Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the characteristics and qualifications of audit committee financial experts. Specifically, the paper examines if the majority of the financial experts possess accounting or general management experience.

The authors collected the data through survey and use cross tabulation (univariate) and logistic regression to analyze the data.

The results show that accounting certification and audit committee experience are valued positively by the Board of Directors when designating an audit committee member as a financial expert. Prior experience as a CEO results in a lower probability of being designated as a financial expert.

Non‐response bias may be a factor which should be considered. There are other factors such as stock exchange affiliation of the company that have not been included due to the anonymous nature of the survey.

It provides useful information and benchmark to the Board of Directors with respect to the characteristics of designated audit committee financial experts.

This is the first paper to examine the characteristics of audit committee financial experts through survey. The paper presents a richer array of factors compared to what is available in proxy statements. Audit committees, financial statement users, policy makers, and researchers will find the results interesting and useful.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of audit quality, measured by financial statements audited by the big four accounting firms, on the investors' ability to predict future earnings for profitable and unprofitable firms.

The paper uses the returns‐earnings regression model and interacts all independent variables in this model with a dummy variable, AUDIT, which is set to equal one if financial statements audited by the big four accounting firms, zero otherwise. Future earnings response coefficient is the measure of earnings predictability.

The paper finds that investors are able to better anticipate future earnings when financial statements are audited by the big four accounting firms. However, the findings are not applicable for unprofitable firms.

The findings of the paper have implications for auditing related academic research and the users of financial statements. In particular, the study shows that the big four accounting firms have not lost their audit quality advantage and that financial statements audited by the big four accounting firms are arguably of higher quality than those audited by non‐big four accounting firms.

It is believed that there is no UK study to date examining the association of the quality of financial statements audited by the big four accounting firms and the returns‐earnings association. Consequently, this paper significantly contributes to the limited literature on the perceived value relevance of audit quality.

An increasing number of earnings restatements along with many allegations of financial statement fraud committed by high profile companies (e.g. Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Adelphia) has eroded the public confidence in corporate governance, the financial reporting process, and audit functions. The Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 was an attempt to regain confidence and trust in corporate America and the accounting profession. The Act addresses corporate scandals and the perceived crisis in the auditing profession. Some of its provisions relate to the audit committee oversight function over corporate governance, financial reporting, internal control structure, internal audit functions, and external audit services. This study examines three types of audit committee disclosures: the annual report of the audit committee; reporting of the audit committee charter in the proxy statement at least once every three years; and disclosure in the proxy statement of whether the audit committee had fulfilled its responsibilities as specified in the charter. This study conducts a content analysis on audit committee disclosures of Fortune 100 companies.

The purpose of this study is to empirically evaluate the audit expectations gap among stakeholders in listed firms in Palestine. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether or not there is a gap in audit expectations between auditors and investors, auditors and board directors, as well as among auditors and financial managers and also among auditors and shareholders.

To attain its ultimate objective, this study was created using an exploratory descriptive methodology grounded in the use of quantitative methods. A structured questionnaire was used to gather study data from 81 respondents, and a statistical package for the social sciences-26 was then used for analysis.

The results of this research showed that there is a sizable difference in audit expectations among shareholders, financial managers and board directors, as well as among auditors and investors. The findings also demonstrate that, in comparison to the difference between auditors and financial managers, the gap between auditors and board directors and auditors and shareholders is very narrow.

This investigation, which examines the audit expectations gap in great detail, has some significant limitations. This study was limited to the Palestinian market alone. Future research might compare or examine the variations in audit expectations in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran, among different countries. In addition, the demand for accurate and reliable financial reports has sparked a recent increase in interest in auditing, a long-standing sector that has expanded in recent years.

The study has several practical implications, for example, it underlines how crucial it is to make stakeholders aware of the limitations and difficulties related to the auditing process. By doing this, the situation that audit committees and listed firms find themselves in will be easier for investors, board directors, financial managers and shareholders to understand. The way that auditors and stakeholders communicate can help reduce this gap since it affects how much each party underestimates or understates the other’s obligations.

This paper contributes to the literature by analysing and identifying the causes of the audit expectations gap in companies listed on the Palestine Stock Exchange and providing useful insights and potential solutions to close or mitigate it. It also adds a new contribution to the literature related to the audit expectation gap. This investigation offers unambiguous evidence of a sizable discrepancy between audit expectations and actual performance in terms of formal auditor obligations as outlined by current law, as well as auditor reliability standards and practices, between auditors, board directors, investors, shareholders and financial managers in listed Palestinian firms.

In this study, we examine regulated public accessibility to municipalities’ financial reports and bond interest cost. In particular, we examine whether there is information content in a component of a constrained filing period that is useful to municipal bond market participants. The component of a filing period that we focus on is the period of time between an audit report date and a regulated public accessibility date.

To explore our research question, we collect a sample of observations from municipalities that: (1) are required to post annual/audit financial reports on a centralized state-level repository that includes a “transparent” date stamp on when reports are made publicly available and (2) have issued general obligation bonds. Our sample is limited to one observation per municipality. The sample period is 2006–2019. In terms of approach, we use an ordinary least square (OLS) regression model to empirically test whether the time period between municipalities’ audit report date and state-required repository filing date is associated with general obligation bond interest cost.

We find support for the idea that there is information content in a component of a constrained filing period. In particular, we hypothesize and find a positive association between the time period between an audit report date and a state filing date and general obligation bond interest cost. Seemingly, this component of time may provide something unique or not available in other components of a constrained filing period (e.g. the fiscal year-end date to the audit report date). In post hoc analyses, we also find that both components of the constrained filing period in our setting (i.e. the audit report date to state filing date and the fiscal year-end date to audit report date) need to be considered for either of the components to be significant. Moreover, although both components are necessary, the audit report date to state filing date component appears to have a slightly stronger association (in terms of statistical significance) with general obligation bond interest costs.

To our knowledge, Illinois is the only state that provides a date stamp on when municipalities’ financial information is made publicly available on a centralized repository. As such we focus on municipalities in Illinois. While this increases the internal validity of our research, it potentially limits generalizability across other states. Also, as a reflection of the sample constraint, the number of observations in our study is relatively small. As part of post hoc analyses, we take a closer look at our sample, model and variables used to test our hypothesis.

For stakeholders, each component of a constrained filing period may provide unique information. For example, the time period between an audit report date and a regulated filing date may send a positive signal about the quality of financial management to investors. For regulators, requiring some sort of centralized public access to municipal financial reports that have transparent time constraints may help states provide stronger governance and help lower municipalities’ borrowing costs.

We use a novel approach (with the Illinois date stamp filing information) to examine our research question. Most prior research has often relied on an assumption that the time between fiscal year-end and the audit report date is the component of time that provides useful information to investors (e.g. Henke and Maher, 2016). In our setting, we explore and find that a component of a constrained filing time period (i.e. the date from an audit filing to a required public accessibility filing) may also provide impactful information to investors.

On the one hand, the auditing of the public hospitals regarding their financial information is carried out by the State Audit Court which is the Supreme Auditing Institution in our country, on the other hand it is carried out by the auditors of the Ministry of Health. While the audits made by the Ministry of Health are generally about compatibility and medical controls, the financial information of the hospitals needs to be made by the external independent auditors and their impact on the general budget needs to be determined.

In this study, the subject matter of financial auditing has been elaborated on within the specificity of the public health sector and evaluated as to whether the conducted auditing is effective in determining the mistakes in the financial information of the organizations. For the purpose of conducting the evaluation, the six-year auditing reports between the years of 2012 and 2017 of the Supreme Auditing Institution (State Audit Court) conducting the financial auditing of the public health sector regarding the Public Hospitals Administration of Turkey (Türkiye Kamu Hastaneleri Kurumu). The auditing reports are addressed within the framework of the types and numbers of findings determined by the State Audit Court, the responses that the Public Hospitals Administration of Turkey has given against those findings and the opinion of auditing. In the consequence of the conducted evaluation, it was concluded that the Court of Accounts was effective in determining the mistakes in the financial reports and increasing the correctness and reliability of the financial information of the Administration.

The research objective starts from the argument that small-scale multinational corporations’ (SMNCs’) managerial behavior toward auditing decisions is influenced by their personal value, especially when the auditing process is not mandatory. This study aims to examine how national culture-religiosity affects that decision. The authors further examine how foreign-owned MNCs might behave differently from local MNCs, although the host country’s cultural-religiosity value might influence that decision.

This study obtains the data from three sources: Hofstede Framework, Pew Research Center and World Bank Enterprise Survey in cross-sectional mode. The final sample consists of 8,590 SMNCs from 45 countries as the observations. This study uses robust regression analysis to test the effects of culture, religiosity and controlling shareholders on the audited financial statements decision.

The regression results support the hypothesis, whereas cultural-religiosity values are associated with the audited financial report. The findings confirm stakeholder theory and institutional theory.

This study fills a gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence on the cultural and religiosity effects on the accounting decision of SMNCs. The results can be used as the foundation for future research related to MNCs’ managerial behavior toward accounting policies, especially with the psychosocial factors.

The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of audit committee financial experts on the risk of financial corruption in public companies.

A time-lagged, matched-pairs sample of 352 corporations was utilized to test the study's hypotheses (176 financially corrupt firms plus 176 compliant firms). To uncover financially corrupt firms, 2,895 Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases from the Securities and Exchange Commission were thoroughly evaluated.

The results show that financial experts on audit committees generally increased financial corruption. However, the impact was reversed when audit committees had three or more financial experts, showing that having at least three financial experts reduced financial corruption.

The study's findings call into question the long-held practice of appointing at least one financial expert to audit committees. This study offers a novel approach to improve corporate oversight and reduce financial corruption by having at least three financial experts on audit committees.