Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

Search results

1 – 10 of 788
To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 30 September 2019

Making Crime Pay: Timing of External Whistleblowing

Andrea M. Scheetz and Joseph Wall

With the increasing prevalence of awards for reporting fraudulent activity, it is important to learn if there are unintended consequences associated with the language…

HTML
PDF (2.7 MB)
EPUB (613 KB)

Abstract

With the increasing prevalence of awards for reporting fraudulent activity, it is important to learn if there are unintended consequences associated with the language offering such awards. Aside from issues regarding submitting unsubstantiated claims of fraud to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Section 922 of the Dodd–Frank Act may inadvertently encourage would-be whistleblowers to delay reporting fraud. Potential whistleblowers may choose to delay reporting due to the consideration of alternatives to external reporting, in a misguided attempt to increase the size of an award, or due to their ethical stance on the issues. Using a three-stage mixed methods (experiment, open-ended interviews, and experiment) approach, this study provides evidence that increased knowledge of statutes involving external whistleblowing may result in reporting delays. The data suggest that despite statements from the SEC forbidding this, managers may choose to delay reporting when under the threshold necessary to receive an award. In such a manner, managers may be allowing the fraud to grow to a necessary perceived level over time. As might be expected, the accountants in this study were more cautious, checking to see if internal reporting worked first. Of particular note, 16 individuals indicated that they would never report, with the motivation apparently driven by fear of job loss and/or retaliation. Lastly, the intention to delay or speed up reporting may be very different based on the perception of ethics involved in the decision.

Details

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting
Type: Book
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1574-076520190000022003
ISBN: 978-1-78973-370-9

Keywords

  • The Dodd–Frank Act
  • whistleblowing
  • fraud
  • reporting
  • wrongdoing
  • fraud materiality

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 12 September 2019

The impact of Sarbanes–Oxley and Dodd–Frank on executive compensation

Linda Hughen, Mahfuja Malik and Eunsup Daniel Shim

The recent economic and political focus on rising income inequality and the extent of government intervention into pay policies has renewed the interest in executive…

HTML
PDF (381 KB)

Abstract

Purpose

The recent economic and political focus on rising income inequality and the extent of government intervention into pay policies has renewed the interest in executive compensation. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of changing regulatory landscapes on executive pay and its components.

Design/methodology/approach

This study examines a recent 23-year period divided into three distinct intervals separated by two major regulatory changes, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) and the Dodd–Frank Act. Bonus, long-term and total compensation are separately modeled as a function of each regulatory change while controlling for firm size, performance and year. The model is estimated using panel data with firm fixed effects. An industry analysis is also conducted to examine sector variations.

Findings

Total compensation increased 29 percent following SOX and 21 percent following Dodd–Frank, above what can be explained by size, firm performance and time. Total compensation increased following both SOX and Dodd–Frank in all industries except for the financial services industry where total compensation was unchanged. Results are robust to using smaller windows around each regulation.

Research limitations/implications

This study does not seek to determine whether executive compensation is at an optimal level at any point in time. Instead, this study focuses only on the change in executive compensation after two specific regulations.

Originality/value

The debate over the extent to which the government should intervene with executive compensation has become a frequent part of political and non-political discourse. This paper provides evidence that over the long-term, regulation does not curtail executive compensation. An important exception is that total compensation was restrained for financial services firms following the Dodd–Frank Act.

Details

Journal of Applied Accounting Research, vol. 20 no. 3
Type: Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-01-2018-0015
ISSN: 0967-5426

Keywords

  • Performance measurement
  • Dodd–Frank Act
  • Sarbanes–Oxley Act
  • Executive compensation
  • Pay-for-performance
  • M41
  • M52
  • M55

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 16 October 2015

Whistleblowing Considerations for External Auditors under Dodd-Frank: A Blueprint for Future Research

Steven Mintz

The Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act sets new whistleblowing standards for internal accountants and external auditors who fail to resolve differences internally with top…

HTML
PDF (323 KB)
EPUB (153 KB)

Abstract

The Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act sets new whistleblowing standards for internal accountants and external auditors who fail to resolve differences internally with top management on financial reporting matters. Whistleblowers are eligible to receive a financial reward under Dodd-Frank if they “voluntarily” provide “original” information and meet other criteria. Interpretation 102-4 of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Code establishes reporting obligations for external auditors to meet the requirements of Dodd-Frank. The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the standards to better understand the whistleblowing process. A review of the literature identifies areas of concern in deciding whether to blow the whistle. The paper contributes to the literature by integrating thoughts, ideas, and issues raised by prior researchers and considerations specific to the whistleblowing process. The analysis results in the proposal of specific unanswered questions about the process that can guide future researchers.

Details

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting
Type: Book
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1574-076520150000019013
ISBN: 978-1-78441-666-9

Keywords

  • Dodd-Frank
  • fraud
  • illegal acts
  • whistleblowing
  • integrity

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 3 September 2018

SEC whistleblower retaliation – and the federal securities laws – after Digital Realty

Aegis Frumento and Stephanie Korenman

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc v. Somers and its significance for whistleblower retaliation…

HTML
PDF (113 KB)

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc v. Somers and its significance for whistleblower retaliation remedies and securities law interpretation generally.

Design methodology approach

The authors review the statutory, regulatory and decisional history of the anti-whistleblower retaliation remedies of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and the Dodd–Frank Act; how they were seen by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and most courts to be in conflict, and how they were ultimately harmonized by the Supreme Court in Digital Realty.

Findings

In Digital Realty, the Supreme Court ruled against the SEC and the leading Courts of Appeal and established that only one who reports securities law violations to the SEC can sue in federal court under the Dodd–Frank Act; all others are limited to the lesser remedies provided by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. This simple conclusion raises a number of unresolved questions, which the authors identify and discuss. Also, the Supreme Court unanimously continued the pattern of federal securities laws decisions marked by a close reading of the text and a desire to limit private litigants’ access to the federal courts.

Originality value

This paper provides valuable information and insights about the legal protections for SEC whistleblowers from experienced securities lawyers and more generally on the principles that appear to guide securities law decisions in the Supreme Court.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 19 no. 3
Type: Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-04-2018-0027
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

  • Retaliation
  • Sarbanes–Oxley Act
  • Whistleblowers
  • Digital Realty Trust, Inc v. Somers
  • Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
  • US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 8 June 2012

Regulatory watch list for 2012: the shifting landscape for hedge funds and other private funds

James M. Cain, Daphne G. Frydman, David Roby, Michael Koffler and Raymond A. Ramirez

The purpose of this paper is to explain legislative and regulatory changes and related developments that will be of interest to hedge funds and other private funds as they…

HTML
PDF (79 KB)

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explain legislative and regulatory changes and related developments that will be of interest to hedge funds and other private funds as they traverse the shifting regulatory landscape in 2012.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper provides a general overview of the new regulatory regime that the Dodd‐Frank Act imposes on over‐the‐counter (OTC) derivatives; describes the rescission of a regulatory exclusion from the commodity pool operator (CPO) definition that was previously available to registered investment companies and the repeal of an exemption from CPO registration requirements for operators of funds whose shares are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933; discusses proposed changes to CPO and commodity trading advisor (CTA) compliance requirements; discusses Dodd‐Frank Act changes to existing securities laws and regulations, including with respect to large trader reporting and investment advisers; highlights some of the concerns raised by MF Global, Inc.’s collapse; and describes recent tax law developments.

Findings

The paper reveals that the Dodd‐Frank Act significantly alters the space within which hedge funds and other private funds currently operate.

Practical implications

Whereas the majority of the regulations to implement the Dodd‐Frank Act have yet to become effective, federal regulators are working diligently to implement their mandates and hedge funds and other private funds should begin preparing to comply with the new Dodd‐Frank Act requirements now.

Originality/value

The paper provides expert guidance by experienced securities, derivatives and tax lawyers.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 13 no. 2
Type: Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/15285811211238093
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

  • Dodd‐Frank Act
  • Commodity pool operator
  • Commodity trading advisor
  • Hedge fund
  • Private fund
  • Commodity markets
  • Hedging
  • Regulation

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 1 March 2015

Legislation induced organizational inefficiency: The case of the federal reserve and the dodd-frank

Ann M. Johnson

In 2010 the Dodd-Frank Law was passed in response to the 2008 recession. However, questions arose regarding the federal agenciesʼ ability to regulate the economy in…

HTML
PDF (314 KB)

Abstract

In 2010 the Dodd-Frank Law was passed in response to the 2008 recession. However, questions arose regarding the federal agenciesʼ ability to regulate the economy in general and the utility of financial regulations in particular. This work examines and discusses the challenges associated with the uncertainty of the administrative environment in which agencies have been drafting regulations in response to Dodd-Frank. A lack of administrative clarity as a result of Congressional politics led to regulatory capture and operational paralysis on the part of federal agencies tasked with implementing the Act. In this type of environment it becomes very difficult for regulatory agencies to be effective and competent when regulations have not all been drafted yet and legislation is continuously changing. This article critically examines the recent proposed changes to the Dodd-Frank Law. Specifically, it delineates the manner in which the legislative instability has impacted the Federal Reserve Bankʼs capacity to effectively implement the necessary rules for mitigating economic risks.

Details

International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, vol. 18 no. 4
Type: Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-18-04-2015-B004
ISSN: 1093-4537

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 15 August 2014

An Examination of the Perceptions of Auditors and Chief Financial Officers of Various Regulations Introduced by the Dodd–Frank Financial Reform Bill

John E. McEnroe and Mark Sullivan

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act calls for substantially increased government regulation. Whether those regulations are, in some sense…

HTML
PDF (290 KB)
EPUB (1.4 MB)

Abstract

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act calls for substantially increased government regulation. Whether those regulations are, in some sense, appropriate is a function of whether the benefits of the increased regulation exceed the costs. Those costs and benefits, however, are probably impossible to measure, at least at this early stage of the implementation of the Dodd–Frank reforms. On the other hand, financial professionals who regularly deal with governmental regulations probably have a good sense of the costs and benefits based on their own experience with other similar regulations. This chapter reports the result of a survey of high-level auditors and CFOs regarding their perceptions of the costs and benefits of the main parts of the financial regulatory reform incorporated into the Dodd–Frank legislation. It concludes that there is support among these individuals for some aspects of Dodd–Frank, but no consensus.

Details

Managing Reality: Accountability and the Miasma of Private and Public Domains
Type: Book
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1041-7060(2013)0000016010
ISBN: 978-1-78052-618-8

Keywords

  • Dodd–Frank
  • financial regulation
  • chief financial officers
  • auditors

To view the access options for this content please click here
Case study
Publication date: 20 January 2017

JPMorgan and the Dodd-Frank Act

George (Yiorgos) Allayannis and Adam Risell

In October, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is preparing for the company's 2010 Q3 earnings conference call and wondering how to address the inevitable questions related…

HTML
PDF (236 KB)
Teaching notes available

Abstract

In October, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is preparing for the company's 2010 Q3 earnings conference call and wondering how to address the inevitable questions related to financial reform. It has been just over two months since the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) had been passed, and there was still much uncertainty as to how JPMorgan should address the reforms. JPMorgan had reported stronger than expected EPS in the third quarter, but analysts were more concerned about what strategic initiatives the CEO would implement in response to the Dodd-Frank Act. The act had introduced wide-ranging and industry-changing reforms that were aimed primarily at fully integrated financial institutions such as JPMorgan. While most of the rulemaking would be forthcoming from regulatory authorities, the CEO knew it would be best to address these issues immediately to protect shareholders by avoiding uncertainty.

Details

Darden Business Publishing Cases, vol. no.
Type: Case Study
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/case.darden.2016.000174
ISSN: 2474-7890
Published by: University of Virginia Darden School Foundation

Keywords

  • financial reform
  • strategic initiatives
  • Dodd-Frank Act
  • regulatory authority

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 25 May 2012

Global financial system reform: the Dodd‐Frank Act and the G20 agenda

Daniel E. Nolle

The Dodd‐Frank Act of 2010 is the keystone policy response directed at reforming US financial system activities and oversight in the wake of the 2007‐2009 financial…

HTML
PDF (194 KB)

Abstract

Purpose

The Dodd‐Frank Act of 2010 is the keystone policy response directed at reforming US financial system activities and oversight in the wake of the 2007‐2009 financial crisis. The USA also has financial system reform policy commitments in the international arena, including in particular by virtue of its membership in the G20. The purpose of this paper is to consider US policy initiatives related to a core dimension of financial system reform: risks posed by systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”).

Design/methodology/approach

The paper provides a deta‘iled comparison of SIFI policy initiatives and timetables under both the Dodd‐Frank Act and the G20 agenda, as reflected in the ongoing work plan of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), and poses the question “Are US domestic and international financial system reform commitments in sync?”

Findings

The study finds that, fundamentally, the answer is “yes.” However, the comparison yields two caveats with potential policy implications. First, the two agendas differ in their relative emphasis on the coverage of both banks and nonbanks. The G20/FSB focus, at least over the near‐term, is bank‐centric compared with the Dodd‐Frank Act, which consistently addresses both bank and nonbank financial firms. Second, implementation of Dodd‐Frank Act provisions is subject to long‐established US law mandating that there be sufficient opportunity for public input into the rulemaking process, whereas the G20/FSB process has been less systematic and transparent on public consultation and feedback.

Practical implications

These observations may be relevant to the current debate over the speed and scope of Dodd‐Frank Act implementation measures, and to the discussion about the future international competitiveness of US banks and nonbank financial firms.

Originality/value

This study is the first to present a detailed, comprehensive comparison of financial system reform initiatives and provisions in the Dodd‐Frank Act and the G20 agenda.

Details

Journal of Financial Economic Policy, vol. 4 no. 2
Type: Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17576381211229005
ISSN: 1757-6385

Keywords

  • United States of America
  • Legislation
  • World economy
  • International finance
  • Financial institutions
  • G20
  • Dodd‐Frank Act
  • Financial Stability Board
  • Financial system reform
  • Global financial system
  • Systemically important financial institutions
  • G‐SIFI
  • G‐SIB

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 14 June 2011

Lower courts extend Morrison but SEC asserts Dodd‐Frank Act overrules Morrison for enforcement actions

James Weidner, Christopher Lane and Sean Peterson

The purpose of this paper is to assess the effects of several lower court decisions, the enactment of the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of July…

HTML
PDF (56 KB)

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to assess the effects of several lower court decisions, the enactment of the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act of July 2010, and subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission statements on the extraterritorial application of Section 10 (b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, following the June 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper discusses the Morrison decision, three lower court decisions following Morrison, Section 929P(b) of the Dodd‐Frank Act, an October 2011 SEC release supporting the Second Circuit's long‐standing “conduct and effects” test, and other expert commentary, and draws interim conclusions, subject to further legal, regulatory and legislative proceedings, concerning the full impact of Morrison on US securities law.

Findings

The full impact of Morrison on US securities law has yet to be seen and will be subject to regulations, legislation and court cases. The interim effect of the decisions issued by lower courts following Morrison is to provide foreign defendants with substantial immunity from private suit under US securities law over securities transactions that occur outside the USA.

Originality/value

This paper provides a useful summary and practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 12 no. 2
Type: Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/15285811111142892
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

  • Legal process
  • Securities
  • Information

Access
Only content I have access to
Only Open Access
Year
  • Last week (1)
  • Last month (4)
  • Last 3 months (13)
  • Last 6 months (35)
  • Last 12 months (71)
  • All dates (788)
Content type
  • Article (573)
  • Book part (151)
  • Expert briefing (35)
  • Earlycite article (17)
  • Case study (8)
  • Executive summary (4)
1 – 10 of 788
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here