This study empirically examines the relation between certain board of director characteristics and the extent that audit committee composition voluntarily exceeds minimum mandated levels and includes outside directors with financial reporting and audit committee knowledge and experience. This study focuses on board characteristics as the board directly controls audit committee membership. Such staffing decisions can directly affect the ability of the audit committee to monitor management's financial reporting process on behalf of the board. Results suggests that Canadian firms which voluntarily include more outside directors on the audit committee than the mandated minimum have larger boards with more outsiders serving on those boards and are more likely to segregate the board chairperson position from the CEO/president positions. Additionally, firms who voluntarily create audit committees composed of outsider members with a breadth of relevant financial reporting and audit committee knowledge and experience have boards that are larger, have more outside members, and are less likely to be chaired by the CEO/president. Implications of these findings for auditors, institutional investors, regulators and other interested parties are discussed.
In this paper, we empirically examine the relationship between two audit committee characteristics - the composition (expertise and independence) and size of the audit committee - and the quality of financial reporting. We show that after controlling for firm size, board composition, a measure of management's commitment to transparency (the existence of an ethics program) and institutional ownership, the percentage of audit committee members having expertise in accounting or financial management is positively related to financial reporting quality. We also find some evidence of a positive relationship between the size of the audit committee and financial reporting quality. However, audit committee independence is not related to financial reporting quality. We also verify that our results are robust across different measures of financial reporting quality. Our results suggest that mandating greater expertise on audit committees rather than simply requiring one expert on the audit committee may be beneficial to investors. In addition, our results also provide weak support for the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Committee that firms devote significant directorial resources to the audit committee. Given the prior evidence of a negative relationship between financial reporting quality and cost of capital, firms could improve their reporting quality by appropriately structuring their audit committees, thus reducing their cost of capital.
Using the exogenous reforms to audit committees mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and a difference-in-difference approach, we examine the impact of changes in audit committee attributes (financial expertise, size, and independence) on firms' audit inputs and financial reporting quality. Firms directly affected by the reforms experienced a larger improvement in audit inputs (measured by audit fees and the appointment of an industry specialist auditor) and a larger increase in financial reporting quality (measured by restatements of financial reports) relative to firms that were already compliant. Importantly, we find that the decline in restatements is not related to the improvement in audit inputs. This suggests that larger, more independent, and more competent audit committees are better able to detect misstatements or deter opportunistic reporting by management, independent of the level of audit input quality. The results therefore provide justification for the audit committee reforms.
Prior research examines the relation between board characteristics and financial reporting violations relating to fraud and earnings overstatement. This paper examines the relation between governance (as measured by board and audit committee characteristics) and accounting quality (as measured by abnormal accruals) where there is no a priori reason to suspect systematic management of earnings. We find both board size and audit committee independence are related to higher quality accounting (i.e., lower abnormal working capital accruals). Furthermore, the relation between audit committee independence and higher quality accounting exists only when the abnormal accruals are income increasing. This suggests that audit committees are effective in the financial reporting process by reducing the level of income increasing abnormal accruals. The results also indicate that audit committees are effective only when they comprise independent directors.
Academic Paper from the year 2020 in the subject Business economics - Business Management, Corporate Governance, grade: 1,3, Maastricht University, language: English, abstract: The board of directors is an important organizational institution, whose purpose is to reduce the agency problem inherited by the management of a firm. However, because of various accounting frauds and failures in corporate governance in the history of larger corporations, there is increasing public attention regarding the effectiveness of a board and how a perfect board should be designed to increase their oversight quality. Because of these many researchers investigated this topic. This paper reviews recent academic research regarding the characteristics of a perfect board of directors. Firstly, the paper analyses different board characteristics, then it investigates the importance of the composition and size of the audit committee.
The Audit Committee Handbook, Fifth Edition The Audit Committee Handbook, Fifth Edition guides you to: Understand the role and responsibilities of the audit committee with a general update and reality check on auditing cycle activities Identify the developments that impact audit committee practices and the most current techniques and strategies for committee meetings Develop a repertoire of effective strategies to help the board of directors discharge its fiduciary responsibility to shareholders Prepare a periodic assessment of professional development activities and an informed review of both audit processes and financial reporting processes A must-have for all audit committee members, board directors, corporate secretaries, CEOs, CFOs, and auditors involved in the accounting practices of their firms, The Audit Committee Handbook, Fifth Edition is the most authoritative work on audit committees in the marketplace.
You took the highly coveted position on the board or audit committee--now it’s time to figure out what you’re doing. And with SEC scrutiny at an all-time high, there is little room for growing pains. Boards and audit committees can now be held liable for acts of fraud and other corporate malfeasance even if they had no knowledge of wrongdoing in the organization.But relax! This comprehensive and practical guide greatly simplifies complex corporate governance standards, while mitigating the risks involved in the arduous work and increasing dramatically the positive effect over the enterprise that motivated you to take the position you did. Inside these essential pages, discover 10 crucial steps every governing body should take, including:• Cultivate independence • Build a balanced team • Address stakeholder concerns • Approach risk proactively • Spearhead fraud deterrence initiatives • And moreYou should be commended for taking on the duties you have, not intimidated. With this invaluable resource by your side, you can learn how best to satisfy the requirements of board service while also protecting yourself, the other board members, and the organization you have committed to lead to success.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) continues to reform the corporate governance mechanisms in order to improve the quality of financial reporting and thus, enhance the confidence of investors in the stock market and in the accounting profession. Despite the efforts of the SEC, financial reporting scandals continue with record numbers of financial restatements documented by the General Accounting Office. A financial restatement is a correction of a previously misstated financial statement. There is a small volume of literature examining the effects of corporate governance mechanisms on financial restatements. The results of these studies however, are mixed and possibly explained by their narrow focus and omitted variables that could influence the effectiveness of audit committees. Consequently, this study examines the effects of independent audit committee member characteristics and auditor independence on financial restatements. Specifically, this study investigates the relationship between the likelihood of financial restatements and: (1) the expertise of the independent audit committee members, (2) the expertise and diligence of the independent audit committee members, (3) the reputation of the independent audit committee members, (4) the interaction effect of expertise, diligence and reputation, (5) the tenure of the independent audit committee members, and (6) the cash compensation paid to independent audit committee members. Prior studies have not investigated some of these variables or the interaction effects of independent audit committee member characteristics on financial restatements. This study also investigates the association between auditor independence and financial restatements. The SEC alleges that an increasing number of audit failures are due to the lack of auditor independence. One of the major sources of the lack of auditor independence is the auditor's economic dependency on the client. The provision of non-audit services increases the financial reliance of the auditor on the client. As a result, the auditor may become reluctant to raise issues with the preparation of the financial statements at the risk of foregoing the lucrative non-audit services fees. The SEC believes that longer audit firm tenure can also impair auditor independence and Section 203 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act suggests periodic audit firm rotation. Therefore, auditor independence was measured as: (1) fees paid to the auditor, and (2) audit firm tenure. Finally, this study extends the prior literature by studying the interaction effects of independent audit committee member characteristics and auditor independence on financial restatements. This interaction effect is important because the external auditor and the audit committee are regarded vital governance mechanisms that interact and exchange dialogue in the performance of their respective oversight of the financial reporting process. Prior research has not investigated this important interaction effect. The sample of the study comprises 69 U.S. publicly listed companies that announced their restatement from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002. These companies were matched with 69 non-restatement companies based on industry and size. The data for the study is derived from SEC filings such as Form 10-K and DEF 14A, and Compustat. The univariate results show that compared to restatement firms, non-restatement firms generally have effective audit committee characteristics. The audit committees of non-restatement firms have members who are experts, diligent, reputable and appropriately compensated. They also pay lower non-audit services and total fees, and have audit firms with longer tenure. The multivariate results show that after controlling for other governance structures and firm specific non-governance variables, the likelihood of financial restatements is related to independent audit committee member characteristics and auditor independence. Specifically, the likelihood of financial restatements decreases when independent audit committee members are: (1) experts, (2) experts and diligent, (3) reputable, (4) experts, diligent and reputable, and (5) appropriately compensated. The audit committee member tenure variable is insignificant. In relation to the auditor independence variables, the multivariate results show that the likelihood of financial restatements increases when the non-audit services and total fees generated by the client are higher. On the other hand, the likelihood of financial restatements decreases when audit firm tenure is longer. The empirical results of this study suggest that independent audit committees are more effective overseers of the corporate financial reporting and auditing processes when: they comprise majority experts, they meet regularly, their members are reputable, and audit committee members are appropriately compensated. On the other hand, external auditors are not deemed to be effective overseers of the corporate financial reporting process when the non-audit services and total fees generated by the client are higher but are effective when audit firm tenure is long. The results support the SEC's concerns regarding the provision of non-audit services impairing auditor independence. The results also support the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which under Section 201 prohibits external auditors from providing certain non-audit services to its audit client. Overall, these results support the regulatory efforts to increase the quality of financial reporting by enhancing the corporate governance process related to audit committees and auditor independence. However, the results do not support calls to limit the tenure of the auditor. The results of the multivariate interaction effects suggest that, after controlling for other governance structures and firm specific non-governance variables, when the non-audit services and total fees generated by the client are higher, the likelihood of financial restatements increases under conditions when the audit committee is not effective (a non expert audit committee, an audit committee that does not meet regularly, an audit committee whose members are not reputable or an audit committee that is not appropriately compensated). The implication of this result is that it provides evidence of conditions under which restatements take place. Knowledge of such conditions could aid regulators further improve the financial reporting process and corporate governance. This knowledge will support regulators in revising policies that ensure audit committee members are not only independent but also comprise other critical qualities. These improvements to the audit committee coupled with the existing regulations on the provision of non-audit services suggest a company's governance will be more effective. Overall, the results extend current knowledge in the sparse but growing literature related to financial restatements and corporate governance, and extend our understanding of the effectiveness and interaction of governance mechanisms in reducing financial restatements.
In this important new book, the European Auditing Research Network gives a timely appraisal of the regulatory environment for financial accounting and auditing in the wake of a series of high profile scandals involving major corporations.
