Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

Posts

  • 1-7 of 7
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    CEO Power, Internal Control Quality, and Audit Committee...
    research summary posted October 12, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 13.0 Governance, 13.02 Board/Financial Experts, 14.0 Corporate Matters, 14.11 Audit Committee Effectiveness 
    Title:
    CEO Power, Internal Control Quality, and Audit Committee Effectiveness in Substance versus in Form
    Practical Implications:

     The findings of this paper have significant policy implications and are important to shareholders. While regulators have set rules to improve audit committee effectiveness, the reforms may not change the substantive effectiveness in certain cases, one case being that the CEO has too much power. The authors provide empirical evidence showing that the negative association between audit committee financial expertise and internal control weaknesses becomes weak when the CEO is powerful. The result implies requiring audit committee to possess certain characteristics, such as financial expertise and fully independence, may not be sufficient to strengthen the underlying substance of monitoring effectiveness. The findings are consistent with evidences from survey and interview studies that argue top management ultimately determine the effectiveness of audit committee. The authors also show a powerful CEO can affect the substantive effectiveness even though he/she is prohibited from selecting audit committee members under the SOX Act. Finally, the findings raise concerns over the common practice of CEO duality in the U.S. A CEO, being the chairman of the board at the same time, can adversely affect audit committee effectiveness.

    Citation:

    Lisic, L. L., T. L. Neal, I. X. Zhang, and Y. Zhang. 2016. CEO Power, Internal Control Quality, and Audit Committee Effectiveness in Substance versus in Form. Contemporary Accounting Research 33 (3): 1199–1237.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Auditor Communications with the Audit Committee and the...
    research summary posted March 31, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 13.0 Governance, 13.02 Board/Financial Experts, 13.05 Board/Audit Committee Oversight 
    Title:
    Auditor Communications with the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors: Policy Recommendations and Opportunities for Future Research.
    Practical Implications:

    The review identifies insights for practice and opportunities for research on communication issues between the auditor, the audit committee, and the board. The authors strongly believe that the academic and the practice communities must have a continual dialogue so that standards reflect research, and research is directed to issues with the greatest potential to positively affect public policy. These implications should interest the PCAOB, the SEC, other standard-setters, and regulators that focus on issues related to corporate governance and financial reporting quality.

    Citation:

    Cohen, J., L. M. Gaynor, G. Krishnamoorthy, and A. M. Wright. 2007. Auditor Communications with the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors: Policy Recommendations and Opportunities for Future Research. Accounting Horizons 21 (2): 165-187.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Busyness, Expertise, and Financial Reporting Quality of...
    research summary posted July 20, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 13.0 Governance, 13.01 Board/Audit Committee Composition, 13.02 Board/Financial Experts, 13.05 Board/Audit Committee Oversight 
    Title:
    Busyness, Expertise, and Financial Reporting Quality of Audit Committee Chairs and Financial Experts
    Practical Implications:

    This research makes important contributions to understanding the factors associated with audit committee monitoring effectiveness in the post-SOX period. This study provides additional support for already existing research that both busy audit committee chairs and busy audit committee financial experts may result in overall lower financial reporting quality. These results are important for firms to consider in order to understand how the effectiveness of the audit committee can be affected by these key roles.

    For more information on this study, please contact Paul Tanyi.

    Citation:

    Tanyi, P. N. and D. B. Smith. 2015. Busyness, expertise, and financial reporting quality of audit committee chairs and financial experts. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 34 (2): 59-89.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Audit Committee Director-Auditor Interlocking and...
    research summary posted March 2, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.05 Impact of SOX, 13.0 Governance, 13.02 Board/Financial Experts, 14.0 Corporate Matters, 14.11 Audit Committee Effectiveness 
    Title:
    Audit Committee Director-Auditor Interlocking and Perceptions of Earnings Quality
    Practical Implications:

    This study is important to provide an insight into the personal relationships and familiarity between audit committee directors and external auditors in terms of auditor independence. Furthermore, our examination of AC director-auditor interlocking provides a more complete basis for understanding the effectiveness of corporate governance in guarding earnings quality. The results not only support the view that AC director-auditor interlocking positively affects investors’ perception of earnings quality, but also support the regulatory requirement that audit committees include at least one financial expert.

    For more information on this study, please contact Jeng-Fang Chen.

    Citation:

    Chen, J.-F., Y.-Y. Chou, R.-R. Duh, and Y.-C. Lin. 2014. Audit committee director-auditor interlocking and perceptions of earnings quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 33 (4): 41-70

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Accounting Expertise...
    research summary posted December 1, 2014 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 13.0 Governance, 13.01 Board/Audit Committee Composition, 13.02 Board/Financial Experts 
    Title:
    An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Accounting Expertise in Audit Committees on Non-GAAP Earnings Exclusions
    Practical Implications:

    Given the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) current proposal for auditors to provide assurance on non-GAAP information or earnings releases, the results of this study are important for regulators and boards of directors in their evaluation of the desirable attributes for audit committee financial experts. This study suggests that the audit committee financial expert designation is likely best held by a director who brings to the table more than just supervisory experience over the financial reporting function; lessons gained from actually performing financial accounting functions seem to enhance the audit committee’s ability to monitor management’s non-GAAP financial measures and rationale for excluding charges as infrequent, unusual or nonrecurring.

    For more information on this study, please contact Xu (Frank) Wang.

    Citation:

    Seetharaman, A., X. Wang, and S. Zhang. 2014. An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Accounting Expertise in Audit Committees on Non-GAAP Earnings Exclusions. Accounting Horizons 28(1): 17-37.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    The Role of Firm Status in Appointments of Accounting...
    research summary posted June 7, 2014 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 04.0 Independence and Ethics, 04.08 Impact of SEC Rules Changes/SarbOx, 13.0 Governance, 13.02 Board/Financial Experts, 14.0 Corporate Matters, 14.11 Audit Committee Effectiveness 
    Title:
    The Role of Firm Status in Appointments of Accounting Financial Experts to Audit Committees
    Practical Implications:

    The primary contribution of this study is finding that status-related concerns can prevent firms from appointing AFEs to their boards. This result has clear implications for regulators, as firms without AFEs are more likely to encounter accounting reporting problems. Specifically, recent regulation changes by the SEC to introduce a more broad definition of “financial expert” may damage the improvement of financial reporting that was intended by SOX. This research is consistent with previous findings that directors’ concerns for firm status and their own welfare can negatively affect accounting reporting quality. 

    Citation:

    Erkens, D. H., and S. E. Bonner. 2013. The Role of Firm Status in Appointments of Accounting Financial Experts to Audit Committees. The Accounting Review 88 (1): 107–136.

    Home:

    home button

  • The Auditing Section
    Audit Committee Financial Expertise, Litigation Risk, and...
    research summary posted April 23, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 13.0 Governance, 13.01 Board/Audit Committee Composition, 13.02 Board/Financial Experts 
    Title:
    Audit Committee Financial Expertise, Litigation Risk, and Corporate Governance
    Practical Implications:

    Based on the positive relation between litigation risk and the likelihood of appointing an accounting financial expert, this study suggests that firms with a demand for accounting financial experts are able to obtain accounting financial experts for their audit committees.  However, this relation is only present in the presence of good governance.  The authors suggest that this follows because either (1) only firms with good corporate governance seek to appoint accounting financial experts or (2) only firms with good corporate governance can attract accounting financial experts.

    Citation:

    Krishnan, J., and J.E. Lee. 2009. Audit Committee Financial Expertise, Litigation Risk, and Corporate Governance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 28 (May): 241-261.

    Home:
    home button

Filter by Type

Filter by Tag