The Relationships Between Managerial Overconfidence, Audit Committee, CEO Duality and Audit Quality and Accounting Misstatements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the relationships between managerial overconfidence, financial distress, audit committee, CEO duality and audit quality and the occurrence of material accounting misstatements by Malaysian listed companies. Managerial overconfidence and financial distress are viewed as motives for accounting misstatements in this study. Audit committee characteristics, i.e., independence and expertise of its members, CEO duality and audit quality are viewed as the ‘loopholes’ in corporate governance mechanisms that provide opportunities for proprietors to issue accounting misstatements. The sample for this study consists of 237 Malaysian listed companies, which includes data from misstated company reports with its respective matched data of non-misstated company reports. The results of this study show that financial distress and CEO duality are significantly related to the occurrence of accounting misstatements. This paper contributes to the body of knowledge on how to mitigate accounting misstatements, especially with the inclusion of the managerial overconfidence variable, which is a new addition to the research on accounting misstatements in Malaysia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".