[House Hearing, 109 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] SARBANES OXLEY SECTION 404: WHAT IS THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN INVESTOR PROTECTION AND CAPITAL FORMATION FOR SMALLER PUBLIC COMPANIES? ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 3, 2006 __________ Serial No. 109-51 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ house _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28-601 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 _________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York Chairman JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, SUE KELLY, New York California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio TOM UDALL, New Mexico SAM GRAVES, Missouri DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TODD AKIN, Missouri ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado DANNY DAVIS, Illinois JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire ED CASE, Hawaii STEVE KING, Iowa MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam THADDEUS McCOTTER, Michigan RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona RIC KELLER, Florida MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine TED POE, Texas LINDA SANCHEZ, California MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska MELISSA BEAN, Illinois MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas J. Matthew Szymanski, Chief of Staff Phil Eskeland, Deputy Chief of Staff/Policy Director Michael Day, Minority Staff Director (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Witnesses Page Wander, Mr. Herbert S., Chairman, SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies....................................... 4 Broderick, Mr. Bill, Chief Financial Officer, Analytical Graphics, Inc.................................................. 6 Crandell, Mr. Keith, Managing Director, ARCH Venture Partners.... 9 Neiss, Mr. Woodie, Chief Financial Officer, FLAVORx, Inc......... 11 Schroeder, Mr. Mark, President/CEO, German American Bancorp...... 13 Burns, Mr. James, President & CEO, EntreMed, Inc................. 15 Appendix Opening statements: Manzullo, Hon. Donald A...................................... 27 Velazquez, Hon. Nydia........................................ 28 Prepared statements: Wander, Mr. Herbert S., Chairman, SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies................................... 30 Broderick, Mr. Bill, Chief Financial Officer, Analytical Graphics, Inc.............................................. 54 Crandell, Mr. Keith, Managing Director, ARCH Venture Partners 59 Neiss, Mr. Woodie, Chief Financial Officer, FLAVORx, Inc..... 67 Schroeder, Mr. Mark, President/CEO, German American Bancorp.. 76 Burns, Mr. James, President & CEO, EntreMed, Inc............. 84 (iii) SARBANES OXLEY SECTION 404: WHAT IS THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN INVESTOR PROTECTION AND CAPITAL FORMATION FOR SMALLER PUBLIC COMPANIES? ---------- WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006 House of Representatives Committee on Small Business Washington, DC The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2360 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Manzullo [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Manzullo, Bartlett, Kelly, Akin, Velazquez, Davis, Barrow, Moore. Chairman Manzullo. Good afternoon. The hearing today will analyze the impact of Sarbanes Oxley on our nation's smaller public companies. In particular, this hearing will focus on Section 404 of SOX. Your White Sox, which are causing the most headaches, well, Herb is from Chicago. Mr. Wander. And a White Sox fan. Chairman Manzullo. And a White Sox fan. You don't want to wait another 100 years, Herb. In particular, the hearing will focus on Section 404 of SOX, which is causing the most headaches and expense for our Nation's smaller companies. In 2002, Congress passed with my support the Sarbanes Oxley Act, or SOX. Ms. Vel zquez and I both serve on the Finance Committee. This legislation was a response to corporate scandals at the large companies, such as Enron and WorldCom. However, changes made by SOX applied equally to all public companies, regardless of size. One of these changes was to perform annual testing of internal control under SOX Section 404. These tests require company's management to evaluate whether internal controls are adequate and require an independent auditor to sign off on management's assessment. Shortly after SOX passed, the SEC estimated in regulations that compliance with Section 404 would cost companies around $90,000 annually. However, the expected costs in reality did not match up. In reality, public companies are paying well in excess of $1 million annually to comply with this mandate. To its credit, the SEC recognizes that strict compliance with Section 404 may not be beneficial for smaller public companies. This is why the SEC has delayed implementation of this provision for companies with market values under $75 million until July of 2007. In addition, in March 2005 the SEC convened the Advisory Committee to Small Public Companies to analyze the effects of this and other SOX provisions on small companies. This panel was also tasked with making recommendations to the SEC on what should be done to help our smaller public companies cope with the burdens of SOX. The Advisory Committee released its final report last week. In the report, the Committee recommends that companies with market values of less than $128 million be exempt from Section 404 unless and until corporate auditing standards are established for these companies. While, SOX technically applies only to public companies, private companies have plenty of reasons to be nervous. The ability to gain access to public markets now turns on whether they can stomach the huge costs of Section 404. As the witnesses will discuss today, many are just rejecting the public markets and staying private. Clearly, SOX has an important purpose, however the legislation must not be allowed to overly burden our smaller companies. Today we will hear testimony on the compliance burdens SOX Section 404 has created for our smaller public companies, and explore whether the recommendations of the SEC Advisory Committee will fix these problems. I look forward to hearing the testimony today, and now yield to the Ranking Minority Member, Representative Vel zquez of New York, for her opening comments. [Chairman Manzullo's opening statement may be found in the appendix.] Ms. Vel zquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing to review the recommendations of the SEC's Advisory Committee has been a long time coming. Small businesses continue to face barriers that hinder their ability to remain competitive and strong. The sky-rocketing costs of health insurance and start-up capital pose many challenges for entrepreneurs. Both soaring regulatory and compliance burdens have consistently been one of their number one concerns. Almost every single small business owner and association that has testified before this Committee has put reducing the regulatory burden at the top of their list for legislative package. That is not different with the Sarbanes Oxley Act, as Democrats on the Committee have been hearing from small business owners for nearly two years now. Unfortunately, the situation does not seem to be getting any better. The Sarbanes Oxley Act was intended to strengthen the corporate governance practices of the business community. But, what we have heard is that this one comes with a cost, and a particularly steep cost at that. The auditing standards, disclosure requirements, and corporate governance rules of the Act have added significantly to the operating costs of small companies, many who have gotten stuck in the fray. Democratic members of the Committee held a roundtable back in October, so that we could hear directly from the small business community on the impact of these reforms. A number of small firms we spoke with agree that it is difficult not to support the intentions of Sarbanes Oxley, most notably strong corporate governance and shareholder accountability. Yet, for the 14,000 publicly traded companies, the majority of which are smaller firms, Section 404 of the Act poses a great burden to their future economy vitality. Numerous stories and surveys point to the staggering compliance costs of Section 404 as a major burden on small companies. In June, 2003, the SEC estimated the cost of implementing Section 404 on all registrants at almost $1.24 billion or $91,000 per registrant. Yet, time has told that the SEC vastly underestimated its calculations. Recent surveys show that the small companies are paying an average of nearly $1 million to comply with Section 404, and this is simply unacceptable. Even though some studies show these costs have declined, they are still significant and are bearing a disproportionate burden on small firms. The complying costs of Section 404 for small companies is approaching 3 percent of revenue, while it is less than 1/10th of 1 percent for larger companies. Adding to concerns this new evidence showing numerous small companies suffering under the weight of costly regulations have begun to look abroad to go public. There are currently 37 U.S. companies listed on the AIM by the London Stock Exchange, 19 companies alone that have been listed within the last year. This so-called Sarbanes Oxley free zones have freed some small firms from the strict capital market regulations seen here in the U.S. Both Sarbanes Oxley and Section 404 have been cited as primary drivers in this development, which are, in turn, hurting the American economy. Clearly, there is no end in sight to the burden that so many of our Nation's small firms are forced to face. My Democratic colleagues and I have cited many of these concerns in two recent common letters to the SEC. I am pleased, though, with the work the SEC Advisory Committee has done toward finding a solution that truly eases the burden and provides relief for small companies. With the recent release of the Committee's recommendations, I am hopeful this will become the basis for a real regulatory reform proposal. I know that much uncertainty surrounds the SEC's review and consideration of the Advisory Committee's recommendations. However, this situation is resolved, I urge the SEC to address the issue straight on and provide smaller companies with definitive relief from Section 404 sooner rather than later. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Ranking Member Velazquez's opening statement may be found in the appendix.] Chairman Manzullo. And, thank you, Ms. Vel zquez. Some of the ground rules, we have a system of lights up there. Green is go, yellow is you got a minute to go, and red you are supposed to stop. This is not used in case you don't stop, okay? It's important to tell your own story. The complete written statements of the witnesses will be made part of the official record, so you don't have to worry that if you miss something it won't be included in it. I'm going to keep the record open for three weeks for anybody else that wants to submit written statements, but they cannot exceed two written pages. No tomes, okay? And, the print cannot go below 10 points. So, no footnote prints, for anybody else who wants to submit additional statements, including obviously members, we'll keep it open for that. Now, we are expecting votes, and having taken the Constitutional Oath to vote. When the bell goes off, we will go out and vote. I think there are three votes and that will take probably about a half an hour. Votes are anticipated any minute. But what we'll do is, we'll start first with Mr. Wander and then, what I don't want you to do is to spend so much time looking at the clock that you don't concentrate on your testimony. How many here have not testified before Congress before? Oh, my goodness, four out of six. Okay. Well, the other two just assure them, you know, that nothing is going to happen, and this is a very, very serious subject, and it's unusual to get involved in something this esoteric, but sometimes the small businesses want to get larger. There are many companies that come within the SBA definition of small businesses, that is less than 500 employees, and in the aerospace industry less than 1,500 employees, that will be in this situation. So, Mr. Wander, we will start with you. I look forward to your testimony. You might want to pull the mike as close to your mouth as you can. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HERB WANDER, SEC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SMALLER PUBLIC COMPANIES Mr. Wander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a delight to be here this afternoon, and I thank you for this opportunity to provide oral testimony, as well as my written statement. Who am I? I'm Herb Wander. I am just recently released from my obligations as Co-Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies. We were established 13 months ago, have gone through a very extensive fact-finding process, and submitted our report to the Securities and Exchange Commission last Sunday, April 23rd. I'm also a partner with the national law firm of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP. In my written statement, so I don't have to repeat it, contains information concerning the mission of our Advisory Committee, the overarching principles we follow, lists the diverse membership, indicates to you all the extensive information gathering process that we went through, both in hearings and asking written requests, and then there are a total list of our recommendations, which, by the way, go beyond Section 404. However, this afternoon I will only talk about 404, dealing with internal controls. As both the Chair, and as indicated, the original estimates of the cost of Sarbanes Oxley, starting with the Senate Report on Sarbanes Oxley, indicated that they thought there would be no increase in auditing costs, have been far off the mark. And so, I am not going through that, I think that's been well documented, I will only add that the latest study that the Big Four Accounting Firms produced two or three weeks ago by the Charles River Associates indicated that some of the fees are coming down, but they still approach $900,000 to a million dollars for smaller public companies, which in many cases gets to be double digit percentages of their cash flow. So, it is truly a big cost, and, indeed, that study also noticed that total auditing costs, that's both 404 and regular auditing costs were relatively flat, having gone up 200-300 percent over the last three or four years, so that the cost burden is enormous and that's well documented and I don't think disputed by anybody. We should not forget the fact that, not only have the costs up, but it's the opportunity costs, it's where do you spend your money, do you spend your money on research, and my colleagues who will testify I think are far more qualified to talk to you about loss of opportunity costs and the costs this puts on them. So, I would like to now concentrate on, essentially, our recommendations, because I think there's ample evidence in the record, and after our 13 months I think that it's well documented. I want to emphasize the following points. Our Advisory Committee was not here to repeal 404, but to fix it. It is clear that internal controls have been controlled since 1977. We think they are important, but they have to work properly for all companies, particularly for smaller companies. Our recommendations which you read are crafted very carefully, and you must read them very carefully. We say, ``Unless and until a framework for assessing the 404 that works for assessing internal controls over financial reporting for smaller public companies is developed that recognize their characteristic needs.'' So, what we are saying is, it's time now to get it right, before all those companies that you indicated in your opening remarks will become subject to this, that they don't have to go through something that everybody in today's world admits needs a major overhaul. So, we are not saying just totally exempt everything. We have put conditions on everything, and we say we would like to fix it. I also want to mention that none of the critics, Arthur Levitt, Lynn Turner, all of the critics, really do admit that there are faults, and serious faults, with 404. So the question is, how do we fix it, not whether we let it continue to operate, and hope that it gets fixed all of a sudden. We also want to emphasize that while we are talking about a large number of companies under our recommendations, they comprise less than 5 percent of the total U.S. market capitalization. People have bandied around, you would exempt 80 percent of the public companies. Actually, the number is 70 percent, but the fact is that these are the smallest capitalization, under 5 percent of total market capitalization. We also believe very strongly that we think AST2, which is Accounting Standard No. 2 adopted by the PCAOB needs fixing. The PCAOB has done a good job in trying to provide guidance, as well as the SEC providing guidance. The guidance has just not worked, and we think they ought to go back to the drawing board and make changes to the regulation, because those who are applying it look at the rule and they look at the guidance secondarily or not at all. Chairman Manzullo. How are you doing on time? Mr. Wander. Well, I'm reminded of the story that the Securities Act of- Chairman Manzullo. No, on time, you are out of time. Mr. Wander. I'm on time, all right. I would just like to close that I think my written statement contains all of the necessary information concerning our recommendations, which we think should be and, in fact, can be adopted by the SEC and the PCAOB. Thank you very much. [Mr. Wander's testimony may be found in the appendix.] Chairman Manzullo. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Bill Broderick, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Analytical Graphics, Incorporated. We look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF BILL BRODERICK, ANALYTICAL GRAPHICS, INC. Mr. Broderick. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Broderick. I'm the Chief Financial Officer for Analytical Graphics, a software company based in Exton, Pennsylvania, serving the national security industry. I also serve as a Board Member of the Small Business and Technology Council. Chairman Manzullo, Congressman Vel zquez, and Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing and the opportunity to testify. In the short time we have, I hope to provide some highlights on my prepared statement in regards to the unintended consequences of SOX and small public companies, and how it has affected my company, my small private company. Since 1989, AGI has grown to a 250-person company, and has been named Best Small Company to Work For in America for 2004 and 2005. Chairman Manzullo. Bill, I'm going to restart your clock when we get back. How does that sound? Mr. Broderick. That's okay, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Manzullo. All right? Because I don't want to have people walking out in the middle of your testimony. That doesn't look too good, does it? So, we are going to recess for about a half an hour and then we'll be right back. Is there anybody here on the panel that has to catch a plane later on this afternoon? Okay, then we'll keep this order. [Recess.] Chairman Manzullo. I'm waiting for the alarm clock to reach 6:00 a.m., and then for somebody to smash the alarm clock and to go looking for groundhogs. So, Mr. Broderick, if you would like to start all over again, and you may have been through this before. Mr. Broderick. Yes, I have been, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Manzullo. For about 40 seconds, is that correct? Mr. Broderick. Yes. Chairman Manzullo. So, if I ask you if you've ever testified before Congress before you can say yes now. We look forward to your testimony. Mr. Broderick. I have on the House Armed Services side, Mr. Chairman. Okay, thank you again for this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I'm just going to pick up where I left off with some company background. Since 1989, AGI has grown to a 250-person company and has been named the Best Company to Work in America for 2004 and 2005. Over our history, we have been able to assemble a talented team of 140 engineers and scientists to provide a unique and innovative product line, with 12 issued patents to our credit. We are proud that the national security community relies on the fidelity of our software in many critical areas, such as providing battle space situational awareness for efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the Pentagon for top level- Chairman Manzullo. Well, just a second, you sound like a guy doing a trailer in one of those ads, all right? You can slow down a little, all right? Mr. Broderick. I'm just - Chairman Manzullo. Don't worry about it, all right? Mr. Broderick. Okay-as well as top level briefings in the Pentagon. The key question I pose for today's hearing is, given the disproportional cost of Section 404 on SOX, on small public companies, are we building a safeguard that costs orders of magnitude more than any proven benefit, or simply put, are we being penny wise and pound foolish with respect to small business compliance with SOX? As cited in the April, 2006 final report of the Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies, the discrepancy between the initial Section 404 cost estimate of $91,000 versus the actual cost of $900,000 raises the question of cost benefit for the shareholders of smaller public companies. Given the ongoing cost of compliance with Section 404, the valuations of smaller public companies are permanently impacted. In my prepared statement, I provided you with a macro level calculation on this impact, which resulted in an on average loss of approximately $8.1 million in shareholder value for each smaller public company, or approximately $60 billion in total equity valuation loss would be incurred on a permanent basis across all smaller public companies. In addition, the above figures do not include the opportunity costs and lost productivity of management and other personnel related to core business activities. Because the regulations lack cost benefit analysis and professional judgment, investors lose significant shareholder value. We fully concur that regulatory reforms were needed in the wake of the financial collapses and malfeasance at Enron and other companies. However, there appears to have been a rush to enact sweeping reform, without a basic cost benefit analysis to assess the impact on smaller public companies. As discussed in my prepared statement, we eliminated the option of going public to liquidate our venture investor, primarily from the significant burdens associated with SOX compliance, which would not only reduce our profitability due to the cost of SOX, but divert senior management time away from core business activities. Therefore, we were forced to raise $15 million in bank debt and used $13 million of our own cash to liquid out our venture investors entire holdings. Accordingly, the result and effects of AGI being unable to effectively access the public capital markets are as follows; 1. Our limited capacity to make investments in advanced R&D affects our ability to deliver unique capabilities for national security needs, which is important, not only to stay competitive in a marketplace dominated by large prime contractors, but also to keep our Nation's defense technology far ahead of our adversaries. 2. We have foregone growth opportunities and investments in business development, marketing and sales to the detriment of our long-term sustainability. 3. Limited cash reserves put a strain on existing business operations, preventing scaling up of our infrastructure, which includes financial systems, internal controls, and information technology. Our recommendations to reduce the disproportional impact of the Sarbanes Oxley Act on smaller public companies are summarized as follows; First, AGI strongly supports the Advisory Committee's primary recommendations, especially the establishment of a new system of scaled or proportional securities regulations for smaller public companies. Second, I cannot emphasize this enough, the proper tone at the top is a critical enabler and force multiplier for acceptance of applicable internal controls throughout an organization. To this end, AGI recommends mandated executive level professional education to establish understanding and commitment to the importance of effective internal controls. Internal controls are best implemented with the right tone from top down. Third, in reference to the Advisory Committee recommendation III(P)(1), AGI recommends that not only the CEO and CFO provide certification for internal controls, but also the Chief Operating Officer or equivalent operations executive should provide certification as well. This executive is key to adoption of an effective internal control system, since he or she is more intimately involved in the day-to-day departmental operations. This key executive should be held accountable and not be disconnected from the internal control certification. In closing, if the status quo remains, this will reinforce a message to non-public small companies that you must be a larger company to access the public capital markets, and many smaller public companies, especially in the micro category, may be forced to go private. I applaud the SEC for establishing an Advisory Committee to examine these matters, and commend the Advisory Committee on their diligent comprehensive efforts to provide a framework to establish common sense, proportional regulations under a cost benefit structure. I'm grateful to this Committee for holding this hearing on topics vital to the health of small business and the opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions and thank you. [Mr. Broderick's testimony may be found in the appendix.] Chairman Manzullo. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Keith Crandell, Co-Founder and Managing Director of ARCH Venture Partners. We look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF KEITH CRANDELL, ARCH VENTURE PARTNERS Mr. Crandell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, good afternoon. I am Keith Crandell, Co-Founder and Managing Director of ARCH, a 20-year old venture capital firm located in Chicago, Illinois. We fund primarily seed and early stage companies in the technology and life sciences area. My partners and I sit on many boards of both public and private companies. I'm here today in my capacity as a Board Director for the National Venture Capital Association, which represents more than 400 venture capital funds in the U.S. U.S. companies originally funded with venture capital, such as Genentech, Goggle, Archipelago, now represent 10 percent of the annual GEP and employment in the United States. I want to speak today on behalf of our country's emerging growth companies, which are being stifled by the Sarbanes Oxley law, specifically, Section 404. This law has drained capital and resources from these young companies, distracted management from growing businesses, diverted the major members of the accounting profession, and threatened the future of the U.S. capital market system for growth businesses. Profitability is critical on Wall Street, and Sarbanes Oxley attacks profitability head on. The cost of complying with SOX 404 at small companies approaches a million dollars a year. If one assumes a healthy company can achieve 10 percent net income, then SOX dictates that such a company would have to garner up to $10 million in additional revenue just to support the cost of compliance. For those who suggest that the cost of 404 compliance will eventually fall, I would argue that without dramatic change the numbers will not fall enough. A recent CRA international study found that even with a 31 percent drop in SOX compliance costs last year, small cap companies still on average bear a SOX burden of $860,000. It's highly unlikely that SOX costs will continue to drop as precipitously in the future, and the costs remain excessive. Of equal concern is the drain on human resources to achieve SOX 404 compliance. These companies are being placed in an undesirable position of having to hire additional financial staff and forego hiring engineers and sales teams. These hires do not foster company growth. To exacerbate the situation, SOX has compelled the Big Four auditors I'm familiar with to shift their focus from auditing companies of all sizes to leveraging lucrative 404 practices at large corporations. As a case in point, I served as a Board Member on a small cap public company that was informed by their Big Four auditor in 2004 that, not only were they too busy with their larger clients to complete the company's audit on time, but that their audit would cost 16 percent more than the previous year. The Big Four auditor provided - suggested that the smaller company release its numbers late, which we all know, including the auditor, that that would be public market suicide. Although many have suggested that small companies turn to second and third tier accounting firms, this isn't a realistic choice for many ventured-backed companies, since most investment banks that are willing to take their companies public request that the company use a Big Four firm. From a macro economic perspective, SOX 404 has contributed significantly to a clog in the IPO pipeline in the United States. The cost of the legal and accounting work for initial public offering processes stands at close to $2 million, up from $500,000 a few years ago. These hurdles to go public in the U.S. today are driving venture capital-backed companies away from our capital market system to other exits and other markets. In 2005, only 56 venture-backed companies went public on U.S. exchanges. The healthy IPO market historically has been at least twice that level. Only ten IPOs for ventured-backed companies were accomplished in the first quarter of this year, so we are on track for another dismal year for IPOs. We are seeing pre-IPO companies now embrace two viable alternatives to going public in the U.S. First is the preference for acquisition route, for many companies the cost of going public is too high, and when faced with a cheaper, less risky alternative the acquisition wins. Unfortunately, consolidation acquisitions is much less conductive or conducive to job and technology growth. The second strategy is companies choosing to go public on foreign exchanges. In 2005, there were 519 IPOs on the London AIM. In the first quarter of 2006 we saw for the first time two of 12 U.S. venture-backed companies went public on the AIM, and decided not to use the NASDAQ. Eighteen months ago, if you queried a room of ventured capitalists about the London AIM, few would have had the market on their radar screen, I think today it's viewed as a viable and better understood option for many of VC-backed companies. While specific provisions of the original Sarbanes Oxley law have improved certain practices at U.S. companies, Section 404 has done little in the way of advancing fraud. We have witnessed the information compiled from a 404 audit to be unwieldy, out of date, and of little or no use to investors. I'm not aware of any evidence that Section 404 has been a critical factor in uncovering fraud, such malfeasance is almost always discovered by new employees or auditors joining a firm, rather than from compiling documents. As a committed investor in small and emerging growth companies, I strongly support the recommendation of the SEC Advisory Board on the smaller public companies, the recommendation for tiered regulations. Size appropriate structure already exists in other regulations, and I would argue that intelligent small company investors would easily exchange a certificate of compliance for the extra million dollars in that income that would come from tiered regulatory relief. Further, I am very supportive of any provision that will help stimulate more competition in the accounting profession. Our supply of qualified accountants to do work for small companies is not meeting the increased SOX demands. We would welcome new entrants wholeheartedly. Companies that seek to thrive and create value will always comply with the highest standards. It's critical for market credibility, but the time has come to set the bar accordingly, and reduce the unnecessary frictional costs of SOX 404, in the best interest of growing companies and growing economy. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this vital matter. [Mr. Crandell's testimony may be found in the appendix.] Chairman Manzullo. Thank you. Our next witness, I read the press release you put out last night. Mr. Neiss. You liked it? Chairman Manzullo. It was good. Mr. Neiss. Right. Chairman Manzullo. Yes, you know, if this meeting had been cancelled I don't know what you would have done, you know. Mr. Neiss. I'd still be here. Chairman Manzullo. I appreciate that, it shows your enthusiasm for being here, and, Woodie, is it Neiss? Mr. Neiss. Neiss, yes. Chairman Manzullo. Woodie Neiss is the Co-Founder and Chief Financial Officer of FLAVORx, Inc., a company that puts flavoring into medicines. We look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF WOODIE NEISS, FLAVORx, INC. Mr. Neiss. Thank you very much. Chairman Manzullo, Ranking Member Vel zquez, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today. My name is Woodie Neiss, and I represent what is great about this country, the ability to take an idea and turn it into a reality. I'm an entrepreneur and a Co-Founder of the company FLAVORx. We are an INC500 high growth, young energetic small business, helping millions of sick children get better faster by being more compliant with their medicines. We believe we are saving the U.S. healthcare system over $100 million a year in unnecessary medicines, doctor visits, insurance claims, gas, time and resources of parents, and the companies they work for. I represent a different generation of business owners than those of Enron and WorldCom. We respect the rules and morals, and believe you can run a business fairly. I believe that FLAVORx has what America needs in the form of a public company. Over the past several years, we have had steady growth, maintained positive cash flow, and consistently grown our bottom line. I often get calls from parents asking if we are publicly traded. It's for this reason that we've been able to attract capital from friends, family and most recently private equity, with the hopes of going public. Wanting to do it right, we've diligently grown our business by implementing ethical business practices along the way. This wasn't a product of legislation, that's just what you do to grow a business and raise capital. Part of our process always includes an audit of our financial statements. We feel it is necessary to have an independent auditor review our books to verify their accuracy. It not only reassures us that what we are doing is right, but provides a vote of confidence to our business partners. Over time, we've grown our audit relationships, and in 2002 in anticipation of an IPO we hired Ernst & Young. What we didn't realize we faced though were adversarial, theoretical debates over revenue recognition procedures, concentration on overly detailed reporting systems, time consuming discussions over policies and procedures irrelevant to a company of our size, and extra costs in the form of consultants and legal fees. Our $10,000 a year, two-week audit suddenly jumped to a $70,000 four month audit. On top of that, these fees represented a substantial 14 percent of our net income. There's a fundamental difference between a small company with public aspirations like ours, and a multi-billion dollar company. We do have the deep pockets, unlimited personnel, intricate infrastructure, or complexity they do, and hence don't need the same resources or structure to explain our simple actions. Trying to dig for problems in a company like ours, where problems don't exist, is counter productive. Spending money to uncover these problems, when I can use it to invest in sales and marketing, seems a waste. To hold us accountable to rules where the challenges are different or non-existent are an unintended result of this legislation that is lining the pockets of auditors, consultants and lawyers. It was for this reason last year that we decided to drop our relationship with E&Y. We also started to second guess our desire to go public. I mean, why go public when Sarbanes Oxley audits are so expensive and painful? Why put yourself through the agony, when in the end there's nothing to uncover? When it comes time to audit season, you are guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't sound very American, does it? I highly doubt FLAVORx is unique when I say we want our investors to know the good and the bad, that transparency is a part of our lives. However, we, like many small businesses, are not complex. Unfortunately, however, Sarbanes Oxley does not take this into consideration. There needs to be some middle ground. There should be a threshold based on the complexity of an organization determined by its revenue to which companies should be held accountable to SOX. Until then, we can use these funds to better grow our companies, rather than reduce our net income. Of course, the option always exists that we can pass these costs off to the consumers, but I highly doubt this was the intention of Congress. We, as business leaders, can change-can behave ethically without being forced by legislation. To lose confidence in us is to lose confidence in the majority of the good companies out there that are trying to succeed in this challenging business environment of higher costs and increased competition. Public markets allow companies like FLAVORx access to capital which enables us to grow much faster, hire more people, and consume more American products. This grows our economy more than if we were just to sell to a larger company. However, public markets at the expense of Sarbanes Oxley do not make for attractive options. I know this Committee represents the interests of small businesses, and I hope you can help influence your colleagues to understand the repercussions that Section 404 is having on us. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and allowing me to testify. I look forward to your questions and our discussion. [Mr. Neiss' testimony may be found in the appendix.] Chairman Manzullo. Appreciate that. I'm just wondering when people call your company and are put on hold, if that song, ``A Spoonful of Sugar,'' is there. Mr. Neiss. We tried, but Disney got-we got in trouble with Disney. Chairman Manzullo. You did say that you are law abiding, that's great. Our next witness is Mark Schroeder, with the Independent Community Bankers of America. He's President and Chief Executive Officer of German American Bancorp in Jasper. How many people live in Jasper? Mr. Schroeder. About 15,000. Chairman Manzullo. Oh, that's a big city. We look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF MARK SCHROEDER, GERMAN AMERICAN BANCORP Mr. Schroeder. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, good afternoon. My name is Mark Schroeder, and as the Chairman said I am President and Chief Executive Officer of German American bancorp. We are located in Jasper, Indiana, and we are a community bank holding company, with approximately $1 billion in assets. It is my pleasure to speak today on behalf of both my company and the Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents approximately 5,000 community banks in the United States, many of whom are publicly held, and speak on the costs of Section 404 of Sarbanes Oxley, and on the recommendations included in the final report of the SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies. Let me give you a little background on German American. German American bancorp was formed in 1983, and we were formed with the express purpose of providing a vehicle for small community banks to come together to achieve economies of scale and to obtain the liquidity of a publicly-held community banking company. Since 1983, nine community banks, the majority of which have served their communities in southern Indiana for over a century, have joined our company, allowing their shareholders the opportunity to continue holding an investment in their locally-owned community bank. German American is listed on NASDAQ. We have approximately 3,500 registered shareholders, and we have a market capitalization of $144 million. I think I bring a unique perspective among the witnesses today, because German American bancorp is an accelerated filer with the SEC, and we have, therefore, been subject to SOX 404 compliance for the last two years. For 2004, our direct costs as a company, just for SOX 404 compliance, amounted to nearly $600,000, with an additional estimated $250,000 of internal indirect costs, for total compliance costs of $850,000, which equates to .08 cents per share for our shareholders. For 2005, our costs declined, but even these declined costs, the direct costs were $350,000, and our indirect costs were $150,000, for a total cost of $500,000, or approximately .05 cents a share. Now, these costs are extremely high, but these costs fail to consider and take into account the internal operating inefficiencies that have been created because of the duplicative internal controls that we have had to put in place since the implementation of 404. In an effort to be conservative, and to avoid being questioned by the PCAOB, accounting firms, ours included, are requiring layer, upon layer, of checks and balances, beyond that which can be justified on any kind of risk cost basis beyond that needed for proper segregation of duties, and beyond anything that's ever been required by the banking regulators. In particular, the cost of duplicate checks and balances, coupled with the requirement for layer, upon layer of documentation of these duplicative processes, have added additional operating inefficiencies through every area of our company. The cost of this inefficiency is impossible to measure, but it is significant, and at a minimum we believe it is equal to or in excess of the measurable indirect costs. For many publicly-held community banks and holding companies, the immediate response to the high costs of SOX has been to go private, and cease being registered as SEC filers. Since the beginning of 2003, 75, over 75 community banks have filed to go private. The reasons cited in these filings uniformly include increased legal and auditing hard costs, and management staff time soft costs, associated with the Exchange Act, but unquestionably 404 compliance is the biggest concern. Unless something is done to ease the burden of 404, we would predict that as the micro cap companies, those below $75 million of market cap, are looking at facing this, you will see a flood of public banks, small public banks, choosing to go private. The SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies should be commended for its fine work in preparing and drafting the final report, and including more than 30 recommendations for scaled or proportional securities regulation for smaller public companies. Among the Advisory Committee's primary recommendations, ICBA strongly endorses exempting micro caps from the internal control attestation requirements of Section 404, and unless and until a framework for assessing internal controls over financial reporting for such companies is put in place for the small cap companies, exempting those small cap companies from the external audit requirements of 404. We agree strongly with the Advisory Committee that with more limited resources, fewer internal personnel, and less revenue with which to offset the costs of 404 compliance, both micro cap and small cap companies have been disproportionately impacted by the burdens of Section 404 compliance. We also agree that the benefits of documenting, testing, certifying the adequacies of internal controls, while of obvious importance to large companies are of less value for micro cap and small cap companies who rely to a greater degree on tone at the top and high-level monitoring controls to influence accurate financial reporting. There has been little attempt by either the SEC- Chairman Manzullo. How are you doing on time there? Mr. Schroeder. -okay, I'll wrap up here, Chairman. There has been little attempt by either the SEC or the PCAOB to tailor or scale regulations to address the disproportionate costs and burdens. On behalf of the nearly 5,000 members of the Independent Community Bankers of America, we urge the members of the Committee on Small Business to support the Advisory Committee's recommendations, and urge the Securities Exchange Commission to adopt them. Thank you. [Mr. Schroeder's testimony may be found in the appendix.] Chairman Manzullo. Thank you. Our next witness is James Burns. Mr. Burns is President and CEO of EntreMed, Inc., speaking on his behalf, and also on behalf of his trade organization, the Biotech Industry Organization or BIO. We look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF JAMES BURNS, ENTREMED, INC. Mr. Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Manzullo. Could you pull the mike a little bit closer, sir? Mr. Burns. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Vel zquez, and Members of the Committee. As a native Illinoisan I'm glad to be here, and also to be here to talk about the issues involved in Sarbanes Oxley Section 404. I am the President and CEO of EntreMed, a public biotechnology company in Maryland. I have been involved in leading the development of biotechnology companies and products for over 20 years. Founded in 1991, EntreMed is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company, focusing on the development of next generation anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory drugs that target disease cells directly in the blood vessels that nourish them. Our focus is on the development of drugs that are safe and convenient, providing the potential for improved patient outcomes. Our company currently has three drug candidates in clinical trials for cancer, as well as others in pre-clinical development for oncology and non-oncology indications. Our company has no product sales, and will depend on continued investment capital for the foreseeable future to maintain our clinical development programs. I'm here today to testify on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization or Bio, an organization representing more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers, and related organizations in 50 states and 31 nations. Our members are involved in the research and development of health care, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. The majority of our member companies are small research and development oriented companies, pursuing innovations that have the potential to improve human health, expand our food supply, and provide new sources of energy. My company has a profile that is typical of the high risk capital-intensive, long lead time regulated business environment of the biotech industry. As a representative of one of the most innovative high growth sectors of our Nation's economy, one in which the United States maintains a global leadership position, my testimony is tailored to the issues faced currently or that will be faced by emerging companies in the biotech sector, the micro cap and small cap companies who are among the driving forces of our country's innovative leadership and competitiveness in global marketplace. Let me, basically, say we appreciate and agree with the congressional intent behind 404, ensuring that companies will have the effective policies, procedures and controls to protect against material mis-statements end product and protect it against fraud. Where Section 404 has gone awry, however, is in the implementation. The reason for increase cost burden is the imposition of an inflexible Section 404, and companies with fewer personnel, little or no revenues, and minimal resources. Simply put, if the current 404 implementation continues to be imposed, micro cap and small cap companies in our industries will be forced to endure internal processes and organizational changes that are completely contrary to the rapidly changing and highly competitive markets in which we operate. Let me put 404 into real company context by providing some examples, if you would. One of BIO's member companies has five employees working on Section 404 compliance, at a cost of approximately $1 million per year. This company estimated that its Controller spent approximately 35 percent of his time on 404, while the CFO spent approximately 20 percent of the time, to complete the mandated internal control processes and the checklists dictated by AS2 the company had to increase its accounting staff by 40 percent. Another member's experience shows the impact of 404 with respect to opportunity cost. This company not only spent approximately $500,000 on its external attestation of internal controls, but also had to endure additional costs in terms of (1) the reassignment of laboratory research personnel to perform internal control work dictated by AS2; (2) the postponement of hiring of five or more additional researchers, the delay of promising R&D programs. Other issues that this company was trying to deal with was whether they would have had to file additional patents. There's 100 patents in this company right now, and whether and where to file additional patents. This company could also purchase an entire amount of active pharmaceutical ingredient for one of its clinical product candidates for the same cost associated with complying with SOX 404. To say the least, this is clearly an unintended and unfortunate consequence of Section 404. The risks in our business are patient safety, FDA compliance, and the uncertainty of research outcomes. SOX 404 does not reduce these risks. For investors, their confidence and trust in public companies may have increased as a result of the passage of SOX as whole, in spite of Section 404, not necessarily because of it. We view CEO and CFO certification under Section 302 as beneficial and a requirement that we are not contesting. As we saw in the first and second years of 404 implementation, investors were less concerned when a company reported a material weakness in internal controls than how much a small company was paying to meet Section 404 requirements for much more complicated businesses. Chairman Manzullo. How are you doing on time? Mr. Burns. I'm just going to wrap up shortly. Chairman Manzullo. Okay. Mr. Burns. Biotechnology start-up companies early in their histories often have very limited or no product revenues compared to their market capitalization. So, for these reasons BIO has urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to-and the Public Accounting Oversight Board, as expeditiously as possible, to take the necessary steps to adopt a reform framework recommended by the Advisory Committee's final recommendations. That concludes my testimony. Thank you. [Mr. Burns' testimony may be found in the appendix.] Chairman Manzullo. Okay, Mrs. Kelly. Mrs. Kelly. Thank you. I apologize, I have a very busy schedule and I have to leave. As one of the people who helped to write SOX, and helped to write Section 404, you have to put that into context of what was happening at the time that we wrote it. It was certainly not intended by Congress to put a chill factor on businesses. And, I am concerned, I think we do need to take a look at it. With that in mind, I'd like to talk to you, Mr. Wander, about a question I had, rather than divide companies by market capitalization, would it have made more of an impact to look at companies that need relief from the cost of compliance in terms of take a look at small businesses that nearly have their profits erased by the cost of the compliance, looking at it that way rather than-in other words, the percentage that it's costing them out of their bottom line. And, is there some reason why you didn't do that? Mr. Wander. Yes, one of our mantras was to keep it simple. We think that one of the just general problems, in terms of both legislation and regulation, is that things get so complicated that it's very difficult to comply with it, it takes away the use of professional judgment. So, we tried to figure out all sorts of metrics that would apply to scaling the regulation for public companies. Most of the people that commented felt that market cap was best. The second was, essentially, frankly, number of employees or revenue, and we discarded that. And, we considered scaling based on what your profitability was, but again, most of the comments we had felt that that would be no good because, you know, very large companies went into bankruptcy who still, for example, had no income whatsoever and needed-were large organizations, United Airlines being one of those, that still needed to have a robust internal controls over financial reporting. Mrs. Kelly. Mr. Wander, did you look at the idea that you could maybe look at the mandates relative to the percent of resources that a company needs to devote to compliance, rather than their profitability or numbers of employees and all of that that you just mentioned, did you look at what it cost the company for compliance and think about a sliding scale of percentages in terms of applying 404? Mr. Wander. We didn't look exactly at that level. We are out of business, so I can't say we'll go back and look at that, but it sort of gets difficult in my first reaction to sort of figure out, well, if I have revenues of, let's say, $50 million, and I want to spend up to half a million dollars, 1 percent of that, how do you cut that off? And, the accounting firms were very adamantly against establishing a standard where you would say, okay, for a $50 million company you would have to do a $500,000 internal audit. On that issue, we ran into, frankly, a total road block by the accounting firms. Mrs. Kelly. I can understand that, if you have-with a $500,000 audit, however, we do know, and you know because you reported the cost of audits is going down, we have to remember that this was put in place to protect the American investor, and while I am absolutely concerned about small and mid cap companies and their compliance, this was not meant to be a chill factor on business in the United States. But, we still need to have transparency so that people understand what that investment is going to be. Part of the thing that concerns me in transparency, also with regard to small and mid cap companies, concerns naked short selling, which I was hoping that we-I brought up in a hearing this morning, because that is affecting our small and mid cap companies, and I was kind of hoping that maybe you all might have taken a look at that at the same time that you were doing this. Mr. Wander. It was one of the items on our agenda, and, frankly, we concluded that we are a limited life group with some sort of resource constraints, time restraints, and while I agree with you wholeheartedly that that's a very important aspect, it wasn't-we just didn't put it as high on our agenda, because we frankly think the SEC and NASDAQ are addressing that issue. Mrs. Kelly. I have just one other comment, this to Mr. Crandell. Mr. Crandell, you were talking about, you represent the venture capitalists, I'm quite concerned that we in government are putting grants out to help people develop ideas and bring everything up to a certain point, where at the point where they are needing to go from a granted position into production, into a prototype model of what they are doing, there's an area that is talked about in the agencies of government called the ``valley of death,'' because the venture capitalists, you can't blame them, won't go in. It would be very good if we could somehow develop a way to bridge that gap. It may be a public/private partnership or something, because I've been working on that for ten years, and I can't seem to figure out how we can force the agencies of government to bridge that gap, so that the venture caps can come in. I can't blame them, they are out there on the edge of the risk anyway. Maybe you wouldn't mind engaging in a dialogue. I don't know if you want to talk about it now, but certainly you can find me and I'd be interested in talking with you, maybe we can bridge a gap to help our companies make that jump, so they become viable and help us grow the economy. Mr. Crandell. Yes, Congressman Kelly, I'd welcome the opportunity, and I'm happy to do that off line. I would say that there are groups of venture capitalists that do seed and early-stage investing. We have done 115 companies in the last 20 years. We've co-founded most of those with technologists, scientists and, you know, I think it's a really important area to make sure that the U.S. is very efficient and taking inventions and turning them into business' revenue that employ people. So, I'm happy to talk about it. Mrs. Kelly. Thank you. Mr. Crandell. Sure. Chairman Manzullo. I recognize the Ranking Member for her questions and comments. Ms. Vel zquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wander, let's get right to one of the biggest issues facing the Advisory Committee's reform proposal. Critics suggest that if the Advisory Committee's primary recommendations regarding internal controls are adopted that investor protections will be undermined. What investor protection requirements would still apply to small companies that are afforded relief under the Advisory Committee's recommendations? Mr. Wander. Yes, thank you. First, all of the companies, whether they be micro caps or small companies, would be required to have internal controls over financial reportings. That's been mandated since 1997. They will still be in existence and applicable to all these companies. Secondly, these companies will have to provide the certifications that are required under Section 302 of Sarbanes Oxley by the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, attesting to the compliance with both financial disclosures and other disclosures in their narrative portion of their documents. So, those two people will be on the line, and I can tell you from my own experience as a lawyer representing many of these companies, the executives take that role very seriously. It is not something that's sort of a throw away and they sign it. Third, they will all go through their regular audits, and we have learned, and this is unchallenged by anybody, that for the micro cap companies the regular audit is really the audit that catches errors and fraud. You don't need a separate external audit for those companies. So, that would still be in place. Ms. Vel zquez. So, you agree that investors will still be sufficiently protected? Mr. Wander. Yes, I believe they will. Ms. Vel zquez. Mr. Burns, we have heard that what drives investment in the high-growth setup, biotech and hi-tech sectors, is proof of concept, not Section 404, and that some companies are spending the equivalent of six months of R&D funding to cover the costs associated with Section 404. Based on your experience, how much of an impact does Section 404, as currently implemented, have on increasing investors confidence? Mr. Burns. Investor confidence is primarily driven by progress to proof of concept. Money goes into, typically, companies like ours and it's expensed, it's expensed internally and externally, and the progress that's made on R&D, the progress that is made in clinical trials, the compliance with safety requirements of the FDA and so on are the things that investors particularly pay attention to, whether or not their investments in the company are being spent efficiently on R&D and efficiently on clinical trials, and whether the company is making progress toward ultimately getting approval. And, they expect that when an audit is completed, and the CEO and the CFO certify to the financial, the accuracy of the financial statements, that that is what they are certifying to. Ms. Vel zquez. Thank you. Mr. Wander, last week, and I sit on the Financial Services Committee, Marsh Carter, Chairman of the Board of the New York Stock Exchange group, testified before the House Financial Services Committee on maintaining the international competitiveness of the U.S. financial markets. In order to keep U.S. markets competitive Mr. Carter proposed that the SEC and PCAOB move to a three-year Sarbanes Oxley Section 404 review cycle, as a way to reduce regulatory burdens. He noted that this could be accomplished without having to pass legislation to amend the law. Do you think this proposal will help small companies by reducing the cost of compliance? Mr. Wander. We considered that very seriously in our deliberations, and concluded, again, we ran into actually opposition from both the issuers and the accounting firms, and their arguments were that once you get subject to 404 it's a shock, and having it every three years would be worse than having it every year. It's like going into an ice cold water. And, we thought, and still think, that the better approach is to scale the regulations for smaller public companies, so that they still have to go through rigorous internal control establishment and examination, but that it should be scaled to the size of the company, and it should be every year. So, but I don't throw out the three-year requirement off hand. We did look at it, and thought ours was better. Ms. Vel zquez. Thank you. My next question is to you, Audit Standard No. 2 implements Section 404, AS2, as it is known, is long on guidance for accountants, but short on guidance for small companies. COSO has attempted to fill this void and provide additional guidance for small companies. What is your opinion of COSO guidance in this area? Mr. Wander. It's still deficient, and they came out, they worked very hard to produce some guidance at the request of the SEC, and I believe the PCAOB. The exposure draft came out, oh, three, four, five months ago. Comments were almost uniformly negative. It was a 200 and some page guide, and the problem was the guide, by the time you read it you were more confused than when you started. And, it's unfortunate, because I value COSO and the people who work there who are, I think, truly trying to find a solution. They are now revising it, I don't know what the revision will be, but I think in general it was just too long and not pointed enough. Ms. Vel zquez. My time is up. Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. I have here a copy of a letter from the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to the Honorable Christopher Cox, with whom I had the privilege of serving in the House. And, Roman Numeral I says, ``SEC should not impose disproportionate burdens on smaller companies by excluding them from access to capital markets.'' I'd first like to apologize for not being here for your testimony. I'm also on the Armed Services Committee, and this is that one day in the year when we have a mark-up. Ordinarily, it lasts til midnight. I think that in the next hour or so it will be over, it's going very well today, and so I couldn't be here for your testimony.I gather that compliance with these regulations is imposing a burden on small business. I would like to ask a couple of questions. First of all, is it your view that when they wrote these regulations, as a result of our law, that they had small business at the table, that they went through the requisite hearings, and hearing from small business how the implementation of this that might be acceptable to large business would be an inappropriate burden on small business, do you think that they went through that required procedure? Any or all of you. Mr. Wander. Well, I will start the answer. I'm sure my colleagues here can fill in. We think that's one of the very serious problems, is that the smaller and mid cap public companies are literally orphans in this process. The original COSO recommendations of the early `90s had very small chapters in the massive two volume set of guidelines dealing with small businesses. And, it sort of said they are very different, and you have to scale the regulations in order to have smaller companies comply on a reasonable and efficient basis. When AS2 was first promulgated, the PCAOB, in fact, did have an appendix dealing with smaller public companies, which was taken out when the final rules were adopted. And so, one of the points made by the Advisory Committee is that no one has really taken the time or effort to focus on what the standards should be for smaller and mid cap companies. Mr. Bartlett. Anyone else wish to respond? I'm going to violate some rules probably, but they have a vote and it's just a couple of floors away. I'll be back very quickly, but they are having a roll call vote in Armed Services and I'm needed there. I'm going to do what you should never do and turn this over to a Minority member. Ms. Vel zquez. Well, continue practicing it. Mr. Wander, let me continue to ask some questions here. Given the effect of Sarbanes Oxley on the public accounting industry, there was speculation that some smaller CPA firms will drop their public clients. There was concern that this would lead to fewer companies in an industry already marked by significant consolidation. While the General Accounting Office addressed this issue in a study two years ago, could you please provide your perspective on what role smaller CPA firms are playing in the market for Sarbanes Oxley audit services? Mr. Wander. I believe that particularly the next five in size firms who are actually very active with our Advisory Committee, and many of the regional accounting firms, need the strong support from the SEC, the PCAOB and Congress. They are very talented people. It probably has some limitations, they aren't as global as the Big Four, but they certainly are very fine professionals for businesses that are, essentially, located here in the United States. And, I think you will see a trend, I don't think it's fast enough, where many smaller public companies will go to the smaller accounting firms. I think one of the witnesses talked about the fact that unfortunately underwriters and banks sometimes insist on a Big Four. In fact, Chairman Cox I think has spoken out in saying people should look at smaller accounting firms, and I think that that will be one way, hopefully, we will have a much more vibrant accounting profession, with more opportunities and choices for all businesses. Ms. Vel zquez. Thank you. Mr. Schroeder, how have the compliance costs associated with Section 404 affected your bank's ability to invest in the local community? Mr. Schroeder. Obviously, when you have a cost of a company of our size that in the first year was approaching a million dollars and now has kind of settled it at a half million dollars a year, it impacts our ability to invest in the local businesses that we do business with and the local companies, as well as the local individuals. From a Community Reinvestment Act perspective, it's probably a good place to look at it. When we are looking to make an investment from community reinvestment, that half million dollars that we are spending on 404 could be allocated towards CAR type investments, but it can't go both places. A half million dollars a year for our company is a significant additional cost that will come out somewhere in the mix. Ms. Vel zquez. Thank you. Mr. Wander, none of the top ten initial public offerings last year were registered in the U.S., and 23 of the 25 largest IPOs occurred in foreign markets. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the high costs associated with Section 404 are helping drive this trend and causing U.S. companies to raise capital in foreign exchanges, such as the London Exchange Alternative Investment Market, and some of the witnesses raised this issue, too. To what extent has the burden associated with the Sarbanes Oxley Act deterred private companies from going public in the U.S., and to instead list on foreign exchanges, such as AIM? Mr. Wander. I think that's a growing phenomenon that you will see more and more of. AIM is coming to the United States, they almost have full-time representatives. And, I would add with that the Toronto Stock Exchange, which is really the TSX, which also tries to capture smaller businesses with a model somewhat similar to the AIM market. They, in fact, presented a program at the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association meeting last month in Tampa, all foreigners gave the presentation, and they are going around to various cities in the United States trying to get listings. And, I don't think there's any question that they will gain many more companies to go into their system, because for a small public company to take so much of their revenue or their cash resources to comply with Sarbanes Oxley, particularly, 404, especially 404, that they will continue to move to foreign markets. And, I think Sarbanes Oxley is one of the big factors. I think as a New York Stock Exchange representative testified, litigation is another one. Ms. Vel zquez. But, do you believe that the Advisory Committee's recommendation will help reverse this trend? Mr. Wander. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Vel zquez. Okay. Mr. Broderick, if the Advisory Committee's recommendations are enacted, would you consider your decision to not go public? Mr. Broderick. If they were enacted to have a scaling proportional regulation, yes, we would then, right now, Congresswoman, the way we look at it is, an IPO is not feasible right now, but we say into the foreseeable future for a technology company that's, you know, three years at best, but we look at that we need to get to a certain level of critical mass in order to absorb the SOX compliance issues. For us, that would be, we are a $50 million company right now, the way we look at it we roughly would have to get to $150 million to give us enough market capitalization, roughly about a half a billion dollars or so, to absorb that cost. I would say, Congresswoman, just small cap companies, especially micro cap companies, in order to get liquidity in their stock, and institutional investors and other investors awareness to buy their stock, the time commitment and resources that the CEO and CFO to put at that is tremendous. When you add SOX on top of that, we looked at it and we just, it was a no brainer, we said we can't go public because we'll put our shareholder value more at risk. For a small cap public company, you put estimates out there. We are not like Google, we don't have to give guidance. If you don't give some kind of guidance, no one will follow you, no one will be interested in your stock. So, you are out doing your own marketing efforts to get that interest, and that's just the general dynamics and the burdens on executive management to create liquidity in the stock. If you miss an estimate, a quarterly estimate, you know, by a penny, your stock can drop 50 percent easily. So, when we look at it, the risk of that was so great, and the diversion of time and management towards SOX compliance, that we said we have a chance to lose 70 percent of our value, we might as well just stay private, build the company, and move forward with our strategies. Ms. Vel zquez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. I'm privileged to serve on three of the least partisan committees in the Congress. This is certainly one of them. I don't know of anybody here who isn't a small business supporter. I serve on Armed Services, and I serve on Science, so I had little fear that turning the Chair over to the Minority would be abused. In another life, I was in business, as a small business person, and I learned very quickly that regulations that were acceptable to large businesses, if you have 300 people and it takes three people to comply with the regulations, that's a burden, but not a burden you cannot bear. If you have four employees and it takes three to comply with the regulations, that's clearly a burden that you can't bear. And so, you need to be careful whose business advice you are getting, because the strongest competitors for big business is frequently small business, and regulations are a way of neutralizing, neutering in many cases, a small business. You need to be careful who you are asking about whether these are acceptable regulations or not, because they may be acceptable to big business because it's a burden they can easily bear as a part of their overhead, and, furthermore, it now puts their small business competitors at a disadvantage. I see a number of you nodding your heads in assent, so you've been there and you understand this. It's quite clear from your testimony that compliance with the regulations resulting from this law is imposing an undue burden on small business. The question I need answered is, is there a regulatory fix for this, or do we need to have a legislative fix for it? Is this something that we can hold the bureaucrats responsible for? Can they, within our law, promulgate regulations that will be effective and yet consistent with the view that small businesses should not be unduly disadvantaged by these laws? Can the regulators fix it, or do we have to legislatively fix it? Mr. Broderick. Congressman, I think if the SEC adopts the scaling proportion, it's just common sense, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't adopt this and move forward with a framework, and then they can tweak that framework as they see fit. To me, if they don't anything, if they just bury their heads in the sand about it, you are going to have small companies just, you know, not being able to attract any capital, even VC capital. Early-stage companies are going to be knocked out of the marketplace, because they see too much risk. Now, a VC comes in and he puts a certain level of infrastructure into a company, an early-stage company, and that's, you know, basic accounting, finance, HR type of infrastructure, but now you've got to take that extra layer on top of that, and based upon the risk models of VC firms they don't know if they are ever going to get to a public marketplace. So, if those resources are diverted, you are not properly growing your company to get adoption of technology products and services in the marketplaces that you serve. So, as far as - I believe it was a very, very good study and report, taking something and boiling it down, as complex as it is, and simplifying it, I think it was-I commend the Advisory Committee, I think they did a heck of a job with it, and I don't-it's just common sense, and we need more common sense. Mr. Bartlett. Is it your general view that if the recommendations of the Advisory Committee were implemented that it would largely fix the problem? Mr. Schroeder. Speaking as a company that has been an accelerated follower, and has been through 404, absolutely. For German American bancorp, and for many of the community banks, public community banks, that ICBA represents, those recommendations would absolutely fix the problem for us, or a significant portion of it. The portion that we would be left with are good controls, they are controls we can live with, they bring value to our investors, but it is the 404 compliance and this piling on of layers and layers of bureaucracy that it would fix. So, for us, absolutely, it would fix it. Mr. Bartlett. Yes, sir. Mr. Burns. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would certainly help my company, and it would more than likely help most of the other companies that are biotechnology companies, and rely on the capital to grow their companies. And, it's also my understanding that the Commission has the authority to implement the recommendations and we fully support that. The sooner the better, sir. Mr. Bartlett. Do you believe that the recommendations they made are consistent with law? Was there any ever discussion, any discussion that we might need new legislation to permit them to do what seems so reasonable to you? Mr. Wander. Perhaps I should at least try to answer that question. One of our goals, it wasn't in our mission statement, but one of our goals since we were an advisory committee to the Securities and Exchange Commission, was that we wanted the Securities and Exchange Commission to implement our recommendations. So, we believe wholeheartedly that the SEC does have authority under the various securities laws to implement our recommendations. I should be totally frank with you, there are people who question that, because of a quirk, Section 404 is not part of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, where the SEC has some broader authority to adopt regulations. But, we make a case for this in our report, and I believe that Congressmen Oxley and Baker have, in fact, written to the SEC a letter indicating that they believe wholeheartedly that the SEC does have the authority to adopt our recommendations. On the other hand, Senator Sarbanes is probably on the other side on that question. Mr. Bartlett. Yes, so often what you see depends on where you sit, doesn't it? Mr. Wander. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. These two people are kind of the extremes of the political spectrum, and they are looking at the same law and come to different conclusions. But, it's my understanding that Chairman Cox would be responsible for implementation of this. Mr. Wander. He, together with the rest of the Commissioners, yes, sir. Mr. Bartlett. Is it your understanding that this has come to his attention? Mr. Wander. Oh, yes, he has commended our report, and said that it would be studied quite thoroughly, which I'm sure it will. The SEC is a very responsible agency. We, as someone just said, hope that they do it on a rapid pace, and that they do adopt most of our recommendations, if not all of them, but we will see how that pans out. It's only been a week since they've gotten the report, although I think they knew it was coming and what the recommendations have been for probably two to three months. Mr. Bartlett. These regulations were promulgated before Chairman Cox took over? Mr. Wander. Yes. Mr. Bartlett. So, this is not his child? Mr. Wander. That's correct. Mr. Bartlett. Okay. I want to ask my Ranking Member if she has any additional questions or comments? Ms. Vel zquez. No, I don't. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bartlett. Okay. Well, I want to thank you all very much for the contribution that you've made. We will wait a reasonable time to see if SEC responds responsively. If they do not, why I suspect that they will be sitting in your chairs telling us why they have not. I know Chris Cox very well. He's a genuinely thoughtful good guy, and if he doesn't respond promptly it will be because there's just a lot of other things on his plate which have kind of pushed this aside. We'll make sure that that doesn't happen for very long. You are in a better position to judge than we as to how soon they ought to have responded to this. We would like your commitment to get back to us when you think they should have responded and they have not, and then we will follow through on it. I want to thank you all very much for your testimony, and our Committee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]