Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the extent to which firms manage earnings prior to private debt issuance.

This is an empirical archival research paper using financial statement data and data related to private debt issuance.

The results indicate that, on average, firms engage in income-increasing earnings management in the period prior to a new private debt issuance. In addition, it was found that this income-increasing earnings management is limited to firms which have engaged in income-increasing earnings management to a greater extent in prior years.

This paper provides insight into how managers’ balance competing incentives to use income-increasing earnings management to obtain more favorable lending terms, and to use income-decreasing earnings management to reduce the risk of a future debt covenant violation. The results indicate that firms’ incentive to use income-increasing earnings management dominates. However, reputational concerns significantly constrain firms’ earnings management decisions prior to private debt issuance.

The paper fills a notable void in the literature by investigating firms’ earnings management activity prior to private lending agreements, and thereby provides new insights into both the relation between private debt and accounting quality, and the literature investigating the use of earnings management to avoid debt covenant violations.

This paper aims to examine the perceptions of auditor roles on the workpaper review process in current audit practice. Specifically, the paper investigates how an auditor’s defined role leads to perceived differences in what initiates the workpaper review process, the preferred methods for performing reviews and the stylization or framing of communicated review comments.

A survey was administered in which practicing auditors were asked about workpaper review process prompts, methods and preferences. The survey was completed by 215 auditors from each of the Big 4 accounting firms and one additional international firm. The final data set consists of quantitative and qualitative responses from 25 audit partners, 33 senior managers, 30 managers, 75 in-charge auditors/seniors and 52 staff auditors.

Findings indicate reviewers and preparers differ in their perceptions of the review process based on their defined roles. First, reviewers and preparers differ in their perspectives on which factors initiate the review process. Second, the majority of reviewers and preparers prefer face-to-face communication when discussing review notes. Reviewers, however, are more likely to believe the face-to-face method is an effective way to discuss review notes and to facilitate learning, whereas preparers prefer the method primarily because it reduces back-and-forth communication. Finally, reviewers believe they predominantly provide conclusion-based review notes, whereas preparers perceive review notes as having both conclusion- and documentation-based messages.

This paper advances the academic literature by providing a unique perspective on the review process. Instead of investigating a single staff level, it examines the workpaper review process on a broader scale. By obtaining views from professionals across all levels, this work intends to inspire future research directed at reconciling differences and filling gaps in the review process literature. The finding that reviewers and preparers engage in role conformity that leads to incongruent perceptions of the review process should encourage the consideration of mechanisms, with the potential to be tested experimentally, by which to reconcile the incongruities.

Results support recent regulator concerns that there are breakdowns in the workpaper review process, and the findings provide some insight into why these breakdowns are occurring. Incongruent perceptions of review process characteristics may be the drivers of these identified regulatory concerns.

This is the first study to examine current workpaper review processes at the largest accounting firms from the perspective of both preparers and reviewers. From this unique data set, one key interpretation of the findings is that workpaper preparers do not appear to recognize a primary goal of the review process: to ensure that subordinates receive appropriate coaching, learning and development. However, workpaper reviewers do, in fact, attempt to support preparers and work to create a supportive team environment.

Contact centers for patient and referring physician are important to large medical-centers such as the Mayo Clinic's Central Appointment Office (CAO). The aim of this case study is to report the process and results of a major process improvement effort, designed to simultaneously improve service quality and efficiency.

Discrete-event simulation and optimization are used and linked to significant service improvements.

The process improvement efforts led to about a 70 percent improvement in patient service performance as measured by average answering-speed (ASA) and average abandonment rate (AAR). This was achieved without adding additional staff, despite call volume increasing by 12 percent. Evaluating process improvement projects is difficult owing to the “phased” implementation of changes. Thus, there is no true control against which to compare. Additionally, the results are based on a single case study.

Evaluation of process improvement projects is difficult due to the “phased” implementation of changes. Thus, there is no true control to compare against.

Contact center data and operations research methods, such as discrete-event simulation and optimization, can be integrated with change management, which results in significant process improvements in medical call-centers.

Structured quantitative modeling of contact centers can be an important extension to traditional quality and process improvement techniques.

Free at last, NCR focuses on its technological and market niches to grow and profit as a centenarian start‐up.