Search results

This paper aims to examine the relation between SEC regulations centered on board of director independence and financial reporting quality and investigates the different routes to board independence.

The sample includes 1,248 firm observations whose board composition is compared between 2001 and 2008. Each firm is categorized based on how they increase board independence. The authors test the hypotheses using ordinary least squares regression models.

Results show that firms choose between multiple routes when complying with the independence requirements, and how firms operationalize the SEC requirement impacts financial reporting quality. Specifically, firms that achieve increased board independence through increased board size are associated with higher financial reporting quality. However, there is no association between higher financial reporting quality and a subsequent increase in audit fees. Suggesting the reporting quality results from the board monitoring function and not from an increase in auditor effort.

No evidence exists on how a firm’s chosen route to increased board independence relates to financial reporting quality.

The imposition of the Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) Act and the NYSE/NASDAQ regulations boosted the proportion of independent directors serving on corporate boards. For certain firms, increasing the number of independent directors may impose costs that exceed the benefits. The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of increased independence following SOX, relative to the pre-SOX board independence benchmark, on managerial authority and entrenchment within the firm.

Data are collected from COMPUSTAT, ExecuComp, and RiskMetrics. Data are divided into two periods, pre-SOX (1996-2001) and post-SOX (2002-2006). The focus is on the sub-group of firms who were not complying with the board independence requirement prior to SOX and became compliant afterwards. Various regressions are employed to assess the implications of increased independence following SOX on managerial authority and entrenchment.

The appreciation in board independence post-SOX significantly inflates both managerial compensation and the likelihood of CEO duality. Also, there is a positive association between board independence and managerial entrenchment during both the pre- and post-SOX periods. Imposed board composition requirements diminished board monitoring efficiency and boosted the CEO dominance and control over the firm.

This research adds to the extant literature investigating the implications of SOX on internal monitoring and governance. The results are based on an off-equilibrium phenomenon in which companies were obliged to alter their endogenously determined board structure. Thus, regulations to improve governance could backfire as the CEO might abuse them to extract private benefits.

Mandatory auditor firm rotation (mandatory rotation) has been a controversial issue in the United States for many decades. Mandatory rotation has been considered at various times as a means of improving auditor independence. For example, in the United States, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has considered mandatory rotation as a solution to the independence problem (PCAOB, 2011) and the European Parliament approved legislation that will require mandatory rotation in the near future (Council of European Union, 2014). The concept of implementing a mandatory rotation policy has been encouraged by some constituents of audited financial statements and rejected by other constituents of audited financial statements. Although there are apparent pros and cons of such a policy, the developmental process of such a policy in this country has not necessarily been an open-democratic, objective process. Universal mandatory rotation may or may not be the ideal solution; however, an open-democratic, objective process is needed to facilitate the development of a solution that considers the needs of all major stakeholders of audited financial statements – not simply accounting firms and public companies, but also investors. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine key issues relating to mandatory rotation and to encourage and stimulate future research and ongoing dialogue regarding this issue, in spite of efforts by certain constituents to silence the issue. This paper provides an overview of the various reasons, including practical, theoretical, political, and self-motivated reasons, why a mandatory rotation policy has not been implemented in the United States in order to address the potential conflict of interest between the auditor and client. This paper will also discuss how some deliberations of mandatory rotation have been flawed. The paper concludes with a summary of key issues along with two approaches for regulators, policy makers, and academics to consider as ways to improve the process and address auditor independence. The authors are not advocating for any specific solution; however, we are advocating for a more objective, unified approach and for the dialogue regarding auditor rotation to continue.

The results of recent research suggest that certain provisions of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) may have been less successful than intended (e.g., Abbott, Parker, & Peters, 2009). Based on two different descriptions of economic bonding between auditors and their clients, we propose an explanation of why this might be so by showing that the effect of SOX mandates, and regulation in general, aimed at enhancing auditor independence is dependent on whether shareholders or managers monitor the auditor. The results of prior empirical studies are examined in context of the framework we describe, and suggestions for future research on this important topic are outlined.

This study examines the non-linear effect of board independence on the investment efficiency of listed firms worldwide. This study further tests whether the COVID-19 pandemic, industry competition and economic development influence the relationship between board independence and investment efficiency.

The data are retrieved from the Thomson Reuters (Refinitiv) database and include international data from 33 countries, comprising 21,363 firm-year observations. The authors' regression analyses include firm-specific variables as controls that may impact investment efficiency. The authors also perform various robustness tests including, alternative measures of investment efficiency, weighted least squares regression, quantile regression and endogeneity issues.

The results reveal a non-linear relationship between board independence and investment efficiency. Specifically, the relationship follows a U-shaped pattern, indicating that the negative impact of board independence on investment efficiency becomes positive after it reaches its optimal point, thus supporting optimal board structure theory. Interestingly, the authors find no significant evidence of board independence’s effect on investment efficiency during the pandemic. In contrast, the relationship between board independence and investment efficiency is significant only during the non-pandemic period. Furthermore, the authors discover evidence of a U-shaped relationship in both emerging and developed markets, as well as in industries with high and low competition.

The authors' study discovers new evidence on the non-linear impact of board independence on investment efficiency, which has not been explored previously in existing research.

This study has practical implications for investors by emphasising the importance of corporate governance and the appointment of independent directors. Investors should consider the findings of this study when making decisions related to corporate governance, as they can impact a firm's investment efficiency.

Despite a considerable body of literature exploring the link between corporate governance and investment effectiveness, there is a dearth of research on the non-linear effects of board independence. Furthermore, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, industry competition and economic development remain unexplored.

The purpose of this paper is to consider and evaluate judicial independence in China, through reviewing the value in its presence, assessing its current state in China and evaluating what the future holds for it.

The paper reviews the benefits of judicial independence in its support of the rule of law. Following this, an evaluation of the current independence of the judiciary in China is presented. The reforms of the judiciary in the Fourth Plenary Session and the outlook for judicial independence in China are assessed.

The paper finds that judicial independence in China cannot be said to exist, being vulnerable to influence from a variety of sources. There is, however, progress observed, and this is expected to continue.

This paper’s consideration of judicial independence in China and its outlook are framed with discussions of the relationships between judicial independence and the rule of law, and the Chinese state and the rule of law. The paper should thus contribute to discussion of the development trajectory of China in this important facet.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether firm-specific litigation risk affects independent director conservatism in the oversight of financial reporting.

This study considers the enactment of Sarbanes–Oxley Act and the main US stock exchanges' corresponding corporate governance regulations in 2002–2003 as an exogenous shock event to increase board independence. OLS regressions with fixed effects are conducted to test the hypothesis.

Changes in discretionary accruals from the pre-event year (2001) to the post-event year (2004) are more negatively associated with an exogenous increase in board independence for firms with high litigation risk than for firms with low litigation risk.

The results suggest that independent directors are more conservative in overseeing financial reporting when they face higher litigation risk, consistent with the notion that they are still concerned about liability risk although they seldom have to pay damages or legal fees out of their own pockets.

As a result of the Australian Government Productivity Commission's recommendation to mandate remuneration committee independence for ASX300 companies, this study aims to investigate whether voluntary remuneration committee independence aligns chief executive officer (CEO) total pay and bonuses with firm financial performance.

A series of hypotheses test the research question using multiple regressions for a sample of 143 ASX300 companies during 2001. This time was prior to strengthen corporate governance regulation, but after mandated executive remuneration disclosure, thus capturing varying levels of voluntary remuneration committee independence.

This study shows firm size is an influential factor in the relationship under investigation. ASX300 large firm remuneration committees link CEO total remuneration and bonuses to firm financial performance. Smaller ASX firm remuneration committees do not link either type of CEO remuneration to performance despite remuneration committee independence. Findings are mixed for medium-sized ASX300 firms.

Limitations include the necessary time restriction to 2001 for sampling the ASX300 firms. The implication of this study's findings is that the proposed public policy for mandatory remuneration committee independence is not universally effective in linking CEO remuneration to firm financial performance for ASX300 firms.

This study contributes to the limited research on voluntary remuneration committee independence in relation to CEO remuneration and firm financial performance in the Australian context.

This research looked at the TATE [Through Assistive Technology to Employment] Project and its delivery of ICT/AT to people with learning disabilities. It tested whether the Project affected the independence, skills, choice and control exercised by people with learning disabilities, and if staff attitudes and skills were changed. A purposive sample of 29 people with learning disabilities were selected, and keyworkers were surveyed with a postal questionnaire at two time periods. Questionnaires covered AT/ICT received and any outcomes in: independence; skills; choice and control. Staff were asked about changes in their skills and attitudes. Questionnaires were transcribed and organised into common themes. Staff became supportive of assistive technology and developed ICT skills. Service users used ICT, and developed ‘life stories’ using Powerpoint. A variety of AT was also installed leading to increased independence, confidence and skills. AT/ICT can improve independence and services by putting people with a learning disability at the centre of a well planned and resourced strategy.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of the revised Code of Corporate Governance 2017 (CCG-2017) clauses pertaining to board independence, mandatory inclusion of female directors, audit committee (AC) chair independence and directors’ expertise on earnings manipulation.

Using an unbalanced panel of 323 listed companies from 2015 to 2019, this study uses panel data regression models with a robust methodology called difference-in-differences to tackle the potential endogeneity.

This study’s findings show that, as compared to the pre-CCG-2017 period, board- and AC-related variables increased significantly in the post-CCG-2017 period. Furthermore, financial experts on the board and board independence have a negative effect on discretionary accruals (DAs), whereas female directors and DAs are positively related, as is real activity manipulation. The AC-related variables, such as AC independence, expertise in AC, and AC chair independence, are significantly different from the preperiod to the postperiod, whereas their relationship is not according to the hypotheses of the study. Moreover, these results are robust to additional analysis of the alternative proxies for female directorship and the endogeneity problem.

The findings of this study have implications for regulators and practitioners who are concerned with the functions of the board of directors (BOD). The findings of this research study show that earnings management (EM) may be reduced by independent and expert directors. However, board gender diversity is not reducing the EM. Therefore, the decision to appoint female directors to the board should be based on their business and professional attributes rather than simply filling quotas or blindly adhering to regulations. Moreover, the findings of this research may assist the regulator in encouraging listed firms to enhance board governance via independence, diversity and competency, which are useful for effective monitoring.

This study fills a gap in the literature by providing the first evidence of country-specific regulation (CCG-2017), concerning the BOD and AC-related clauses on EM in Pakistan, which is missing in the relevant literature general and in Pakistan in particular.