Regulatory changes and reporting quality: the moderating role of firm characteristics
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.03
-
Article InfoVolume 17 2019, Issue #2, pp. 32-50
- Cited by
- 1271 Views
-
125 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of regulatory changes on financial reporting quality and audit fees and to further test whether this effect was moderated by firm characteristics (i.e. abnormal audit fees, political connections and overlapping directorship) in Nigeria. This study utilized the data of 90 companies listed on the Nigerian stock exchange over the period 2008–2013. Using Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) technique that takes into account the endogeneity nature of financial reporting quality and audit fees model, the results indicated that financial reporting quality improved in the regulatory changes period. However, abnormal audit fees, political connection and overlapping directorship deteriorated the effect. Accordingly, future regulatory reforms must be cognizant of these factors. Even though there are abundant empirical studies on financial regulatory changes and their effects on financial reporting quality, this study provides additional insights into the regulatory change literature by investigating how firm characteristics (abnormal audit fees, political connection and overlapping directorship) moderate the effect of regulatory changes particularly in Nigeria, one of the less developed and underresearched capital markets in the world. Further, the findings of this study are robust with respect to the issues of unobserved heterogeneity and endogeneity, which previous studies had failed to consider.
view full abstract
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)M42
-
References72
-
Tables6
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Sample selection table
- Table 2. Variable description table
- Table 3. Industry classification
- Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the regression variables for the financial reporting quality model
- Table 5. The Durbin-Wu-Hausman test for endogeneity of regressors
- Table 6. Financial reporting quality regression model
-
- Adegbite, E. (2014). Good corporate governance in Nigeria: Antecedents, propositions and peculiarities. International business review, 24(2), 319-330.
- Adelopo, I. (2011). Voluntary disclosure practices amongst listed companies in Nigeria. Advances in Accounting, 27(2), 338-345.
- Agoglia, C. P., Doupnik, T. S., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2011). Principles-based versus rules-based accounting standards: The influence of standard precision and audit committee strength on financial reporting decisions. Accounting review, 86(3), 747-767.
- Ahmed, A. S., Neel, M., & Wang, D. (2013). Does mandatory adoption of IFRS improve accounting quality? Preliminary evidence. Contemporary accounting research, 30(4), 1344-1372.
- Antle, R., Gordon, E., Narayanamoorthy, G., & Zhou, L. (2006). The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals. Review of quantitative finance & accounting, 27(3), 235-266.
- Armstrong, C. S., Guay, W. R., & Weber, J. P. (2010). The role of information and financial reporting in corporate governance and debt contracting. Journal of accounting and economics, 50(2), 179-234.
- Ashbaugh, H., LaFond, R., & Mayhew, B. W. (2003). Do non-audit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. Accounting review, 78(3), 611-639.
- Asthana, S. C., & Boone, J. P. (2012). Abnormal audit fee and audit quality. Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 31(3), 1-22.
- Atwood, T., Drake, M. S., Myers, J. N., & Myers, L. A. (2011). Do earnings reported under IFRS tell us more about future earnings and cash flows? Journal of accounting and public policy, 30(2), 103-121.
- Aubert, F., & Grudnitski, G. (2012). Analysts’ estimates: what they could be telling us about the impact of IFRS on earnings manipulation in Europe. Review of accounting & finance, 11(1), 53-72.
- Ball, R. (2006). International financial reporting standards (IFRS): pros and cons for investors. Accounting and business research, 36(sup1), 5-27.
- Ball, R., Robin, A., & Wu, J. S. (2003). Incentives versus standards: properties of accounting income in four East Asian countries. Journal of accounting & economics, 36(1-3), 235-270.
- Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., & Lang, M. H. (2008). International accounting standards and accounting quality. Journal of accounting research, 46(3), 467-498.
- Beattie, V., Fearnley, S., & Hines, T. (2013). Perceptions of factors affecting audit quality in the post-SOX UK regulatory environment. Accounting & business research, 43(1), 56-81.
- Becker, C. L., DeFond, M. L., Jiambalvo, J., & Subramanyam, K. R. (1998). The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemporary accounting research, 15(1), 1-24.
- Benston, G. J., Bromwich, M., & Wagenhofer, A. (2006). Principles versus rules based accounting standards: the FASB’s standard setting strategy. Abacus, 42(2), 165-188.
- Blankley, A. I., Hurtt, D. N., & MacGregor, J. E. (2012). Abnormal audit fees and restatements. Auditing: A Journal of practice & theory, 31(1), 79-96.
- Burghstahler, D. C., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2006). The importance of reporting incentives: Earnings management in European private and public firms. Accounting review, 81(5), 983-1016.
- Burnett, B. M., Cripe, B. M., Martin, G. W., & McAllister, B. P. (2012). Audit quality and the trade-off between accretive stock repurchases and accrual-based earnings management. The accounting review, 87(6), 1861-1884.
- Chambers, D., & Payne, J. (2011). Audit quality and accrual persistence: evidence from the pre-and post-Sarbanes-Oxley periods. Managerial auditing journal, 26(5), 437-456.
- Chandar, N., Chang, H., & Zheng, X. (2008). Does overlapping membership on audit and compensation committees improve a Firm’s financial reporting quality? (Working paper). Drexel University.
- Chaney, P. K., Faccio, M., & Parsley, D. (2011). The quality of accounting information in politically connected firms. Journal of accounting & economics, 51(1/2), 58-76.
- Chang, J. C., Luo, M., & Sun, H.-L. (2011). The impact of independent and overlapping board structures on CEO compensation, pay-performance sensitivity and accruals management. Quarterly journal of finance & accounting, 50(2), 54-84.
- Choi, J.-H., Kim, C., Kim, J.-B., & Zang, Y. (2010). Audit office size, audit quality, and audit pricing. Auditing: A journal of practice & Theory, 29(1), 73-97.
- Chung, H., & Kallapur, S. (2003). Client importance, non-audit services, and abnormal accruals. The accounting review, 78(4), 931-955.
- Cohen, J. R., Krishnamoorthy, G., Peytcheva, M., & Wright, A. M. (2013). How does the strength of the financial regulatory regime influence auditors’ judgments to constrain aggressive reporting in a principles-based versus rules-based accounting environment? Accounting horizons, 27(3), 579-601.
- Cosgrove, S. B., & Niederjohn, M. S. (2008). The effects of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 on audit fees. Journal of business strategies, 25(1), 31-52.
- Daske, H., & Gebhardt, G. (2006). International financial reporting standards and experts’ perceptions of disclosure quality. Abacus, 42(3/4), 461-498.
- De George, E. T., Ferguson, C. B., & Spear, N. A. (2013). How much does IFRS cost? IFRS adoption and audit fees. Accounting review, 88(2), 429-462.
- DeFond, M. L., & Francis, J. R. (2005). Audit research after Sarbanes-Oxley. Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 24, 5-30.
- DeFond, M. L., & Lennox, C. S. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of accounting & economics, 52(1), 21-40.
- DeFond, M. L., & Subramanyam, K. (1998). Auditor changes and discretionary accruals. Journal of accounting and economics, 25(1), 35-67.
- Dimitropoulos, P. E., Asteriou, D., Kousenidis, D., & Leventis, S. (2013). The impact of IFRS on accounting quality: Evidence from Greece. Advances in Accounting, 29(1), 108-123.
- Drakos, A. A., & Bekiris, F. V. (2010). Corporate performance, managerial ownership and endogeneity: A simultaneous equations analysis for the Athens stock exchange. Research in international business and finance, 24(1), 24-38.
- Eshleman, J. D., & Guo, P. (2014). Do Big 4 auditors provide higher audit quality after controlling for the endogenous choice of auditor? Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 33(4), 197-219.
- Faccio, M. (2006). Politically connected firms. American economic review, 96(1), 369-386.
- Ferris, S. P., Jagannathan, M., & Pritchard, A. C. (2003). Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. The Journal of finance, 58(3), 1087-1112.
- Fisman, R. (2001). Estimating the value of political connections. American economic review, 91(4), 1095-1102.
- Francis, J. R. (2006). Are auditors compromised by Non-audit services? Assessing the evidence Contemporary accounting research, 23(3), 747-760.
- Frankel, R. M., Johnson, M. F., & Nelson, K. K. (2002). The relation between auditors’ fees for non-audit services and earnings management. Accounting review, 77(4), 71-105.
- Greenspan, A. (1999). Do efficient financial markets mitigate financial crises? Paper presented at the A Remark before the 1999 Financial Markets Conference of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Sea Island, Georgia.
- Guedhami, O., Pittman, J. A., & Saffar, W. (2014). Auditor choice in politically connected firms. Journal of accounting research, 52(1), 107-162.
- Habib, A., & Bhuiyan, M. B. U. (2016). Problem directors on the audit committee and financial reporting quality. Accounting and Business Research, 46(2), 121-144.
- Hoitash, R., Hoitash, U., & Bedard, J. C. (2008). Internal control quality and audit pricing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Auditing: A journal of practice of theory, 27(1), 105-126.
- Hoitash, R., Markelevich, A., & Barragato, C. A. (2007). Auditor fees and audit quality. Managerial auditing journal, 22(8), 761-786.
- Hoitash, U., & Hoitash, R. (2009). Conflicting objectives within the board: Evidence from overlapping audit and compensation committee members. Group decision & negotiation, 18(1), 57-73.
- Jamal, K., & Tan, H. T. (2010). Joint effects of principles-based versus rules-based standards and auditor type in constraining financial managers’ aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1325-1346.
- Jeanjean, T., & Stolowy, H. (2008). Do accounting standards matter? An exploratory analysis of earnings management before and after IFRS adoption. Journal of accounting & public policy, 27(6), 480-494.
- Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360.
- Johnson, S., & Mitton, T. (2003). Cronyism and capital controls: evidence from Malaysia. Journal of financial economics, 67(2), 351-382.
- Kim, J.-B., Liu, X., & Zheng, L. (2012). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on audit fees: Theory and Evidence. Accounting review, 87(6), 2061-2094.
- Krishnan, J., Sami, H., & Zhang, Y. (2005). Does the provision of non-audit services affect investor perceptions of auditor independence? Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 24(2), 111-135.
- Laux, C., & Laux, V. (2009). Board committees, CEO compensation, and earnings management. The accounting review, 84(3), 869-891.
- Leung, S., & Clinch, G. (2014). The effect of IFRS adoption on accounting quality and market liquidity: The impact of family control. Financial Markets & Corporate Governance Conference.
- Leuz, C. (2010). Different approaches to corporate reporting regulation: How jurisdictions differ and why. Accounting and business research, 40(3), 229-256.
- Leuz, C., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (2006). Political relationships, global financing, and corporate transparency: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of financial economics, 81(2), 411-439.
- Liao, C. H., & Hsu, A. W. H. (2013). Common membership and effective corporate governance: Evidence from audit and compensation committees. Corporate governance: An international review, 21(1), 79-92.
- Méndez, C. F., Pathan, S., & Garcia, R. A. (2015). Monitoring capabilities of busy and overlap directors: Evidence from Australia. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 35, 444-469.
- Mitra, S., Deis, D. R., & Hossain, M. (2009). The association between audit fees and reported earnings quality in pre-and post-Sarbanes-Oxley regimes. Review of Accounting and Finance, 8(3), 232-252.
- Nelson, M. W., Elliott, J. A., & Tarpley, R. L. (2002). Evidence from auditors about managers’ and auditors’ earnings management decisions. Accounting review, 77(4), 175-202.
- Otunsanya, A., & Lauwo, S. (2010). The role of Auditors in the Nigeria Banking Crisis. Accountancy Business and the Public Interest, 9, 159-204.
- Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. V. (2006). SOX Section 404 material weakness disclosures and audit fees. Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 25(1), 99-114.
- Schipper, K. (2003). Principles-based accounting standards. Accounting horizons, 17(1), 61-72.
- Simunic, D. A. (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of accounting research, 18(1), 161-190.
- The Nigerian Stock Exchange (2014). Listed companies.
- Van der Zahn, M., Jean-Luc Wolfgang, & Tower, G. (2005). Composition of key board of director sub-committees: Did the Higgs report get it right?
- Wan-Hussin, W. N., & Bamahros, H. M. (2012). Audit committee-compensation committee overlap and earnings management: Some Malaysian evidence.
- World BankGroup (n.d.). Listed domestic companies, total.
- Yaacob, N. M., & Che-Ahmad, A. (2012). Audit fees after IFRS adoption: evidence from Malaysia. Eurasian business review, 2(1), 31-46.
- Yi Lin, C., Chee Seng, C., & Graeme, G. (2012). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on accounting quality: Evidence from Australia. Journal of international accounting research, 11(1), 119-146.
- Zhang, I. X. (2007). Economic consequences of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002.256.
- Zheng, X., & Cullinan, C. P. (2010). Compensation/audit committee overlap and the design of compensation systems. International journal of disclosure & governance, 7(2), 136-152.
Related Articles
-
Earnings management and impression management: European evidence
Tiago Goncalves
,
Cristina Gaio ,
Pedro Ramos
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(1).2022.37
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 20, 2022 Issue #1 pp. 459-472 Views: 827 Downloads: 446 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study explores the relationship between Earnings Management and Impression Management in the context of some European listed companies. The analysis focuses on the readability of annual reports, measured by the file size. Earnings management is assessed using the modified Jones model. The sample consists of 2,953 listed companies from 17 industries of 24 European countries between 2012 and 2018 resulting in 13,020 firm-year observations. It has been found that one standard deviation increase in financial reports file size increases discretionary accruals in around 4%. These results are robust across different sample specifications in terms of firms’ size, industry and country. The findings show that increased intensity in the use of discretionary accruals is obfuscated by the disclosure of less readable annual reports, implying that Earnings Management and Impression Management are used complementarily. The conclusions have impact both for investment management and for policy, preventing inefficient allocation of capital budgeting and providing additional information that improves regulation on financial reporting transparency.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to financial support from FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal), national funding through research grant (UID/SOC/04521/2020).
Close
Problems and Perspectives in Management