The impact of Covid-19 has had a far reaching effect on higher education institutions. However, few studies report on the relative perceptions of students about face-to-face (F2F) and blended learning (BL) in periods when Covid-19 is/not a consideration. Using a sample of 103/79 undergraduate students, a mixed-method approach is utilized to report qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding student perceptions. The results demonstrate BL is perceived more positively during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, F2F is preferred to BL when Covid is not an issue. F2F learning is perceived more positively to BL because students feel that there are limitations to BL in terms of; interactions with the lecturer; group work; peer engagement; class involvement; and the ability to ask questions about technical information. Moreover, qualitative evidence shows that students perceive F2F to be superior to BL because social elements expected in a F2F environment may not be embedded into netiquette frameworks. From a policymaking standpoint, we encourage embedding social elements into BL to enhance student experience so that student's negative attitudes regarding the transition from F2F delivery to online/BL can be minimized. From a practical standpoint, we provide insights about strategies to embed socials elements into netiquette frameworks.

In South Korea, due

We examine whether firms with higher relative efficiency (operational performance) require additional audit effort (hours) to signal audit quality to demonstrate that their financial reporting systems are robust. Therefore, we use a Korean sample of publicly listed firms because of the Korean audit hour policy which mandates that audit hour information be made available for market participants. We find that client firms with higher relative efficiency have higher audit hours, suggesting that management has an incentive to demand additional audit hours for signalling purposes, and that shareholders, amongst other stakeholders, have an incentive to demand external monitoring to reduce potential agency problems. The results show that relative efficiency is a unique measure of firm performance that can provide insights into a client firm's business and audit risk. We also find evidence suggesting that audit firms do not subject clients to a fee (fee per hour) premium based on relative efficiency, supporting our finding that client firms require audit effort for signalling purposes. Thus, our results have important implications for policymakers about audit effort demand.

In this paper, we take advantage of Korea's unique experiment with mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR) and mandatory audit partner rotation (MAPR) to ascertain their influence on audit quality, proxied by conditional conservatism. Overall, we find that the implementation of MAFR did not have the desired effect. Firms that adopted MAFR demonstrate higher levels of conservatism in previous periods under MAPR (or compared to voluntary adopters). Furthermore, we find that audit tenure increases conservatism levels consistent with the auditor expertise hypothesis. However, whilst evidence suggests MAFR decreases audit quality on the whole, we find that firms that switch from non-Big 4 to Big 4 auditors demonstrate higher conservatism because Big 4 auditors are more likely to demand conservative accounting practices, consistent with Big 4 audit firm knowledge superiority. Overall, the results suggest that MAFR's negative effect on audit quality can be mitigated by Big 4 auditor supervision.

In this paper, we examine the effect of relative/absolute firm efficiency on weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Using a sample of Korean listed firms, we find that WACC is negatively associated with relative firm efficiency (operational performance) suggesting that firms with higher (lower) relatively efficiency are expected to pay lower (higher) capital costs. When we repeat our analysis using absolute firm efficiency (ROA), we do not find a statistically significant relationship. Our results suggest relative efficiency which is estimated as output (sales) divided by the resources that are directly under the control of management is assessed by capital providers and impounded into a firm’s capital costs. Absolute efficiency (ROA) which is estimated as sales divided by total assets is not. Our results suggest that simple accounting ratios used in the accounting literature are not considered as informative to explain borrowing costs compared to relative efficiency that captures managerial operational performance.

This paper examines the relationship between relative efficiency and credit ratings using a sample of Korean listed firms and finds a positive relationship in the subsequent period after adjusting for absolute efficiency. The results suggest that credit rating agencies consider relative efficiency as a variable that influences a firm's ability to survive a business cycle. Interestingly, when we divide our samples into investmentgrade and non-investment-grade firms, we find a different relationship. While we continue to find consistent results for the investment-grade group, we find a negative relationship between relative efficiency and credit ratings for non-investment-grade firms. We suggest "higher" levels of efficiency by non-investment-grade firms can be considered opportunistic or a form of distress, and potentially be the result of ineffective decision making. We conjecture that credit rating agencies have the ability to impose penalties of lower credit ratings on firms that engage in such behavior.

In this paper, we examine the relationship between audit effort measured as audit hours and a firm's weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Using a sample of Korean listed firms, we hypothesize a bi-directional relationship between WACC and audit effort based on audit 'supply'/audit 'demand' theory. We find that after controlling for known determinants of firm risk, additional audit hours reduce a firm's WACC. In our additional analysis, we continue to find that WACC reduces with audit hours based on risk partitioning for i) Big4 clients/investment grade (IG) firms and ii) Non-Big4 clients/non-investment grade (NonIG) firms. However, we find the reduction in WACC occurs at a lower rate for the less risky group compared to the riskier group. We interpret that market participants consider Big4 clients/IG firms to have lower risk, and thus, the marginal effect of greater audit hours in enhancing audit quality (reducing audit risk) is lower for Big4 clients/IG firms compared to Non-Big4 clients/NonIG firms. Taken together, our findings that audit hours (effort) reduce WACC suggest audit hours signal audit quality to investors.

PurposeFirm management has an incentive to improve credit ratings to enjoy the reputational and financial benefits associated with higher credit ratings. In this study, the authors question whether audit effort in hours can be considered incrementally increasing with credit ratings. Based on legitimacy theory, the authors conjecture that firms with higher credit ratings will demand higher levels of audit effort to signal audit and financial quality compared to firms with higher levels of credit risk.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conduct empirical tests using a sample of Korean-listed firms using a sample period covering 2001–2015.FindingsThe results show that firms with higher credit ratings demand higher audit effort in hours compared to client firms with lower credit ratings. The authors interpret that firms with higher ratings (lower risk) demand higher levels of audit effort in hours to reduce information asymmetry and to demonstrate that financial reporting systems are robust based on audit effort signaling audit quality. The authors also interpret that firms with lower credit ratings do not have incentives to signal similar audit quality. The authors also capture the “Big4 auditor expertise” effect by demonstrating that client firms audited by nonBig4 auditors demand additional audit effort with increasing credit rating compared to Big4 clients.Research limitations/implicationsAudit effort is considered a signal of firm risk in the literature. This study’s results show evidence that audit effort is inversely related to firm risk.Practical implicationsThe results show that audit hour information is informative and likely managed by firm stakeholders. Internationally, it is not possible to capture the audit demand of clients because listing audit hours on financial statements is not a rule. Given that audit hours can be considered informative, the authors believe that legislators could consider implementing a policy to mandate that audit hours be recorded on international annual reports to enhance transparency.Originality/valueSouth Korea is one of few countries to list audit effort on annual reports. Therefore, the link between audit effort and credit ratings is unique in South Korea because it is one of few countries in which market participants likely monitor audit effort.