Public Communication of Audit Risks and Related-Party Transactions: Evidence from China
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper examines whether and how firms’ engagement in related-party transactions (RPTs) is shaped by public communication of audit risks as required by the expanded audit report. Using the phased regulatory changes in China and a difference-in-differences design with firm fixed effects and matching, we find that firms significantly reduce their RPTs after the adoption of expanded audit reports (EARs). To investigate potential mechanisms, we find that (1) investor scrutiny increases after the adoption of EARs, (2) the reduction of RPTs is more pronounced when EARs are more likely to attract investor attention, and (3) the reduction of RPTs is weaker when firms are less concerned about investor scrutiny. The results suggest that EARs can attract investor scrutiny and increase the possible penalty associated with self-dealing, thus motivating firms to reduce RPTs. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: G30; G34; G38; M10; M16; M40; M41; M42: M48.
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 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 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it