Are fully independent audit committees really necessary?
AbstractAccounting scandals and concerns about the quality of financial statements have led to many calls for improved audit committee effectiveness. Prior research indicates that audit committee independence is positively related to effective oversight of the financial reporting process. Unfortunately, prior research has not provided an answer as to how much independence on the audit committee is enough. This is an important unanswered question because while Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) currently requires all listed companies to maintain an audit committee that is 100% independent there has been much debate regarding easing the SOX requirements for smaller and foreign companies. In this paper we examine whether the regulatory requirements of a completely independent audit committee are necessary to obtain the monitoring benefits related to audit committee independence that have been documented in prior literature. Our results suggest that the benefits of audit committee independence are consistently achieved only when the audit committee is completely independent. These results provide support for the SOX requirement of 100% independent audit committees.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Accounting and Public Policy.
Volume (Year): 28 (2009)
Issue (Month): 4 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccpubpol
Audit committee independence Auditor dismissals Going-concern reports;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Jin, Justin Yiqiang & Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Lobo, Gerald J., 2013. "Unintended consequences of the increased asset threshold for FDICIA internal controls: Evidence from U.S. private banks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 4879-4892.
- Nandini Chandar & Hsihui Chang & Xiaochuan Zheng, 2012. "Does overlapping membership on audit and compensation committees improve a firm's financial reporting quality?," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 11(2), pages 141-165, May.
- Stefanelli, Valeria & Matteo, Cotugno, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis on Board Monitoring Role and Loan Portfolio Quality Measurement in Banks," MPRA Paper 29766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.