Public policy misses root of corporate fraud
BOSTON – Public policy responses to corporate fraud are inadequate because they focus too much on external reward considerations at the expense of other causes of deception by corporate managers, according to a working paper commissioned for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
Written by two management science professors at MIT – Dan Ariely and Nina Mazar – it argues that public policy, including the Sarbanes-Oxley provisions, over-emphasise an assumption that all fraud occurs because fraudsters weigh the consequences of a fraudulent act against the repercussions, and decide a deceptive act is worthwhile.
"The policies now assume fraud is based on the cost-benefit
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU states take the slow road to new cross-border services ban
Late national transposition hampers foreign banks’ decisions on location of affected activities
Don’t mention the rules: the fight against prediction market abuse
For the CFTC to regulate new venues effectively, it must first redefine insider trading
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports
CFTC wants to regulate prediction markets. Is it up to the task?
Former officials echo state gambling authorities’ concerns over agency’s ability to police betting risks
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
