Purpose – This paper aims to hypothesise that demographic characteristics of managers play a significant role in performing their duties amongst which is financial reporting. This study aims to examine whether CEO characteristics, namely, tenure and financial expertise, are associated with audit report timeliness. Design/methodology/approach – Data from companies listed on the Oman capital market between 2007 and 2011 and three proxies for audit report timeliness are used. Findings – CEO tenure and CEOs with financial expertise are reported to be associated with timely audit reports. Supplementary tests also confirmed this result. In addition, it is suggested and documented that there is an interaction effect between CEO tenure and financial expertise concerning the timeliness of audit reports. The use of a two-stage least square analysis also supported the main results. Research limitations/implications – Hypotheses were tested using data from Oman with a relatively small sample size. Therefore, only a few characteristics of the CEO were considered and a more sophisticated approach of testing managers’ effect on company policies was unable to be used. In addition, the generalisability of the study findings should be made carefully. Originality/value – This paper differs from prior studies, in that it extends the audit report timeliness literature by examining whether the CEO tenure and CEOs with financial expertise are associated with audit report timeliness. Findings demonstrate that CEO characteristics are important factors for a timely audit report.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the characteristics of the audit committee (AC) chair affect audit report timeliness. In particular, the direct association between AC chair accounting expertise and audit report delay, and the moderating effect of other characteristics of AC chair on this association are examined. Design/methodology/approach To achieve the purpose of this study, the characteristics examined by this study are AC chair expertise, shareholding, tenure and multiple directorships. Furthermore, a sample of Malaysian companies during the period 2005–2011 and the fixed effects panel data method are utilized. Findings The results suggest that an AC chair with accounting expertise is associated with a reduction in audit delay. The reduction is more obvious when the chair holds shares in the company, but is weakened by longer tenure and multiple directorships. These results are robust after conducting several robust tests. Using mediating analysis, the authors also document that an AC chair with accounting expertise can enhance the timeliness of audit reports even when the quality of financial reporting is lower. The reported result is supported by additional analysis that finds that AC chairs with accounting expertise and AC chairs with accounting expertise and shareholding are significantly associated with shorter abnormal audit delay. Originality/value This study provides comprehensive analysis concerning the association between AC chair and audit report timeliness using a unique setting. It is among the limited evidence that reports the moderating effect of AC chair characteristics on the role of such chair on audit report timeliness.

PurposeThis paper aims to report the findings of semi‐structured interviews with management, external auditors and audit committee members in Malaysia concerning the role of the audit committee in resolving auditor‐client disagreements.Design/methodology/approachAn exploratory case study method was applied in seven publicly listed companies in Malaysia. In each company interviews were conducted with an audit committee chair/member, the finance manager/CFO and the external auditor.FindingsThe study finds that, when the issue is very material, the audit committee plays a mediating role as a third‐party intermediary who provides assistance to resolve the dispute. The authority of the committee to act as a mediator comes from its oversight responsibilities, its understanding and awareness of possible issues and the members' accounting and business expertise. Mediation techniques used include controlling the agenda, gathering information, advising and solving problems. With two exceptions, the interviews indicate that the audit committee does not take sides when helping to resolve a dispute. The outcome from the mediation process is generally a compromise solution.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is based on 21 interviews undertaken in Malaysia. Hence, the findings may not be generalizable to other cultures and jurisdictions. Further, while a number of mediation techniques used by audit committees are identified, the paper does not examine in‐depth the mediation processes used in resolving disagreements.Originality/valueThe study extends the auditor‐client negotiation literature by examining whether the audit committee plays a mediating role to help resolve disagreements. The findings demonstrate that audit committee effectiveness can extend beyond a pure oversight role to more active involvement in resolving contentious accounting issues.

No abstract