Re: Back and a Question

Even though SOX may be flawed, something was necessary. There was a $7 billion accounting fraud case against Worldcom. It cost people their life savings. They basically bullied some mid-level account into changing the books.

Then there is the enron case where they took over companies and moved their losses to those companies to hide the losses.

There was another case(i forgot which company) where the CEO treated company money like it was a kingdom that he reigned over and stole money from the company.

People put their retirments and pension plans into the stock market. Something was needed to help restore trust. The problem with the market is that the owners of the company do not run the company. So the interest of those who run the company may differ from those who own it.

done with my off topic rant.

• Original message -------------- From: Nuno Souto <dbvision_at_iinet.net.au>

> I'm sorry: did anyone expect ANYTHING else?
>
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> in sunny Sydney, Australia
> dbvision_at_iinet.net.au
>
>
> David Aldridge wrote,on my timestamp of 17/08/2006 2:09 AM:
> > I expect that this relates back to the previously raised issue of SOX
> > being a license to print money for the Big 4/5. It seems to have spawned
> > quite an industry of its own.
> >
> > ryan_gaffuri_at_comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >> if it doesn't state in SOX that developers can't have access to
> >> production data, how do the auditors determine what is a violation?
> >
> >
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l