Search results

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.

We investigate how firms’ responses to misconduct change when the institutional environment becomes more stringent. Organizational theory offers conflicting perspectives on whether new legislation will increase or decrease pressure on firms to take remedial action following misconduct. The dominant perspective posits that new legislation increases expectations of firm behavior, amplifying pressure on them to take remedial action after misconduct. A more recent perspective, however, suggests that the mere necessity to meet more stringent regulatory requirements certifies firms as legitimate to relevant audiences. This certification effect buffers firms, reducing the pressure for them to take remedial action after misconduct. Using a temporary, largely arbitrary exemption from a key provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, we show that firms that were not required to meet all the regulatory standards of good governance it required became 45% more likely to replace their CEOs following the announcement of an earnings restatement after Sarbanes-Oxley. On the other hand, those that were required to meet all of Sarbanes-Oxley’s provisions became 26% less likely to replace their CEOs following a restatement announcement. Ironically, CEOs at firms with a legislative mandate intended to increase accountability for corporate misconduct shoulder less blame than do CEOs at firms without such legislative demands.

The purpose of this study is to examine accountants’ application of principles-based accounting standards to a lawsuit contingency recognition scenario and the potential role that accounting work experience plays in mitigating accountants’ aggressive financial reporting.

This study presents a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with accounting experience (measured as high vs low) and contingency type (asset vs liability) as independent variables and accountants’ lawsuit contingency conservatism likelihood judgments and US$ recognition recommendations as the dependent variables.

Consistent with expectations, findings indicate that more experienced accountants are more likely to recognize liabilities and items that decrease income and less likely to recognize assets and items that increase income than their less experienced counterparts. Accountants also recommended recognizing lower (higher) mean US$ amounts for assets (liabilities), as expected. Supplemental analyses show a significant moderated-mediated effect whereby the interactive effect of contingency type and accounting experience on individuals’ US$ recognition recommendations is partially mediated through the nature of the conservatism judgment.

The finding that less experienced accountants report more aggressively than more experienced accountants when applying a principles-based standard supports the call for using judgment frameworks in imprecise standard settings and suggests that firms may want to ensure that accountants with adequate work experience are on hand as U.S. generally accepted accounting principles become more principles-based over time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the impact of accounting work experience on the application of principles-based accounting standards and the mitigation of aggressive financial reporting. Our supplemental analyses also identify the nature of the conservatism judgment as a mediating mechanism which partially explains more experienced accountants’ US$ asset and liability recognition recommendations.

This paper undertakes an extensive and systematic review of the literature on earnings management (EM) over the past three decades (1992–2022). Furthermore, the study identifies emerging research themes and proposes future avenues for further investigation in the realm of EM.

For this study, a comprehensive collection of 2,775 articles on EM published between 1992 and 2022 was extracted from the Scopus database. The author employed various tools, including Microsoft Excel, R studio, Gephi and visualization of similarities viewer, to conduct bibliometric, content, thematic and cluster analyses. Additionally, the study examined the literature across three distinct periods: prior to the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (1992–2001), subsequent to the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002–2012), and after the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (2013–2022) to draw more inferences and insights on EM research.

The study identifies three major themes, namely the operationalization of EM constructs, the trade-off between EM tools (accrual EM, real EM and classification shifting) and the role of corporate governance in mitigating EM in emerging markets. Existing literature in these areas presents mixed and inconclusive findings, suggesting the need for further theoretical development. Further, the study findings observe a shift in research focus over time: initially, understanding manipulation techniques, then evaluating regulatory measures, and more recently, investigating the impact of global accounting standards. Several emerging research themes (technology advancements, cross-cultural and cross-national studies, sustainability, behavioral aspects and non-financial indicators of EM) have been identified. This study subsequent analysis reveals an evolving EM landscape, with researchers from disciplines like data science, computer science and engineering applying their analytical expertise to detect EM anomalies. Furthermore, this study offers significant insights into sophisticated EM techniques such as neural networks, machine learning techniques and hidden Markov models, among others, as well as relevant theories including dynamic capabilities theory, learning curve theory, psychological contract theory and normative institutional theory. These techniques and theories demonstrate the need for further advancement in the field of EM. Lastly, the findings shed light on prominent EM journals, authors and countries.

This study conducts quantitative bibliometric and thematic analyses of the existing literature on EM while identifying areas that require further development to advance EM research.

Motivated by the findings of Bhabra and Hossain (2017) that highlight an improvement in US market performance in the post-Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) period, this paper aims to investigate how this change varies with the methods of payment used for the deals.

Deductive in nature and using an event study approach, this paper uses a sample of 675 deals between 1999 and 2006 to test three research hypotheses in a pre-post setting.

Results show that at the aggregate level, there is a significant improvement in the market performance of US acquirers around the announcement day in the aftermath of the passage of SOX 2002. Considered separately, both US stock acquirers and cash acquirers did not experience any significant improvement in market performance in the post-Sarbanes–Oxley period. These results are robust to controlling for governance, firm and deal variables, as well as industry and year fixed effects.

Exploratory in nature, the results are to be interpreted in light of the sample size and the period under investigation.

The results provide evidence for regulators and legislators on the contribution of SOX 2002 to curbing managerial misconduct. Significant improvement in the market performance also signals more confidence in managerial decisions and a reduction in agency problems. The insignificant change in stock acquirers’ market performance can be an indication that policymakers should exert more efforts to improve shareholders' confidence in the quality of disclosure.

This investigation provides unique insights on whether SOX has been effective in mitigating mispricing concerns associated with stock-financed acquisitions and whether it was effective in moderating the governance mechanism associated with cash-financed acquisitions.

Taking advantage of a unique measure of corporate culture obtained from advanced machine learning algorithms, this study aims to explore how corporate culture strength is influenced by board independence, which is one of the most crucial aspects of the board of directors. Because of their independence from the corporation, outside independent directors are more likely to be unbiased. As a result, board independence is commonly used as a proxy for board quality.

In addition to the standard regression analysis, the authors execute a variety of additional tests, i.e. propensity score matching, an instrumental variable analysis, Lewbel’s (2012) heteroscedastic identification and Oster’s (2019) testing for coefficient stability.

The results show that stronger board independence, measured by a higher proportion of independent directors, is significantly associated with corporate culture. In particular, a rise in board independence by one standard deviation results in an improvement in corporate culture by 32.8%.

Conducting empirical research on corporate culture is incredibly difficult due to the inherent difficulties in recognizing and assessing corporate culture, resulting in a lack of empirical research on corporate culture in the literature. The authors fill this important void in the literature. Exploiting a novel measure of corporate culture based on textual analysis, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to link corporate culture to corporate governance with a specific focus on board independence.

This paper aims to investigate how the passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) impacted the likelihood and timing of the decision of leveraged buyout (LBO) firms to exit via initial public offering (IPO) (reverse-LBO) and the mediating effect of reputed private equity (PE) firms.

The sample comprises firms that went private via LBO between 1990 and 2018. The authors use logistic and ordinary least square regression models to compare the effect of SOX on the re-listing decision and the time taken to re-list.

LBO firms were less likely to exit via public offering after SOX, and the time from LBO to IPO was significantly longer for exiting firms post-SOX. PE firm reputation partially reversed the reluctance to exit via IPO and shortened the time to exit.

The primary focus is RLBOs; the authors do not directly examine other methods of LBO exit. The findings have policy implications for unintended impacts of SOX. Despite the benefits of increasing transparency and protecting investors, SOX reduced the likelihood of going public and increased the time to IPO, potentially reducing product market competition.

RLBOs present a unique experimental setting as the authors can test the impact of SOX on both the likelihood and time to go public, whereas prior literature using first-time IPO samples are able to test only the likelihood. The authors also show that the reputation of the advising PE firm attenuates the reluctance and time taken for RLBOs to re-list. The authors are, thus, able to provide a new perspective on the impact of SOX on the going public decision.

This study aims to examine whether two periods of extreme market conditions – the governance crisis and Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulatory shock of 2002 and the 2007–2008 global financial crisis – incrementally impacted the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, by examining the propensity of US firms receiving going concern modification (GCM) opinions to go bankrupt relative to their non-GCM distress risk-matched counterparts during these two crisis periods.

To assess the potential influence of the governance/regulatory shock of 2002 and the global financial crisis moderate or mitigate the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, the authors use multivariate logit analysis, regressing t + 1 bankruptcy status on time t GCM and other bankruptcy determinants, interacting crisis period dummies with the GCM variable.

GCM firms were more likely to declare bankruptcy than their distressed non-GCM counterparts, confirming prior research documenting the existence of a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. The authors also find that the self-fulfilling prophecy effect was exacerbated by the governance crisis/Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulatory shock, but not the global financial crisis, a financial/banking sector shock.

This study contributes to the financial crisis and auditing literatures by examining whether exogenous shocks exacerbate the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. The present analysis and findings have implications for future academic research related to systemic shocks and for auditors in documenting the inducement effect arising from the issuance of GCMs during crisis periods.

Exploiting a novel measure of innovation, the authors investigate whether independent directors improve innovation efficiency. This novel measure of innovation captures the extent to which the firm generates revenue from its research & development and is, therefore, more economically meaningful. The authors also use a text-based measure of innovation.

The authors rely on a quasi-natural experiment based on the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that compelled certain firms to raise board independence. The difference-in-difference analysis is far less vulnerable to endogeneity and is more likely to show a causal influence, rather than a mere association.

The results show that more independent directors improve innovation efficiency significantly. Specifically, firms forced to raise board independence experienced a much higher increase in innovation than those not required to change their board composition. The authors also explore another novel measure of innovation, a text-based metric of innovation.

The research is original in several ways. First, the authors take advantage of an exogenous regulatory shock as a quasi-natural experiment. This approach is far less susceptible to endogeneity. Second, the authors use a novel measure of innovation efficiency, i.e. research quotient, which is more economically meaningful. Finally, the authors use a unique measure of innovation derived from powerful textual analysis.

As the influence of institutional investors over managerial decision-making grows, so does the importance of understanding the effect of institutional investor ownership (IO) on firm outcomes. The authors take a comprehensive approach to studying the effect of IO on earnings management (EM).

The authors study the relation between IO and EM using a sample of 59,503 listed U.S. firm-year observations from 1981–2019. The authors proxy EM with earnings surprises and with accrual-based and real activity measures. The authors test for nonlinear relations and analyze changes resulting from the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act.

The findings support a positive IO-EM relation overall, but show that the relation is dynamic and heavily context-dependent with evidence of nonlinearity. The authors also find evidence that IO positively affects accrual-based EM and real activities EM negatively.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of the IO-EM relation to consider evidence of nonlinearity in the U.S. context, measuring changes to the relation over time, and with the use of several measures of EM.