The Chinese experience: The impact of financial restatements on firm value and its implications on the investigatory practices of regulators
Chen Ma, Xi'an Jiaotong University; Michael Kraten, Providence College; Peng Wang, Xi'an International Studies University
We examine the relationship between restatements of prior period financial results and firm value in China. This relationship is relevant to the millions of global investors who purchase Chinese equity securities because Chinese regulatory authorities must focus on the restatement events that, in their judgment, most warrant investigation. We recommend that they focus their attention on restatement announcements (and the firms that announce them) that possess the characteristics that most impact firm value.
Prior studies of the American equity markets found evidence of a relationship between the nature of the restatement announcements and firm value, as well as evidence that core account adjustments and high-magnitude adjustments affect firm value more than noncore account adjustments and low-magnitude adjustments. However, based on a sample of Chinese listed firms that made corporate announcements that appeared in the Asian press between 2003 and 2011, we only find mixed evidence in the Chinese equity markets in support of the former relationship, and no evidence at all in support of the latter relationship.
In other words, restatement announcements in China do not impact firm value to the same extent, and in the same manner, as restatement announcements in America. Chinese regulators must thus develop policies that are unique to the Chinese markets in order to effectively prioritize their oversight activities on firms that issue restatement announcements.
What factors should be considered by Chinese regulators? We identify a collection of corporate governance variables, as well as a smaller collection of financial variables, that are significantly associated with decreases in firm value. We also develop a set of regression analyses that utilize these variables to explain a significant portion of the variability of firm value during the sample period. Interestingly, however, we find no evidence that the growth patterns of the firms are significantly associated with changes in firm value.
Using this evidence, we recommend the development of a model of regulatory guidance that is customized for the unique characteristics of the Chinese equity markets. We believe that this model can help Chinese authorities focus their attention on specific restatement announcements that most impact firm value.
Institutional versus retail trades following financial restatements: The effect of Sarbanes-Oxley
Bidisha Chakrabarty, Saint Louis University; Ananth Seetharaman, Saint Louis University; Weimin Wang, Saint Louis University
Regulators have expressed concern that the growing number and size of financial restatements, especially since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), confuse investors and erode confidence in the capital markets. Given the investor protection goal of SOX, of particular concern is the relative accuracy with which retail investors process and trade on the information contained in restatement announcements. In this paper, we adopt a market based approach and examine the accuracy of the trading behavior of retail and institutional investors conditioned upon accounting restatement announcements, both prior- and subsequent to the passage of SOX. We find that retail investors engaged in more inaccurate (i.e., potentially loss-making) trades in the post-SOX period than in the pre-SOX period. In contrast, the accuracy (i.e., conditional profit potential) of institutional investors’ trades does not show any significant difference between the pre- and post-SOX regimes. Thus, we document that retail (but not institutional) investors processed post-SOX restatements more inaccurately than pre-SOX restatements.
The impact of professional standards on accounting judgments: The role of availability and comparative information
Darius Fatemi, Northern Kentucky University; John Hasseldine, University of New Hampshire; Peggy Hite, Indiana University
Given scant research on the influence of the AICPA’s Code of Conduct, this study examines the effects of professional standards for advocacy and integrity on a financial reporting decision. Based on the availability and priming literature, we test whether the current wording of two AICPA professional standards influence financial reporting decisions. Prior accounting research has documented cases where professionals were inclined toward a conservative or skeptical bias (Francis & Krishnan, 1999; Jenkins & Lowe, 1999) while other studies have documented an inclination toward a client-confirming bias (Hackenbrack & Nelson, 1996; Roberts, 2010). Our study examines whether using AICPA ethical standards as primes results in a neutral, unbiased financial reporting decision in a context in which there is substantial, yet inconclusive, evidence. Roberts (2010) documents the tendency for professionals to view integrity and advocacy as segregated objectives: one for promoting unbiased reporting, associated frequently with accounting-related decisions, and the other condoning client advocacy, typically associated with tax-related judgments. Hence, we test for availability effects based on separately-stated standards. However, the literature on comparative analysis explains that a combined concept containing counterbalancing features allows the participant to form causal relationships between the distinguishing components. This type of mental process brings the causal knowledge into working memory. Hence, a joint presentation of countervailing standards should result in a more balanced judgment, reflecting neither a conservative nor pro-client tendency.
The psychology literature suggests that heuristics, such as availability priming and comparative analysis, are more likely to affect novice decision makers (e.g., jurors, clients, new hires, students) than experts whose work experiences could drive the results. This study examines the responses of upper-level accounting majors, and the results show that the participants are inclined toward conservative decision making. Participants exposed to a separately-stated standard for integrity respond conservatively, just as they do in a control group without explicit access to the professional standard. Similarly, even when exposed to AICPA Rule 102-6 allowing client advocacy, they report conservatively. In contrast, when the prime is a joint presentation of the standards, participants respond with an unbiased decision, which differs significantly from the consistently conservative response by the control group as well as by the participants primed with an isolated standard. We conclude that two AICPA standards (as currently worded) are best understood when they are aggregated. Whether this finding holds for professionals is an empirical question for future research. The implication is that accountants’ decision making could be enhanced by a revised professional standard reminding them to jointly consider the goals of unbiased decision making and justifiable client advocacy.
Voluntary disclosure of reasons for auditor changes and the capital market reaction to information disclosure
Mahmud Hossain, American University of Sharjah; Santanu Mitra, Wayne State University; Zabihollah Rezaee, The University of Memphis
This study examines the association between firm attributes and management’s voluntary disclosure of the reason(s) for auditor changes and evaluates the capital market reaction to information disclosure of the auditor change events accompanied by preexisting red flag and non-red flag issues. We find that managers are more likely to disclose the reason(s) for auditor changes when those changes occurred because of benign business reasons or if the reasons do not indicate the presence of any underlying operating or financial reporting problem. On the other hand, managers are less likely to disclose the reason(s) for auditor changes when those changes are preceded by red-flag situations. Furthermore, auditor changes accompanied by preexisting red-flag situations are viewed negatively by the capital market, implying that the full disclosure of reasons for auditor changes is informative to investors. This observation is supported further by our market-based analyses, which consistently show that auditor changes accompanied by prevailing red flag issues are valued incrementally in the market above and beyond the reportable events (under FRR No. 31) and auditor-initiated changes. The study contributes to the recent policy debate related to mandating the disclosure of the reason(s) for auditor switches. Specifically, the results support the recent debates that the current voluntary disclosure regime results in selective disclosure practices that are likely to contribute to the general lack of transparency with respect to auditor changes.
Adjustment of valuation inputs and its effect on value relevance of fair value measurement
Hui Du, University of Houston Clear Lake; Sherry Fang Li, Rider University; Randall Zhaohui Xu, University of Houston Clear Lake
The fair value accounting standards; i.e., FAS 157, FAS 157-3 and FAS 157-4, specify the circumstances where firms need to adjust valuation inputs to fair value measurements in response to changes in market conditions. Such an adjustment inherently involves substantial management judgment and is accompanied with transfers of assets and liabilities among the different levels of the fair value hierarchy. We study the effect of adjusting valuation inputs to reflect market variations on value relevance of fair value measurements by comparing the value relevance of fair value assets between the banks that make transfers of assets and the banks that make no transfers. Overall, we find a significant increase in value relevance of fair value measurements for banks that transferred assets into/out of the Level 3 category. Our study examines a challenging situation in the application of fair value standards; i.e., determining fair value when there is a change in market conditions. Fair value measurement under such a situation involves substantial management judgment and potential estimate errors and manipulation. Our findings provide useful information for researchers, regulators and accounting professionals to assess the market’s perception of the reliability of fair value information when management exercises substantial discretion in adjusting valuation inputs under changing market conditions.
Voluntary formation of audit committees by large municipal governments
Brian C. Fitzgerald, Texas A&M University; Gary A. Giroux, Texas A&M University
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 requires that publicly-traded U.S. corporations have an audit committee in their internal control structure. In contrast to publicly-traded commercial firms, municipal governments are not required to form audit committees. Given that regulators believe it is a crucial aspect of internal control, we examine the extent to which city governments feature audit committees in the internal control structure. Based on a survey of financial managers from cities with populations greater than 100,000, we find that approximately 58% of the municipalities have such committees. Results indicate that larger and more financially viable cities are more likely to have audit committees. However, the form of municipal government and the quality of the local government’s financial reporting and audit processes are not significant determinants of the presence of an audit committee.
Accounting standard’s effectiveness on equity overstatement – Conservatism when it matters
Mitchell Oler, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
This paper evaluates the effectiveness of FASB’s standards on accounting conservatism when a firm is likely overstating assets or understating liabilities. Specifically, this paper considers whether conservatism increases due to SFAS 87, 106, 121, 142, and 123R, conditional on the firm being an aggressive reporter. To test these standards, I perform two time-series analyses from 1976 though to 2010. The first analysis compares the number of observations with a book to market ratio (BTM) greater than one to all observations at the industry level. The second determines whether each standard is correlated with a reduction in the probability of a firm having a BTM greater than one. I use the BTM greater than one to identify firms that should be more conservative (avoid equity overstatement), and to exclude those that are biasing earnings to artificially low levels. The results are consistent with only some of the standards, SFAS 106 (Employers’ Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pension) and SFAS 142 (Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets), being effective in reducing equity overstatement.
An investigation of SEC “Speech GAAP”
Xiaoyan Cheng, University of Nebraska-Omaha; Lei Gao, State University of New York at Geneseo; Janice Lawrence, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; David Smith, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
This study investigates the financial reporting regulation effects of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff comments made during the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Annual Current SEC & Public Company Oversight Board (PCAOB) Developments Conference in Washington, D.C. (SEC Conference). At this conference, the SEC staff communicates its preferences about areas where it believes companies are misapplying GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). We call this communication SEC Speech GAAP. One outcome of the SEC Conference may be that companies re-evaluate their previous financial reporting by restating their financial statements. We find, first, that firms with restatement issues similar to those covered at the SEC Conference experience a decrease in the association between earnings and future cash flows after the restatement. Second, we find little market reaction to the disclosure of restatements related to SEC Conference issues, but the disclosure of non-conference related restatement issues has a significantly negative affect on investors’ valuation decisions. Our findings suggest that SEC Speech GAAP is associated with financial statements that are less informative to investors and investors find the valuation consequences of restatements prompted by SEC Speech GAAP to be less important than the valuation consequences for restatements prompted for other reasons.
Does disaggregation of fair value information increase the value relevance of the fair value hierarchy?
Hung-Yuan (Richard) Lu, California State University-Fullerton; Vivek Mande, California State University-Fullerton
In response to pressures from Congress, the SEC and investors, the FASB issued ASU 2010-06, Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurement. ASU 2010-06 mandates that firms provide disaggregated fair value information by class of financial instruments under each level of the fair value hierarchy. Using financial statements of publicly traded banks for the first quarters of 2009 and 2010, this study examines whether providing class-level information increases the value relevance of the fair value hierarchy. In support of our hypothesis, we find that fair value relevance increases under ASU 2010-06.
The effect of external audits of internal control over financial reporting on financial reporting for clients of Big 4, Second-tier, and small audit firms
David N. Herda, North Dakota State University; Matthew A. Notbohm, University of North Dakota; Thomas D. Dowdell Jr, North Dakota State University
The external audit of internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) is a very expensive and contentious aspect of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX). Larger public firms were first required to file a management report on and have an external audit of ICFR in 2004. Smaller public firms were first required to file a management report on ICFR in 2007 but are exempt from the audit requirement. Whereas most related prior research investigates the combined effect of management and auditor reports on financial reporting, this study examines the distinct effect of auditor reports on reporting quality. For companies audited by small auditors, we find evidence that financial reporting quality improves with an auditor report on ICFR. We find no evidence that auditor ICFR reports improve reporting quality for clients of Big 4 or Second-tier audit firms. Our study adds to the debate on the applicability of SOX Section 404 to smaller firms.
Do management reports on internal control over financial reporting improve financial reporting?
Thomas D. Dowdell Jr, North Dakota State University; David N. Herda, North Dakota State University, Matthew A. Notbohm, University of North Dakota
Sections 404a and 404b of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act require management and external auditors, respectively, to report on the adequacy of a company’s internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). Larger public firms were first required to file a management report and have an external audit of ICFR in 2004. Smaller public firms were first required to file a management report on ICFR in 2007 but are exempt from the attestation requirement. We investigate the distinct effect of management reports on financial reporting quality. We find that management reports on ICFR improve reporting quality and demonstrate that there are financial reporting benefits from the management report requirement on its own without attestation.
The potential impact of COSO internal control integrated framework revision on internal audit structured SOX work programs
Kasey Martin, Texas State University; Elaine Sanders, The University of Texas at San Antonio; Genevieve Scalan, Texas State University
The purpose of this research is to report the extent internal auditors employ structured work programs in SOX compliance programs and the extent external auditors are involved in development of internal audit work programs. Given the link between the internal audit framework established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and the development of SOX work papers, we also summarize and explain the May 2013 changes to the COSO Internal Audit Integrated Framework. We further posit the potential effects of these changes on extant structured SOX work papers.
Including audit regulation in the accounting curriculum
David Gilbertson, Western Washington University; Terri Herron, The University of Montana
Audits and auditors are regulated to uphold audit quality, thus regulation is important to the public interest and clearly impacts firms and CPAs. Moreover, the reach of audit regulation has expanded greatly in the last decade with the establishment of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Recent research and calls from the profession point to enhancing the coverage of audit regulation in the accounting curriculum so that students understand the consequences of failing to adhere to professional standards. In this paper, we propose regulatory content for inclusion in the curriculum, we survey and catalog existing auditing textbooks and other educational materials for regulatory content, and we suggest flexible alternatives for incorporating this topic into the curriculum. It is our hope that, with these resources, faculty can more effectively include audit regulation in the classroom and achieve a high level of student comprehension and learning on the topic.