We examine the penalties imposed on the 585 firms targeted by SEC enforcement actions for financial misrepresentation from 1978–2002, which we track through November 15, 2005. The penalties imposed on firms through the legal system average only $23.5 million per firm. The penalties imposed by the market, in contrast, are huge. Our point estimate of the reputational penalty—which we define as the expected loss in the present value of future cash flows due to lower sales and higher contracting and financing costs—is over 7.5 times the sum of all penalties imposed through the legal and regulatory system. For each dollar that a firm misleadingly inflates its market value, on average, it loses this dollar when its misconduct is revealed, plus an additional $3.08. Of this additional loss, $0.36 is due to expected legal penalties and $2.71 is due to lost reputation. In firms that survive the enforcement process, lost reputation is even greater at $3.83. In the cross section, the reputation loss is positively related to measures of the firm's reliance on implicit contracts. This evidence belies a widespread belief that financial misrepresentation is disciplined lightly. To the contrary, reputation losses impose substantial penalties for cooking the books.

Following securities law violations, regulators can require firms to hire a corporate monitor to implement reforms that limit future misconduct and protect investors. We examine the determinants of including a corporate monitor as equitable relief in an enforcement action, as well as their effectiveness in promoting positive change at a firm. Using a structural equation model that jointly determines monetary and nonmonetary sanctions, we find that monitor assignments are related to the nature of the offense, violation severity, and investor harm. We also find that monitors with targeted accounting oversight responsibilities are associated with improved corporate culture, a higher likelihood of financial restatements during their tenure, and enhanced financial reporting credibility at the firms they oversee relative to enforcement firms without such monitors. Although corporate monitors can foster positive change, their impact depends on the scope of their responsibilities. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.