overburdensome. The final thing I would say on that, Madam Chairman, is that what our companies tell us is that, when potential investors ask them about Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, it is not because they want to know how well protected they will be as investors. It is because they want to know how much money the company is wasting on SOX compliance. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Ms. Casey, you mentioned in your testimony about the management of some community banks indicating that they are seriously considering delisting. Can you talk to us, rather than incurring the cost of SOX 404 compliance, can you talk to us about what are the negative consequences to a community if their bank chooses to delist? Ms. Casey-Landry. Three years ago, we partnered with NASDAQ to create an index for community banks to provide more visibility in the capital markets for community banks and to facilitate their ability to raise capital. What we have found is, at the same time we did that, Sarbanes-Oxley came along. And so the cost of being a public company suddenly rose dramatically as the banks that were public were facing both the audit costs as well as the 404. Because the index comprises some banks that are accelerated filers, they have already been in compliance positions. But as they began to look, the same statement that was just made by my colleague up here, Honorable Greenwood, about companies looking at what the investors were saying, they are not saying, what is the value of the 404 to improve the financial statements? They are saying, are you taking away that investment that can go back into the community, go back into the institution and will we be better off being a private company? And so the decision really hinges on whether or not the institution believes it can better serve their community and stay serving that community and not be forced to sell out. And some of them are making a decision to stay independent, to stay as a community bank, they would be better off being a private company, keeping those costs for the institutions and not spending it with their auditors. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Heesen, I just will say that Section 404, Sarbanes- Oxley 404 is the best protection that a venture capitalist like yourself and your members will have regarding corporate fraud. And yet I am impressed by how forceful you have been in advocating to delay this implementation of SOX 404. Can you explain? Mr. Heesen. Absolutely. I do not know of a single venture capitalist who would say the advantages of Section 404 outweigh its disadvantages. And that is as an investor talking. A venture capitalist wears two hats. He is an investor as well as he sits on a board. But I do not know literally of a single venture capitalist who would say the benefits outweigh the problems that have been associated with 404. It is a drain on the resources of the company. It is unquestionable. The money needs to go one place in a merging growth company, and that is into R&D. You want to grow that company and make it as competitive as possible as quickly as you can. If you have money being diverted to Sarbanes-Oxley's cause, that is money being diverted from R&D. Basically that is a competitiveness issue, very simply. But it also demonstrates that our companies today take longer than they ever have to go public. And most importantly, more and more of our CEOs are saying it is not worth going public; I would rather get acquired. Now you are still going to have to be Sarbanes-Oxley compliant to be acquired, but they are just saying it is not worth it to basically be in charge of a company that I am basically a babysitter for regulation instead of a company builder. And so they are selling out. And that is not good for the economy at the end of the day. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. Schmalzl, I'll start with you if to I can. You have mentioned before that many of the companies that you are dealing with are very hesitant, if not I think it is maybe laughable to go public when one considers the additional burdens that are imposed. Would you kind of discuss maybe philosophically or with the economy in mind, what does it really matter whether companies stay private or whether they go public? What does that mean in the overall scheme of things? We are a capitalist society obviously and want people to be participatory in business and that whole thing. Could you talk about that a little bit? Mr. Schmalzl. Sure. I have always viewed the main reason for a company to go public is that they want to be able to grow their company. And being able to access the public capital markets has been the most effective way of getting capital to grow your company. Also that provides advantages for the investing public as companies. You know, numerous--Microsoft, Google. As the individual investors and institutional investors can share in that growth, I think that is good for everyone. With the public markets effectively being closed to these growing companies who otherwise might be considering it, I think we are cutting off a lot of opportunities for those businesses, for the employees who work in those businesses because their growth is stunted. And I agree with Mr. Heesen on the inability for--you know, if these companies end up being acquired by larger companies, the adverse effect on their innovation isn't the same. I think we need to grow our own. And if going public isn't a viable option for these companies I think we feel the effects of that in a variety of ways across our economy. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. And Professor Scott, I noticed you nodding. I don't know if it was the question or the answer. But I would be happy to maybe throw you that softball, too, and ask you to comment upon it. And maybe also keeping in mind what Mr. Schmalzl also mentioned: It is not just the investors; it is also folks that maybe would never fathom investing but ultimately are going to need a place to work and support their families and that sort of thing. Mr. Scott. Right. Another aspect of this problem which the committee thought was quite important was the fact that venture capitalists, in order to create incentives for them to invest, want to have a public exit. This has been the dream. The venture capitalists come along, they invest. They nurture the company, and the company goes public, and over a period of time, the venture capitalists cash out and make money. Now, if that result is limited because of the unattractiveness of the public markets, what we are going to see is less investment on the front end by venture capitalists and small companies because this investment is going to be less attractive to them because they can't cash out in the public markets because of some of the costs that we have been talking about. And this is fundamental. This investment fuels this economy. Anything we do to interfere with it is a very serious matter. Mr. Chabot. And is it accurate to say that we are trying to maintain some balance, because obviously if people are buying stocks in companies or they have their pensions invested in that company and people are crooked or doing things that they shouldn't be doing, we want to protect them, but at the same time not kill the goose that created this wonderful economy or America that we enjoy. Mr. Scott. Right. I totally agree with that. We are not just focused on the cost, we are focused on the cost-benefit relationship. So the issue here is whether the benefits from 404 exceed the costs. And those benefits that we are talking about are to investors. That is why it is incumbent on the SEC to do a very thorough empirical analysis of this issue before we implement. Mr. Chabot. Jim, let me start with you on this one if I can, and we will just go down, anybody that would like to comment. I'll make this my last question so we can get to some other members. I believe you were all here, correct me if I'm wrong about this, when both Chairman Cox and Chairman Olson testified. Everybody was here I think during that. Could you tell me what are one or more, depending on how you want to take this, things that were said that you disagree with or that you take issue with or that concern you about what you heard when it comes to business and how 404 and all this affects businesses in our communities around the country. Mr. Greenwood. I think, Ranking Member, that the point that I thought is most important in this entire hearing is really about the loss of the quantitative threshold for smallness. Mr. Olson's testimony was that they originally thought that was a good idea and then, in reevaluating, it seemed not flexible enough. And I would agree with him if the issue is, well, there are companies that might exceed a $75 million revenue threshold that are also very simple. And if that is the case and if the PCAOB said maybe we want to give auditors the opportunity to look at a company with $80 million or $100 million in revenue that has very simple financials and also incorporate them into this more scalable methodology. That is not what they did. What they did is they did away with the quantitative threshold all together. And we think, without that, as I mentioned earlier, we think without that auditors will opt for a more complex review and that it will be of extreme cost to the companies really debilitating their abilities to do their research and development and providing little if any additional protection for investors. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Ms. Casey-Landry. Ms. Casey-Landry. Thank you, Ranking Member Chabot. I think the comment that struck me the most was during the questioning with the chairwoman regarding implementation of 404(a) and 404(b). The reality is that we are already in the fiscal year for community banks and for any company. And the guidance isn't finalized. It still has to go through the OMB process, and then it needs to be out there. And I think the biggest challenge that Chairman Olson and Chairman Cox need to recognize is, once this is approved, that giving speeches and passing out pamphlets is not going to be enough to educate the profession with respect to how to handle 404 compliance for smaller companies, and at the same time, these smaller companies will have to begin to undertake the management review of their internal controls. And like everybody else said, banks are regulated by other entities, and they are not going to sign off on an internal controls report for their bank regulators much less for their auditors without these things being right. So I think the 1 year extension is absolutely critical. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Professor Scott. Mr. Scott. Three points. First of all, adopting 404 for small companies without a thorough cost-benefit analysis in advance of the adoption. Second, bifurcating the implementation of the management and auditor standards in two different years. And third, not adopting a quantitative standard for materiality in the guidance. Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. Mr. Heesen. Mr. Heesen. I was, frankly, very surprised at the total lack of recognition that this regulation rule actually has to be implemented and that accountants are going to implement this and that you can have anything you want on paper. But if the accounting community doesn't actually want to implement this, they are not going to implement it. And I think that is an issue that is not being addressed at all. I think that as it stands right now, the big four are holding a lot of cards here. And if they don't want to see these changes implemented, they are going to have the power not to implement them. And no one that I heard from either the SEC or the PCAOB are talking about what I view as a very basic issue here, and that is implementation of these things. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Mr. Hirschmann. Mr. Hirschmann. I have three quick points. First is, I was surprised to hear Chairman Cox say that he feels like he is close to the finish line. I really think this is an important step, but we are not yet at the finish line. And the implementation is important. I would hope that the SEC and the PCAOB would open to make additional changes if needed. Second, with regard to the PCAOB and the inspections process, until auditors feel that they will not be second guessed, if they simply don't repeat what they have already been doing, I don't think you can expect auditors facing huge liability to change the way they approach. So a change to the inspections process at the PCAOB is very important. And third is the cost-benefit issue. And I would just point out, there are a lot of good people working at the SEC. It is a good agency. But the ability to conduct a cost-benefit analysis is a material weakness at the SEC. They simply cannot do it consistently well. It is been the subject of litigation which they have consistently lost and this is just another proof that they don't have the ability to do it. Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Finally Mr. Schmalzl. Mr. Schmalzl. Yes. I would echo all the same points. First, I was a little dismayed that it seemed to me that Chairman Cox really didn't understand in practice what it takes to comply with 404(a). The internal resources needed that management needs to devote to that process is significant regardless of whether or not you add the out-of-pocket audit cost to that. Second, I didn't think there was enough credence given to how much power the auditors have in this process. Unless the SEC and PCAOB can get some confidence that the auditors are going to buy into these standards, I think the people I talk with at public companies really think that the process is futile unless the auditors buy in. And then, thirdly, I believe the SEC pretty much assumes at this point that 404 is working and that it prevents fraud and that it is creating investor confidence. My clients clearly do not believe that. Their feeling is that the market really doesn't care about these reports and that, as others have said, what they care about is, how much is it costing you to obtain that report? So I think that, to the extent that the SEC or PCAOB have essentially declared victory on the 404 point, I think that is mistaken. Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. I want to thank the entire panel for their answers. I yield back. Chairwoman Velazquez. Mr. Ellsworth. Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you all for coming. It is very informative, for you holding the hearing and for you all testifying. I found it fascinating. I guess, first, a couple of observations. One, we keep talking about an extension. And I come to find that if people just give me bad news and tell me, if they come up and tell me, hey, I am going to punch you in the nose right now or punch you in 5 minutes, I still bleed and my nose still hurts 5 minutes later. And so just an extension doesn't sound like a fix. Is it fair to say that no one on this panel believes that we can achieve the intended goal of 404 the way it is written right now? I think I am safe in assuming that we are not achieving the goal. And I see some heads shaking. If you can give me that nod I'll take that as the affirmative. So those two observations being said, I don't know, Professor, maybe you are the first one or Mr. Hirschmann, I don't know; what is the fix? If I gave you the magic wand or the magic pen, you know what we want to do, or what was intended here? What is the best way? Do we make it go away totally, wave the wand and make it go away, or what is the bullet point fix on this? Mr. Scott. Well, I think there should be a two-stage fix. The first stage is that we should adopt reforms, part of which have been done, but more that need to be done, particularly a quantitative materiality standard. And then field test this in terms of the cost and benefits to small companies. Now, if the costs still outweigh the benefits, which they may well be, then I think the Congress has to address this. What our committee said is, in that event, what the Congress should do is to exempt small companies from the auditor attestation requirement. At the same time, however, because management would not have the comfort of this outside auditor opinion, that the certification standard that management now has, which is pretty high, be lowered in terms of what management would really have to say about their confidence in the internal controls. But before we ever get there, Congressman, I think the first step is, let's do whatever we can to make this a more efficient system. And I think there are steps yet to be taken. And when we do that, let's figure out what the cost benefit is, a thorough study, for small companies. And only if that doesn't work should the Congress come back into the picture. Ms. Casey-Landry. May I just point out that the bill that was introduced by Representatives Greg Meeks and Tom Feeney would provide an exemption for smaller companies. And I think that would be something that would be worthy of Congress considering. But that is a broader question and some other committees get involved in that. Mr. Hirschmann. I do think they are trying to fix the problem. And part of the challenge is they don't have the tools in their hands to completely solve the problem. They can certainly fix the implementation of 404. What they cannot do is address the rest of the equation which is the complexity of our accounting standards, the fact that accounting rules are increasingly complex, interpreted retroactively, they are forcing one in ten public companies with an escalating number every year to restate their earnings. The whole litigation environment around auditors, there is a bigger picture here that goes beyond 404. And I don't think until you address all those pieces you can really ultimately solve this for anybody. Mr. Greenwood. I would reiterate that the real fix is probably to go back and provide a complete exemption for the smaller companies. And I would base that on revenue, not on market capitalization because market capitalization can, A fluctuate wildly. A biotech company may have a drug. And based on the promise of that drug, its stock value may be here. And in clinical trials, it doesn't prove out to do what the company hoped it would. So the market cap drops precipitously. There are still no revenues coming into the company. So I would use a revenue test for exemptions. And Congress should certainly seriously consider doing that. And I don't think that it would be, as somebody who has spent 24 years in public office, I don't think there would be a public reaction that would be negative. I think people instinctively understand that small companies are not the Enrons and the Global Crossings and the WorldComs. Mr. Schmalzl. I would like to add to that I would agree that a broader exemption for small public companies defined in a different way would be a big advantage. And I think there should be a net revenue and/or gross revenue test attached to that. Also I would like to say that I am not at all negative on Sarbanes-Oxley. I think Sarbanes-Oxley has done an awful lot of good things for public companies. Boards of directors are more effective. Audit committees are much more effective. There is more information into the factor faster. Those are all very good positives about Sarbanes-Oxley. And I think we achieve all of those without 404 and without the incredible costs associated with 404. So I wouldn't rule out the possibility of appealing it for everybody. But if we are not going to do that I would certainly try to exempt out a larger batch of those smaller companies, particularly ones that are still struggling to get to a revenue level that really can support these kind of costs. Mr. Heesen. I just look at it from the angle that the SEC, Small Business Committee that looked at this issue came up with these kinds of proposals. They were rejected basically by two very strong votes, and that was the accounting firms. And so I think, once again, you have to look at this and say, what at the end of the day will the accounting industry feel comfortable with that businesses also can feel comfortable with? And that is a hard balance. But even from our companies, companies that are going to be acquired today, I don't care how big or how small they are, they are going to have to be Sarbanes-Oxley compliant. A bigger company is not going to acquire a smaller company unless all the Is are dotted and all the Ts are crossed. It is just too much liability coming in. And so this goes beyond simply trying to say, let's exempt X amount of companies and it will solve everything, because frankly it won't. Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you all very much. I yield any time I might have. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Jim, you spoke about the cost for your members in terms of Section 404. My question to you is, does your organization plan to collect data that quantifies compliance costs for new members before and after the new standards are in place. And if you are going to do that, would you be willing to share that data with us. Mr. Greenwood. Absolutely we would be willing to do that. We have lots of anecdotal data, some of which we have shared with your staff, Madam Chairwoman. But we would certainly be looking forward to working with your committee on compiling data with our members that would be helpful in your decision making. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Heesen, several studies have cited evidence that the U.S. stock markets are becoming less competitive, and some have suggested that expensive regulation, including Section 404, may be partly to blame. In fact the mayor of New York, Mr. Bloomberg, released one of those studies. Can you comment on the relationship, if any, that you see between SOX 404 compliance and the apparent increase in the number of firms deciding to list their shares on full markets. Mr. Heesen. I think part of it is Sarbanes-Oxley. I think it is unfair to blame Sarbanes-Oxley for everything. I think we are living in a much more global economy today. There are many foreign exchangers that are much better today than they were 5 years ago. Having said that, I think many of them have gotten better because of Sarbanes-Oxley. I think they have gotten much more aggressive in coming into the U.S. and marketing to our companies and saying please let's go public on AIM or on Tokyo or somewhere else. You are also seeing companies that venture capitalists have backed that may be based in another country that in the past would have gone public on NASDAQ and instead today are going public on the Bombay exchange or on the Tokyo exchange. Now, part of that is because they are in their home country. But the other part of that is because those exchanges have gotten better and smarter and much more aggressive than NASDAQ has because of Sarbanes-Oxley. So some of it actually is very much a part of Sarbanes-Oxley. Some of it is part of just globalization in general. Chairwoman Velazquez. Definitely. And I did not intend to say that it is just only to blame for Section 404, but is the cost of regulations, including Section 404. Professor Scott, do you mind to comment? Mr. Scott. Yes. Of course, this was a major finding of our committee's report that a number of factors were leading our public markets to be less competitive. In addition to regulation in general, which you have observed 404 is part of, we have two other concerns. First of all, the cost of litigation here, which is very high on the list of why foreign companies do not want to come to the United States. And secondly, in view of our committee, a deficit in the rights of shareholders in the United States compared to our countries. For example, other countries permit their shareholders to vote on the adoption of poisoned pills which are an impediment to takeovers. Our public company's shareholders don't have those rights. We have a possibility of having plurality voting rather than majority voting. So I would say in addition to regulations the cost of litigation and the deficit in shareholder rights. That was the conclusion. And as Mark observed, foreign markets are becoming more competitive. The point is, we can't just do what we want to do anymore. This is a competitive world, and we have to accept that reality. Chairwoman Velazquez. Yes. Ms. Casey-Landry. I just wanted to make one comment. Community banks don't have the option to go to another exchange. And if they want to stay public and they want to have access to the capital markets then we need to have a system that is fair so that they can go to NASDAQ, they are going to go to the New York Stock Exchange, and they be listed and that they can be competitive. When we place undue burdens on smaller companies that can't go global then we are really affecting our own base and own economy. And I would just point out that 404 has been a problem. And at the same time you do have community banks. We just added another 50 banks to our index in the past 6 months. But, I mean, banks that chose to go public. So there are companies that are still going public at the same time those are choosing to delist. But it is important to keep it domestically focused, too. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Any other witness? Yes, Mr. Hirschmann. Mr. Hirschmann. I want to just agree with the point that there is a lot of good in Sarbanes-Oxley. But the168 words of Section 404 we refer to as the 168 words that stole the act. So I hope that not the final words. And I commend the committee for holding this hearing and look forward to working with you to make the changes that are needed. Chairwoman Velazquez. Thank you. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to once again commend you for holding this hearing and thank you for doing so and thank the panel here. I thought they gave us some very insightful information. And I want to especially thank Mr. Schmalzl for coming all the way from my district back in Cincinnati, but I thought everybody here was really very good and we appreciate you holding this hearing. Chairwoman Velazquez. I echo the remarks made by the Ranking Member. It has been a great hearing, and I believe that, yes, there is so much good on Sarbanes-Oxley, but we have to make sure that we get it right. And I don't see the rush in terms of compliance right away without knowing and having the empirical data that shows that there is the cost-benefit analysis that will help the small companies to continue to grow and do what you do best in this country and our economy, and that is the research, the development, but at the end, job creation, and that is very important. So with that, I want to thank all of the witnesses. And members wishing to submit statements or documents into the hearing record will have five legislative days to do so. This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6101.087