Search results

This chapter examines the current state of crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs). It focuses on issues preventing wider implementation and specific products. ETFs have become a popular investment vehicle that investors use to help achieve their long-term goals. A recurring theme is that regulators protect individual investors from direct exposure to cryptocurrency, which many view as highly speculative investments. Pressure from institutions and investors for a bitcoin-based ETF made progress in 2021 when Proshares, an ETF specialized investment company, debuted the first-ever bitcoin futures ETF in the United States. This event is the first-time investors could buy a fund on the New York Stock Exchange that tracks derivative futures contracts of bitcoin. This occurrence pushed this digital asset’s spot price to all-time highs, serving as a breakthrough in cryptocurrency history.

This chapter discusses legal considerations relating to digital assets. The legal aspects of tokenized and non-tokenized assets are evolving. Although some states have enacted specific laws or regulations for digital assets, Congress and federal agencies have been slower to craft specific rules and regulations for such assets. As a result, regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Internal Revenue Service, and market participants must apply existing guidance to digital assets. This chapter examines applying specific aspects of federal securities and tax law to digital assets. It also discusses general business law considerations for blockchain and cyber enterprises. The discussion of state law applications centers on the New York Virtual Currency License and Wyoming and Delaware crypto initiatives. This chapter does not provide a comprehensive review of all legal issues related to cryptocurrency. Each legal issue about cryptocurrency is complex and requires separate analyses.

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.

Part IV provides readers with the extant requirements for the application of materiality to recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure in the financial statements. This part also includes a detailed critical review of the recent Practice Statement on materiality, the FASB’s proposed ASU on the notes and the amendments to the Conceptual Framework proposed by the IASB and the FASB.

The part expands to issues that are typical of Management Commentary, including the SEC guidance on materiality in Management Discussion and Analysis.

It informs about the complexities and subtle differences between financial statements and bookkeeping and the different standards of reasonableness versus materiality.

A section moves from materiality to material misstatements and covers the application of materiality in auditing.

Another section goes in depth on internal control over financial reporting, showing the linkages between materiality and risk appetite and risk tolerance and the related application guidance.

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 United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an interpretative release ostensibly mandating the disclosure of the impact that climate change may have on the registrant. One means of enforcement for this release is through the use of comment letters. Prior empirical studies have supported the argument that the SEC oversight through issuing comment letters is effective in enhancing the quality of firms’ disclosures (Asthana & Boone, 2009; Johnston & Petacchi, 2017). With a total of 27 comment letter cases (34 comments based on the topics) regarding climate change disclosure, we do not find clear evidence strongly supporting that the SEC implements its oversight process through systematic procedures and that SEC comment letters enhance the quality of firms’ climate change disclosure. Although some firms responded to the comments proactively, qualitative analysis reveals that the firm’s revisions were not sufficient to provide useful information for market participants in general. The overall finding suggests that the current oversight mechanism for climate change disclosure needs to be significantly improved to enhance the quality of firms’ climate change disclosure.

This case examines critical ethical accounting practice issues surrounding a request for proposal for audit services at Aviary Corporation based on a real Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action. Audit and tax partners at Western Accounting Firm, a large international public accounting firm, used confidential information obtained from the company’s Chief Audit Officer to modify their proposal for audit services. In response to their actions, the Securities and Exchange Commission fined the auditing firm, the partners, and the Chief Audit Executive. The authors used publicly available information and adopted fictitious names to develop a teaching case that instructors can implement in a variety of accounting and ethics classes to increase students’ understanding of professional codes of conduct and independence guidance.