MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464838366

Do Foreign Directors on Audit Committees Enhance Financial Reporting Quality

2016· preprint· en· W2464838366 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingBusinessEndogeneityAudit committeeCorporate governanceContext (archaeology)AuditQuality (philosophy)Foreign ownershipQuality auditFinanceForeign direct investmentEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With many firms expanding the global scope of their operations, the appointment of foreign directors certainly appears to be a positive governance development as it enhances board diversity in terms of expertise, experiences and backgrounds. However, a potential drawback is that foreign directors also are far removed from the information networks emanating from a firm’s headquarters and main operations. In this study, we investigate how foreign directors on the audit committee perform when it comes to monitoring the decisions made by managers regarding financial reporting. We rely on the unique context provided by Canada in which companies have access to a large pool of U.S. directors, a country with which it shares many similarities and is geographically close. Results show that 45% of sample firms have at least one foreign director on the audit committee, with 78% of these firms nominating directors residing in the U.S. Firms with foreign directors on their audit committee have lower financial reporting quality, both in terms of absolute abnormal accruals and restatement. In this regard, U.S. directors play a major role as the presence of non-U.S. foreign directors does not seem to relate to financial reporting quality. Our results hold after controlling for endogeneity and alternate explanations. This finding is in contrast to studies that find that foreign directors from countries with similarities will do a better job on boards in comparison to other foreign directors. La globalisation de l’activité commerciale et financière des entreprises s’accompagne depuis quelques années de la nomination de membres de conseil d’administration provenant de l’étranger. Ces nominations ajoutent à la diversité des conseils d’administration et permettent également aux entreprises d’accéder à un plus grand bassin de compétences. Toutefois, ces administrateurs étrangers sont également loin des réseaux d’information émanant du siège social ou du lieu où l’entreprise exerce la majeure partie de ses activités. Cette étude vise à évaluer l’impact de la nomination d’administrateurs étrangers sur la capacité d’un comité d’audit du conseil d’administration à surveiller les dirigeants d’entreprises, notamment en matière de divulgation financière. Notre analyse focalise sur les entreprises canadiennes car elles ont accès à un vaste bassin d’administrateurs étrangers provenant d’un contexte institutionnel, culturel et légal fort comparable, à savoir les États-Unis. Nos résultats montrent que 45% des entreprises constituant notre échantillon ont au moins un administrateur étranger sur leur comité d’audit, avec 78% de ces entreprises nommant un administrateur américain. Dans l’ensemble, les entreprises avec un ou des administrateurs étrangers sur le comité d’audit affichent des résultats financiers de moins bonne qualité, qu’elle soit mesurée en termes d’accruals discrétionnaires ou de redressements des états financiers. Cet effet est essentiellement déterminé par la présence d’administrateurs américains. Nos résultats demeurent les mêmes une fois l’endogénéité contrôlée et après l’évaluation d’explications alternatives. Ces résultats montrent que la capacité de surveillance des administrateurs étrangers semble moindre que celle des administrateurs domestiques, ce qui reflète probablement leur distance vis-à-vis les réseaux formels et informels d’information accessibles par les administrateurs domestiques.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it