This paper provides insight into financial statement fraud instances investigated during the late 1980s through the 1990s within three volatile industries—technology, health care, and financial services—and highlights important corporate governance differences between fraud companies and no-fraud benchmarks on an industry-by-industry basis. The fraud techniques used vary substantially across industries, with revenue frauds most common in technology companies and asset frauds and misappropriations most common in financial-services firms. For each of these three industries, the sample fraud companies have very weak governance mechanisms relative to no-fraud industry benchmarks. Consistent with prior research, the fraud companies in the technology and financial-services industries have fewer audit committees, while fraud companies in all three industries have less independent audit committees and less independent boards. In addition, this study provides initial evidence that the fraud companies in the technology and health-care industries have fewer audit committee meetings, and fraud companies in all three industries have less internal audit support. This study of more current financial statement fraud instances contributes by updating our understanding of fraud techniques and risk factors in three key industries. Auditors should consider the industry context as they evaluate the risk of financial fraud, and they should compare clients' governance mechanisms to relevant no-fraud industry benchmarks.

No abstract

No abstract

One important role of audit committees is to protect external auditors from dismissal following the issuance of an unfavorable report. We examine auditor dismissals following new going-concern reports that Big 6 firms issued between 1988 and 1999. Our findings suggest that audit committees with greater independence, greater governance expertise, and lower stockholdings are more effective in shielding auditors from dismissal after the issuance of new going-concern reports. In addition, we find that the relation between audit committee independence and auditor protection from dismissal has grown stronger over time. Finally, independent audit committee members experience a significant increase in turnover rate after auditor dismissals. These findings, coupled with those from Carcello and Neal (2000), suggest that when affiliated directors dominate the audit committee, management often can (1) pressure its auditor to issue an unmodified report despite going-concern issues, and (2) dismiss its auditor if the auditor refuses to issue an unmodified report.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) required the U.S. Comptroller General to study the potential effects of requiring mandatory audit firm rotation. The General Accounting Office (GAO) concludes in its recently released study of mandatory audit firm rotation that “mandatory audit firm rotation may not be the most efficient way to strengthen auditor independence” (GAO 2003, Highlights). However, the GAO also suggests that mandatory audit firm rotation could be necessary if the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's requirements do not lead to improved audit quality (GAO 2003, 5). We examine the relation between audit firm tenure and fraudulent financial reporting. Comparing firms cited for fraudulent reporting from 1990 through 2001 with both a matched set of non-fraud firms and with the available population of non-fraud firms, we find that fraudulent financial reporting is more likely to occur in the first three years of the auditor-client relationship. We fail to find any evidence that fraudulent financial reporting is more likely given long auditor tenure. Our results are consistent with the argument that mandatory audit firm rotation could have adverse effects on audit quality.

This study examines the relation between the composition of financially distressed firms' audit committees and the likelihood of receiving going-concern reports. For firms experiencing financial distress during 1994, we find that the greater the percentage of affiliated directors on the audit committee, the lower the probability the auditor will issue a going-concern report. These results support regulators' concern about financial-reporting quality and the recent calls for more independent audit committees.

This paper examines the relations between three board characteristics (independence, diligence, and expertise) and Big 6 audit fees for Fortune 1000 companies. To protect its reputation capital, avoid legal liability, and promote shareholder interests, a more independent, diligent, and expert board may demand differentially higher audit quality (greater assurance, which requires more audit work) than the Big 6 audit firms normally provide. The audit fee increases as the auditor's additional costs are passed on to the client, such that we expect positive relations between audit fees and the board characteristics examined.We find significant positive relations between audit fees and board independence, diligence, and expertise. The results persist when similar measures of audit committee "quality" are included in the model. The results add to the growing body of literature documenting relations between corporate governance mechanisms and various facets of the financial reporting and audit processes, as well as to our understanding of the determinants of audit fees. CondenséLa qualité de la surveillance exercée par les conseils d'administration retient de plus en plus l'attention depuis quelques années. Les administrateurs sont astreints à des normes de performance plus élevées, et nombreux sont les groupes qui réclament que l'on insiste davantage sur l'indépendance, la vigilance et les compétences des membres des conseils d'administration d'entreprises (par exemple, NACD, 1996). Les chercheurs précédents ont fait état de plusieurs des répercussions de la « qualité supérieure » des conseils d'administration, notamment la diminution des cas de fraude dans les états financiers (Beasley, 1996) et de la fréquence des situations où la SEC doit prendre des mesures coercitives pour contrer la manipulation des bénéfices (Dechow, Sloan et Sweeney, 1996).

Internal auditing has been the focus of much attention in recent years. This study examines factors associated with U.S. public companies' investment in internal auditing. Data from a survey administered to Chief Audit Executives of midsized U.S. public companies were supplemented with publicly available data. Based on data from 217 companies, the results indicate that total internal audit budgets (inhouse plus outsourced portions) are related to several factors associated with company risk, ability to pay for monitoring, and auditing characteristics. Specifically, we find evidence that internal audit budgets are positively related to company size, leverage, financial, service, and utility industries, relative amount of inventory, operating cash flows, and audit committee review of the internal audit budget. Total internal audit budgets are negatively related to the percentage of internal auditing that is outsourced. This study contributes to our understanding of internal audit services, and it allows companies to benchmark their investment in internal auditing.