Study by U. of Alabama professors finds a far higher turnover rate among restating finance chiefs than among those who don’t restate. But how much higher?
Roy Harris, CFO.com | US
November 19, 2007
This reminds me of the Golden Fleece awards Senator Proxmire (D-Wis.) distributed in the 70's for government financed studies (I hope this was not another) that used good money for no good purpose. The results of this study, CFOs and CEOs are replaced a a higher rate by companies with accounting restatements, is similar to the finding that the reason for an increase in the rate of teen pregnancies was an increase in the percentage of teens engaging in sexual conduct. Yah think? Far more interesting would be a prospective look to see if the rates of departure increased for all companies post-SOX and what the impact has been on other companies of having talent lured away to replace the CFOs and CEOs that were fired. Has there been a general rise in the cost of filling positions to compensate for the increased risk in taking them? If so, how much is this taking away from shareholders vs. the "value added" of SOX? Those answers would be far more useful in policy analysis.
Posted by MARIA THOMPSON | November 26, 2007 03:09 pm© CFO Publishing Corporation 2009. All rights reserved.