Should the "burden" of Sarbanes-Oxley be eased for non-U.S. companies?

The blog I posted just a few minutes ago, responding to the report by Jeremy Grant in today's FT, according to which the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) will today call for an end to quarterly earnings guidance from companies, makes one other proposal that is worth at least brief reflection.

This second proposal is that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) be allowed to ease the burden of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) on foreign companies.

I have not read the actual call yet, since it has not yet been released by the USCC.

However, it seems to me a little strange if the USCC has really called for the "burden" of SOX to be eased for non-U.S. companies, but not for U.S. companies.

How does this contribute to a level playing field?

And how come the USCC wants a tougher regulatory regime for its own "home" members than it does for "foreign" companies?!

Something fishy here....

It may be worth recollecting that the rough hammer of SOX was introduced in the hot emotion of immediate response to Enron and other disasters. While it makes sense to re-think SOX in the cold light of day, that rethinking needs to be done in such a way as to produce:

(1) a regulatory that is light but effective (all the suggestions that I have seen at present are focused on being light, but rather less focused on being effective)

2) a level playing field for U.S. and non-U.S. companies.

When the USCC comes up with a sensible suggestion that meets these two criteria, I will be happy to support that. Sphere: Related Content