Firm characteristics and audit committees complying with ’best practice‘ membership guidelines

Rainsbury, Elizabeth; Bradbury, Michael E.; Cahan, Steven F.

doi:10.1080/00014788.2008.9665773

Cited by 57 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, audit committees in Malaysia are not given sufficient support by the board. It has been reported that boards with a high proportion of independent directors and expertise are more likely to have a more effective audit committee (Rainsbury et al 2008) but this is not the case. More insights into our data reveal that Malaysian boards are dominated by executive directors, and that, in most cases, independent and financial expert directors on the audit committee are the only independent and financial expert directors on the board.…”

Section: Regression Resultsmentioning

confidence: 48%

“…In addition, it has ignored the effect of the corporate governance reforms made by Bursa Malaysia in 2007 concerning audit committee composition. Furthermore, prior research fails to control the effect of board characteristics on the effectiveness of audit committee characteristics (Rainsbury, Bradbury & Steven 2008;Sharma, Naiker & Lee 2009). Thus, our study addresses all these concerns by using the panel data method and controlling more variables relating to corporate governance and to audit report timelines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Audit Committee Financial Expertise and Audit Report Lag: Malaysia Further Insight

Salleh¹,

Baatwah²,

Ahmad³

2017

AJAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Regression Resultsmentioning

confidence: 48%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audit Committee Financial Expertise and Audit Report Lag: Malaysia Further Insight

Salleh¹,

Baatwah²,

Ahmad³

2017

AJAG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, Rainsbury et al (2008) document the relationship between voluntary adoption of an audit committee and other board characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Zealand Corporate Boards in Transition: Composition, Activity and Incentives between 1995 and 2010

Boyle

Ji²

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We document, describe and interpret changes in New Zealand corporate board characteristics between 1995 and 2010, a period centred around the 2003 introduction of the NZX Corporate Governance Best Practice Code. Unsurprisingly, the representation of non-executive, independent and female directors on NZ boards rose during the period, as did real chair and director fees and the importance of board committees, while average board size fell. Perhaps more surprisingly, much of this movement occurred before 2003. However, the magnitude of these changes frequently varies according to firm size, and there are some intriguing differences between New Zealand board characteristics and those prevailing in other, larger, countries. We use this information to identify a number of unanswered questions about New Zealand corporate boards.JEL classification: G34, G38

show abstract

“…In this respect, the literature has emphasised the enhancement of the financial reporting processes as the distinctive contribution that an effective audit committee can make (e.g. Forker, 1992;Smith Report, 2003;Mangena & Pike, 2005), thus reducing information asymmetries between management and stakeholders (Mangena & Pike, 2005;Rainsbury, Bradbury, & Cahan, 2008). Previous studies have examined the effect of audit committee presence on financial reporting (Forker, 1992;Beasley, 1996;Peasnell, Pope, & Young, 2001) and earnings management (Peasnell, Pope, & Young, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of audit committee characteristics on intellectual capital disclosure

Mangena

Pike

2012

The British Accounting Review

277

370

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper, using data from 100 UK listed firms, investigates the relationship between audit committee characteristics and intellectual capital (IC) disclosure. We find that IC disclosure is positively associated with audit committee characteristics of size and frequency of meetings, and negatively associated with audit committee directors' shareholding. We find no significant relationship between IC disclosure and audit committee independence and financial expertise. We also observe variations in the association between audit committee characteristics and IC disclosure at its component level, which suggest that the underlying factors that drive various forms of IC disclosure, i.e. human capital, structural capital and relational capital, are different. These results have important implications for policy-makers who have a responsibility to ensure that shareholders are protected by prescribing appropriate corporate governance structures and accounting regulations/ guidelines.

show abstract

Firm characteristics and audit committees complying with ’best practice‘ membership guidelines

Cited by 57 publications

References 39 publications

Audit Committee Financial Expertise and Audit Report Lag: Malaysia Further Insight

Audit Committee Financial Expertise and Audit Report Lag: Malaysia Further Insight

New Zealand Corporate Boards in Transition: Composition, Activity and Incentives between 1995 and 2010

The effect of audit committee characteristics on intellectual capital disclosure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About