No abstract

No abstract

Our study addresses the research gap regarding the absence of an empirical cross-country study on the determinants of the strength of auditing and reporting standards (SARS). Using data on 133 countries at various stages of development, we examine the role of environmental factors that influence a country's strength of auditing and reporting standards. Our empirical results confirm that institutional infrastructure, financial market development and higher education and training jointly influence a country's strength of auditing and reporting standards. We obtain qualitatively similar subsample results when we partition countries on the basis of economic development. AbstractOur study addresses the research gap regarding the absence of an empirical cross-country study on the determinants of the strength of auditing and reporting standards (SARS). Using data on 133 countries at various stages of development, we examine the role of environmental factors that influence a country's strength of auditing and reporting standards. Our empirical results confirm that institutional infrastructure, financial market development and higher education and training jointly influence a country's strength of auditing and reporting standards. We obtain qualitatively similar subsample results when we partition countries on the basis of economic development.

No abstract

No abstract

Manuscript Type: Empirical Research Question/Issue: This study examines the relevance of currently accepted best practice recommendations regarding board structure on the survival likelihood of new economy initial public offering companies. We argue that industry context determines governance outcomes. Research Findings/Insights: We study 125 Australian new economy firms listed between 1994 and 2002. Each firm is tracked until the end of 2007 for monitoring their survival. We find that board independence is associated with an increase in the likelihood of corporate survival. We also find that the benefits of board independence increase at a decreasing rate. Theoretical/Academic Implications: The standard best practice recommendation of board independence stems from the monitoring role of directors and is based on agency theory. The results from our study suggest that the recommendation regarding board independence does not work well for new economy firms. While the agency theory based model implies a monotonic relation between board independence and performance, our research suggests that the relationship is nonlinear. This variation occurs because of increased monitoring costs faced by outsiders due to higher information asymmetry and complexity of new economy firms. Our empirical results suggest that inside directors play a complementary role to outsiders in mitigating firm failure. Practitioner/Policy Implications: Our research offers insights to policy makers who are interested in setting best practice standards regarding board structure. Our research suggests that firm/industry characteristics play a crucial role in determining the optimal board structure. In firms/industries where outsiders face significantly higher information processing costs, insiders can play a valuable complementary role to outsiders in enhancing the effectiveness of the board. Thus future hard or soft regulations related to board structure should consider industry context.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractWhile underpricing is a ubiquitous phenomenon, the process of going public is not identical in different countries. There are important differences in the regulatory environment, the state of the development of the primary and secondary markets, the types of investors that allow for interesting comparisons to be made across countries. In this study, we describe the institutional arrangements of the public issue process of unseasoned equity offerings (IPOs) in India. We show evidence regarding the widespread underpricing of Indian IPOs and relate them to potential factors. Principal among them are: the lack of a formal mechanism for gauging the extent of demand from potential investors, the regulatory restrictions on pricing of new firms without a track record, and the large delay between the approval date and the actual opening date of the public issue.

No abstract