| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
 |
|
Sarbanes-Oxley/SarBox/SOX is the reason du-jour at CodeGear for not
having a road-map to share with customers.
SOX was enacted in response the Enron debacle. It's purpose is to
improve the reliability of financial reporting.
Pretty much every public tech company in existence announces plans to
develop products on timelines that may or may not be met, or may even
be canceled.
For some reason, SOX keeps getting cited in relation to rules that are
really:
a) Graham-Leach-Bliley Act
b) HIPAA
c) SEC
d) GAAP
e) standard criminal law regarding fraud
f) stuff someone made up counting on there being no SOX consultants around
SOX does not impede Codegear from saying something like this:
"We plan to implement support for .Net 2.0 and 3.0 in a Delphi release
for the 2nd quarter of 2007"
They can even say:
"We plan to implement support for .Net 2.0 and 3.0 in a Delphi release
for the 2nd quarter of 2007, which we expect will contribute 3 cents in
earnings per share in the 3rd & 4th quarters of 2007," as long as it
has the "forward-looking statements" disclaimer.
There's no published roadmap for some reason - maybe there's internal
disagreement - but please don't attribute this action to Sarbanes-Oxley. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Richard Grossman wrote:
| Quote: | There's no published roadmap for some reason - maybe there's internal
disagreement - but please don't attribute this action to
Sarbanes-Oxley.
|
The subject has been done to death -- CG have acknowledged that the SOX
laws don't prevent them from making announcements; it's about the
revenue recognition implications.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob Al
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Sig wrote:
| Quote: | Nah..., SOX it's just a new bugbear from Codegear. Officially SOX was
published in 2002 but we started to hear how bad it it just a few months
ago.
First there were big bad Borland's lawyers who gagged everyone then we
couldn't get any info from DevCo because of the "silent sales period".
Now we got SOX. This seems to be like a perfect excuse and will last for
a while but eventually there will be a new bugaboo.
|
Still, you must admit that it is entertaining.
Next they will tell us that because of the war in Iraq they cant tell us
anything. And perhaps they can blame President Obama after that  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Brian Moelk wrote:
| Quote: | I suspect the reality is that no one is going to care if CodeGear or
Borland violates SOX with the stock price where it's at. The
enforcement arm of SOX will start paying attention when the market does.
|
The "enforcement arm of SOX" - that's really funny.
The real risks in not complying with SOX consist of the inability to get
your auditors to sign off on your financial statements, the risk of
shareholder lawsuits, banks calling your loans, etc.
SOX in and of itself contains almost no actual procedures or hard metrics.
Implementing SOX consists of implementing one of the accepted
methodologies that some trusted experts have stated they believe
implements SOX compliance. Then you've done due diligence and shifted
the risk to the SOX auditors.
Huge lawsuits and penalties against auditors have triggered extreme
caution on the part of the auditors - gee I wonder why. So they choose
strict methodologies and apply them strictly.
It's an ecosystem.
In the end what it hopes to accomplish is the elimination of fraud via
eliminating the defense by management that they were unaware of it.
The only ultimate test of SOX as law will be if there isn't another
Enron, since that is what SOX is specifically intended to prevent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Not a single thing you quoted or linked prevents a company from
releasing a roadmap with dates.
Revenue recognition is a completely separate topic altogether. The
rules are directed at cash you take in today for services such as
updates and support that you deliver (and pay for) at a later date.
(Microsoft just took a huge boost to current earnings, resulting from
current recognition of past deferred revenue.)
Nothing to do with roadmaps.
Taking another tack: unless every other Fortune 1000 software company is
in violation, you're wrong. Microsoft for example talks about where
they expect their products to be at least to 2010 at this point.
Pharmaceutical companies make public announcements about futures several
years out that are hopes and dreams. United Airlines just announced
they are considering future cuts in capacity to reduce expenses in the
face of continuing losses.
Still has nothing to do with revenue recognition.
Finally, the *constant* switching over the years from one excuse to
another for not having a roadmap tells us something about the validity
of the current excuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Dave Nottage [TeamB] wrote:
| Quote: | Possibly because there are very few that even publish roadmaps, and fit
the category. I also find it curious that some still claim that it
can't be SOX, yet fail to come up with any examples.
|
Scan the pages of the Wall Street Journal, any day. Filled with
announcements by public companies about future plans.
Today Wendy's said they may try to sell the company.
Wendy's can say they may try to sell the company, but Borland can't say
what technology they're working on?
C'mon... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Thackery
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
The fundamental issue for me is that LOADS of other IT companies - including
Microsoft, Intel, Red Hat, etc - publish roadmaps to indicate their future
intentions.
If they can do it and not get into trouble with SOX, so can Codegear.
It's as simple as that.
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
John Wester [Group W] wrote:
| Quote: | It is costing companies a lot to comply with SOX and it has impacted
the capital market:
|
Not relevant in any way to the discussion at hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brad White
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Sorry about the overquoting.
That was awful.
I was working back up from the bottom adding
comments and didn't realize that JS was so long winded.
Brad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Rich Davis wrote:
| Quote: | Laws don't eliminate crime any more
than software activation eliminates piracy.
|
So don't have laws? What's your point?
Having laws reduces crime.
There's this old saying - locks keep honest people honest. A lock on
your front door is a very effective device, even though it won't stop
super-burglars from drilling a circular hole in your roof, lowering
themselves on that contraption from Mission Impossible 1, and stealing
your belongings without ever putting a foot on the floor.
But you still bother to have a pipe-wrench removable lock on your front
door, in it's frame that needs one solid kick to break. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan Rakyta
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
| Quote: | "CodeGear's goal is to provide that support and those benefits within 2
years of any Microsoft technology that is internally identified as a key
future technology in the industry at large."
|
They can't do it... Already fall 10+ years behind with Unicode VCL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:
| Quote: | Gray simply represents that which is not fully understood yet.
|
I kind of agree with that.
But you have to be humble enough to recognize that some things will not
be fully understood in your lifetime, or maybe will never be understood
because they are not predictable or can only be understood
probabilistically.
Such as quantum effects, large chaotic systems, and the "black swan"
concept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:
| Quote: | All private corporations that want to be successful have their own
shareholders interest in mind.
|
IF ONLY!
That would be a much better investing environment than the one we have.
It is often true, but far from "all".
PS: Assume you and Brian meant "public" corporations vs. "private", or
maybe he meant some kind of category excluding non-profits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Mark Reichert wrote:
| Quote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Wellington_Wimpy
"I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
|
Whomever sells to Wimpy better defer the revenue until Tuesday... or
establish a reserve for bad debt ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Grossman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley again |
|
|
Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:
| Quote: | Richard Grossman wrote:
Today Wendy's said they may try to sell the company.
Wendy's can say they may try to sell the company, but Borland can't
say what technology they're working on?
I don't buy version one of their hamburger today because they promise
enhancements to the hamburger version they want to sell me tomorrow.
|
Think "shares" not "burgers". Regulations, accounting principles, etc.:
all about investors, not cusotmers.
If you buy shares in Wendy's today and then they DON'T sell the company,
you are simply out of luck.
Unless you can prove they made the statement in bad faith solely
motivated by a desire to defraud the public, and that there never was
any possibility of a sale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
