MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464838366

Do Foreign Directors on Audit Committees Enhance Financial Reporting Quality

2016· preprint· en· W2464838366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maryam Firoozi, Michel Magnan, Steve Fortin, Shane Nicholls

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University)Same topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207