Re: Overcoming objections to Oracle

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:11:55 -0800
Message-ID: <1132589523.856987@yasure>

Noons wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:
>
>

>>I'd personally be surprised to find any bank in the US that
>>wasn't. Doesn't mean they aren't out there. But that would
>>not stop me from being surprised.
>>--

>
>
> You definitely do not want to know what most banks
> here in Australia do NOT run...
>
> and the ones that run sqlserver instead?
> SOx? Wazzat?
>
> Amazing!
> .
> .
> .

In the US we have a law, several years old, named Sarbanes-Oxley after the two Senators that authored it. It is some times shortened to SarbOx and other times to SOx.

On one hand it is about process. On another it clearly defines who in an organization is responsible for the authenticity of financial numbers which includes accounting, inventory, assets, etc.

Ultimately it makes auditors careful about what they sign off on and it requires CEOs and CFOs to personally guarantee the numbers are accurate under pain of fines and/or jail time.

All US banks are subject to the act as well as all publicly held companies and many large privately held concerns.

But you have me fascinated. How does a bank running SQL Server give an accurate account balance to a customer? Or don't they care?

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Received on Mon Nov 21 2005 - 10:11:55 CST