MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789281007 · doi:10.1108/maj-09-2016-1438

Corporate governance compliance and accrual earnings management in eastern Africa

2018· article· en· W2789281007 on OpenAlexaff
Nelson Waweru, Ntui Ponsian

Bibliographic record

VenueManagerial Auditing Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountingStock exchangeAccrualCorporate governanceTanzaniaBusinessEarnings managementCapital marketContext (archaeology)Gender diversityAudit committeeAuditAnnual reportEarningsFinanceEconomicsSocioeconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether compliance with corporate governance (CG) requirements has constrained earnings management (EM) for companies listed in Kenya and Tanzania. Design/methodology/approach The sample comprises of 48 companies listed on the Nairobi Stock Exchange and the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange. The data are collected from annual reports over the period 2005-2014, a total of 480 firm-year observations. Panel data models are used in the analyses. Findings The results show that discretionary accruals (DAs) average about 11.3 per cent, whereas audit quality is negatively and significantly related to DAs. However, board independence, board gender diversity and director share ownership were positively and significantly related to DAs suggesting that CG may not have constrained EM in eastern Africa. Research limitations/implications The findings should be understood within the context that only annual reports and audited financial statements that were filed with Capital Markets Authority (Kenya) and Capital Markets and Securities Authority (Tanzania) are used as source of information. Originality/value The study potentially contributes in three main ways. First, this is the first cross-country analysis that has examined the effect of CG structures on EM in an African context. Second, literature on CG and EM has been extended. Finally, the authors have extended research by observing the limitations of CG in reducing EM in an environment that is experiencing weaknesses in CG structures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations84
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagerial Auditing JournalSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207