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
Drone Federalism: Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry
- Margot E. KaminskiBook Review of The Laws of Spaceflight: A Guidebook for New Space Lawyers
- Glenn Harlan ReynoldsThe Twenty-First Century Fingerprint: Previewing Maryland v. King
- Keagan D. BuchananRace, Descent, and Tribal Citizenship
- Bethany R. BergerBY DATE
- June 2013 (1)
- May 2013 (2)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (1)
- September 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
BY CATEGORY
- 2011 Jorde Symposium (5)
- 2012 AALS Section on Law and Humanities Program (9)
- banquet (1)
- birth control (1)
- california supreme court (1)
- chesney (1)
- cole (1)
- constitutional democracy (1)
- consumer protection (1)
- Crime (1)
- Deportation (1)
- detention (1)
- dodd-frank (1)
- domestic violence (1)
- elkins (1)
- family (1)
- fourth amendment (1)
- Germany (1)
- Independence (1)
- information behavior (1)
- intersex (1)
- John Yoo (1)
- judicial restraint (6)
- law schools (1)
- partisanship (1)
- party politics (1)
- popular democracy (1)
- Privacy (2)
- Professionalism (1)
- Prosser (1)
- Prosser Symposium (1)
- Punishment (1)
- sterilization (1)
- Tort (1)
- Torture (1)
- war powers (1)
- Yoo (1)
- zelon (1)
NEWS & EVENTS
SYMPOSIA
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.