This study uses two hypothetical cases to examine the perceptions of auditors and directors in Singapore about corporate governance practices relating to the quality of financial reporting and auditing. In the first case, the strength of the audit committee, the existence of an internal audit function and the strength of a corporate code of conduct were manipulated. All three variables were perceived to have some influence on financial reporting and audit quality. However, some interesting differences were found between the perceptions of auditors and directors. Auditors place more weight on the internal audit function, possibly due to their familiarity with the role that internal audit can play in reducing audit risk and enhancing controls. Directors have more confidence in board enforcement of a strong code of conduct, possibly reflecting the view that this encourages staff to adhere to higher ethical standards. In the second case, audit partner rotation, outsourcing of internal audit services and whether the audit firm audited all companies within a group were manipulated. Auditors believed that their ability to resist management pressure was enhanced when they audited all companies within the group. No significant differences were found for the other variables, suggesting that neither group believes that these practices impair audit independence.

JEAN LIN-SEOUW IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR in the Nanyang Business School at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. There has been considerable debate in recent years concerning the value of the small company audit. This paper aims to explore the impact of the introduction of deregulation of the small company audit in the United Kingdom in 1994. It seeks to identify why small companies may still demand voluntary audits in the absence of a statutory requirement. Theoretical and economic factors and rationales affecting small company management choice to engage auditing are examined. Following a survey sent to small companies qualifying for audit exemption, several hypotheses underlying the demand for audits in an unregulated environment are empirically tested in a logistic regression model. Some support is found for the agency, or stewardship, hypotheses in small company choice to engage auditing.

No abstract

There is significant debate about the usefulness of disclosing the CEO-to-median employee pay ratio, as required under Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act in the United States. Using an experiment, we find that disclosing higher-than-industry CEO pay (versus comparable-to-industry CEO pay) marginally decreases perceived CEO pay fairness and perceived workplace climate, which is counteracted by a significant positive effect on perceived CEO attraction/retention ability, although there are no significant indirect effects through these perceptions on perceived investment potential. However, incrementally disclosing a higher-than-industry pay ratio (versus disclosing only higher-than-industry CEO pay) significantly decreases perceived CEO pay fairness and marginally deceases perceived workplace climate, and we find a significant indirect negative effect on perceived investment potential through perceived CEO pay fairness. If companies are concerned about negative public perceptions, then our results suggest that pay ratio disclosures may be better able than current CEO pay disclosures at shaming companies into restraining CEO pay. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

a b s t r a c tIn this study we examine the association between accounting students' lone wolf tendencies and their perceptions of the usefulness of team work, team interaction behaviors, and team performance. While prior studies find that students generally perceive positive benefits from engaging in team work, our study finds that students with greater lone wolf tendencies perceive fewer benefits from engaging in team work. We also find that during team interactions, teams with a greater proportion of students with higher lone wolf tendencies experience less team commitment and team leadership. Further, such teams rate the outcome of their project negatively, although, there is no significant association with the project marks earned by these teams. We discuss the implications of our findings and suggest directions for future research.