Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What Rolling Stone wrote is that the JOBS act would "exempt them from independent accounting requirements for up to five years."

What the magazine was referring to is that auditors would no longer have to attest to a company's financial controls for financial reporting (mentioned in the Orrick PDF you intended to link http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/4619.pdf).

This means, for example, they would not bother to make sure revenue is being booked correctly, as explained here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230407200457732...

When Groupon recently had to restate (and slash) previously-reported revenue, this was due to weak internal controls, the same sorts of controls the JOBS act would exempt from being audited. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230402350457731...

So you really need an independent audit not just of the numbers but of the controls behind the numbers if your goal is to make sure investors get accurate financial information about a company.

Thus audits of financial controls are a key part of independent accounting.

The only change I'd make to Rolling Stone's original piece would be to revise to "exempt them from CERTAIN KEY independent accounting requirements for up to five years." But that's for clarity, not technical accuracy.

Taibbi is communicating an accurate idea - the JOBS act seriously weakens independent oversight of accounting for affected companies.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: