Search results

This synthesis covers academic research on the use of valuation, tax, information technology (IT), and forensic specialists on audit engagements. The importance and role of specialists on audit engagements have recently increased, and specialist use has garnered significant attention from regulators and academics. Given the PCAOB’s (2017b) recent proposal to revise auditing standards regarding specialists’ involvement, it is important to review the specialist literature as a whole. By integrating research across these four domains, I identify commonalities and differences related to: (1) factors associated with the use of specialists on audit engagements (including the nature, timing, and extent of use); (2) factors impacting auditors’ interactions with specialists (including specialists contracted by the auditor or management); and (3) outcomes associated with the use of specialists. This integrated analysis of the specialist literatures shows variation in the use of specialists, and various factors affecting both if and how they are involved and whether auditors use specialists internal or external to the audit firm. Additionally, research has sometimes (but not always) linked specialist involvement to higher audit quality. The commonalities and areas of variation identified are informative to audit research and practice, particularly as regulators and audit firms look to improve the quality of audits using specialists. Throughout the synthesis, I also provide a number of directions for future research.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

This paper is an empirical study of outsourcing practices in the banking sector in India. The purpose of the paper is to investigate the impact of factors which influence the decision makers' attitude towards outsourcing.

Based on a review of the existing literature, an attitudinal model of outsourcing was developed. This model was used to: identify the key factors of benefits, risks, roadblocks, and criticality of outsourcing; develop the instrument to measure the factors; and formulate hypotheses concerning the impact of these factors. The constructs in the instrument that measured these factors were validated by factor analysis.

The impacts of perceived benefits, perceived roadblocks, and perceived criticality on the attitudes towards outsourcing were found to be strong and statistically significant. The impact of perceived risk was weak and statistically insignificant. The model explaining the combined impact of these four factors on outsourcing attitudes was also statistically significant.

An important insight from this study is that the clients, at least in the banking sector in India, tend to value in outsourcing quality factors such as process improvement, services improvement and cost transparency more than cost savings. The results of the study provide a basis for rethinking the value proposition offered by outsourcing vendors and for refocusing the research on outsourcing of services in particular.

While most studies on outsourcing tend to be theoretical and/or focus on outsourcing from developed to developing countries, this is an empirical study focusing on outsourcing by organizations based in developing countries such as India. Therefore, the results are not confounded by differences in culture‐specific communications, business practices, and regulatory regimes between the countries.

To discuss the scope and limits of the compliance department's responsibilities in securities firms.

Describes the background to establishing stand‐alone compliance departments; the organizational structure of compliance departments; typical compliance functions; how the compliance department coordinates with business units, senior management, internal audit, and risk management; the distinction between a firm's responsibility to comply with applicable laws and regulations and the role of the compliance department; the distinctions between responsibilities of the compliance department and those of supervisors and senior management; and emerging regulatory trends impacting the compliance department.

New business activities and new regulations have placed increased demands on, and scrutiny of, compliance activities over the past few years. Regulators are looking to compliance departments to play an increasingly important role in identifying proactively and responding to potential wrongdoing.

Explains the critical importance of a well staffed, experienced, and adequately funded compliance department.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse regulatory reform in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007‐2008.

The paper proposes a framework for regulatory reform that begins with the observation that financial manias and panics cannot be legislated away, and may be an unavoidable aspect of modern capitalism.

Financial crises are unavoidable when hardwired human behavior – fear and greed, or “animal spirits” – is combined with free enterprise, and cannot be legislated or regulated away. Like hurricanes and other forces of nature, market bubbles, and crashes cannot be entirely eliminated, but their most destructive consequences can be greatly mitigated with proper preparation. In fact, the most damaging effects of financial crisis come not from loss of wealth, but rather from those who are unprepared for such losses and panic in response. This perspective has several implications for the types of regulatory reform needed in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007‐2008, all centered around the need for greater transparency, improved measures of systemic risk, more adaptive regulations, including counter‐cyclical leverage constraints, and more emphasis on financial literacy starting in high school, including certifications for expertise in financial engineering for the senior management and directors of all financial institutions.

The paper stresses how we must resist the temptation to react too hastily to market events, and deliberate thoughtfully and broadly, instead, craft new regulations for the financial system of the twenty‐first century. Financial markets do not need more regulation; they need smarter and more effective regulation.

Part V analyzes the details of how to assess materiality. It first tackles qualitative versus quantitative criteria and the role of professional judgment. It then analyzes the selection of quantitative threshold, to expand to the choice of benchmarks. It contrasts the whole financial statements with subaggregates, line items, and components.

Specific sections contrast IASB, FASB, SEC, and other guidance on materiality applied to comparative information, interim reporting, and segment reporting.

The section on estimates mingles complex guidance coming from accounting, auditing, and internal control over financial reporting to explain how the management can improve its assessment of materiality concerning estimates.

After explaining the techniques to move from individual to cumulative misstatements, the part tackles verification ex post, and finally summarizes the intricacies of whether immaterial misstatements are permissible and their consequences.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

This paper aims to investigate the attributes and information content of risk reporting in two different institutional and regulatory, namely, Canadian and German, settings during the period surrounding the financial crisis of 2008.

For a matched sample of manufacturing firms in the period 2006–2010, this study conducts a detailed content analysis of annual reports to assess and compare the volume and patterns of risk disclosures. Panel regressions are used to explore how risk disclosures related to corporate risk proxies and performance indicators.

Over the sample period, Canadian and German firms increase the volume but largely maintain the patterns of risk disclosures. Risk disclosures relate to corporate risk proxies but are not incrementally informative to assess firm performance.

The paper contributes to research on risk reporting by providing detailed cross-country evidence for a period particularly shaped by significant risk. The findings have implications for the regulation and usefulness of risk reporting.

In a bid to enhance the stability of banks, supervisory authorities in sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) have also adopted international bank regulatory standards based on the Basel core principles. This paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of these regulations in mitigating Bank risk (instability) in SSA. The focus of empirical analysis is on examining the implications of four regulations (capital, activity restrictions, supervisory power and market discipline) on risk-taking behaviour of banks.

This paper uses two dimensions of financial stability in relation to two different sources of bank risk: solvency risk and liquidity risk. This paper uses information from the World Bank Regulatory Survey database to construct regulation indices on activity restrictions and the three regulations pertaining to the three pillars of Basel II, i.e. capital, supervisory power and market discipline. The paper then uses a two-step system generalised method of moments estimator to estimate the impact of each regulation on solvency and liquidity risk.

The overall results show that: regulations pertaining to capital (Pillar 1) and market discipline (Pillar 3) are effective in reducing solvency risk; and regulations pertaining to supervisory power (Pillar 2) and activity restrictions increase liquidity risk (i.e. reduce bank stability).

Given some evidence from other studies which show that market power (competition) tends to condition the effect of regulations on bank stability, it would have been more informative to examine whether this is really the case in SSA, given the low levels of competition in some countries. This study is limited in this regard.

The key policy implications from the study findings are three-fold: bank supervisory agencies in SSA should prioritise the adoption of Pillars 1 and 3 of the Basel II framework as an effective policy response to enhance the stability of the banking system; a universal banking model is more stability enhancing; and there is a trade-off between stronger supervisory power and liquidity stability that needs to be properly managed every time regulatory agencies increase their supervisory mandate.

This paper provides new evidence on which Pillars of the Basel II regulatory framework are more effective in reducing bank risk in SSA. This paper also shows that the way regulations affect solvency risk is different from that of liquidity risk – an approach that allows for case specific policy interventions based on the type of bank risk under consideration. Ignoring this dual dimension of bank stability can thus lead to erroneous policy inferences.

Part III reviews the uses and effects of materiality as an accounting, legal, audit, and managerial concept. After mentioning several uses of materiality as a legal concept and explaining the FASB’s proposed direction to avoid an accounting definition, it goes in depth to the differences in the respective definitions, applications, practical interactions, and different nature of the legal and accounting views. It then draws on the differences between audit and accounting uses of materiality.

It counterbalances the interests and positions of the various stakeholders involved, such as investors, preparers, standard-setters, auditors, regulators, financial analysts, and other users of the financial statements. It shows that those who regulate, use, decide, and assess materiality are different subjects.

Finally, the part capitalizes on the author’s vast experience in industry to theorize a plethora of alternative and complementary models of materiality with their pros and cons.