Financial markets are in crisis again and quite certainly on their way to an added layer of regulation. Only a few years ago, at the start of the twenty-first century, a massive wave of corporate fraud revealed the failure of corporate gatekeepers. The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation accordingly targeted gatekeepers, primarily auditors, with strict regulation and enhanced independence guidelines. This legislative remedy has proven to be of disputable benefit while its costs have been huge. This paper argues that a certain type of auditor incentive compensation could work better than regulation. Under the proposed alternative scheme, auditors would defer a portion of the payment they receive from the client firm, which would be used to purchase shares in the client once their tenure as auditors has ended. Instead of making them simply independent, this compensation structure would cause auditors to guard against inflated share prices. This type of auditor compensation could serve to counterbalance recent trends in executive compensation that cause managers to overstate earnings. Modern accounting standards that broaden management’s scope of discretion add to the benefits of this compensation scheme. Thus, the paper calls for the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate a safe harbor that would facilitate such schemes, which current independence guidelines do not allow.
Circuit: Archived Content
RECENT POSTS
Inside Out
- Elizabeth F. EmensStanding to Sue in the Myriad Genetics Case
- Megan M. La BelleFailing Failed States: A Response to John Yoo
- James Thuo GathiiMOST POPULAR
The Preventive Dilemma: A Reply to David Cole
- Robert ChesneyRight Problem; Wrong Solution
- Joseph L. Hoffmann and Nancy J. KingStanding to Sue in the Myriad Genetics Case
- Megan M. La BelleFailing Failed States: A Response to John Yoo
- James Thuo GathiiInside Out
- Elizabeth F. EmensBY DATE
- January 2012 (1)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (2)
- June 2011 (1)
- March 2011 (1)
- October 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
BY CATEGORY
- california supreme court (1)
- chesney (1)
- cole (1)
- Crime (1)
- Deportation (1)
- detention (1)
- elkins (1)
- family (1)
- Germany (1)
- Independence (1)
- Privacy (2)
- Professionalism (1)
- Prosser (1)
- Prosser Symposium (1)
- Punishment (1)
- Tort (1)
- Torture (1)
- Yoo (1)
- zelon (1)
NEWS & EVENTS
January 12, 2012
Upcoming 2012 CLR Alumni Banquet on April 19!November 20, 2011
Two CLR pieces mentioned in recent New York Times articlesSYMPOSIA
META
The California Law Review is the preeminent legal publication at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.