IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/parpps/par-11-2016-0098.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Related party transactions and finance company failure: New Zealand evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan
  • Jamal Roudaki

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to examine the existence of related party transactions (RPTs) in failed financial companies in New Zealand when firms have interlocking directors on the board. We also examine the role of auditors in the review of RPTs. We anticipate that inter-company director relationships promote RPTs, while reputable large auditors (i.e. Big4) restrict the practice. Design/methodology/approach - This study uses multivariate analysis to examine the determinants of RPTs. We use an unique, hand-collected database of New Zealand finance companies all of which collapsed during the years 2006-2011. Findings - Using a sample of 65 firms (including 38 failed finance firms) and 219 firm-year observations, we found that almost half of the failed finance firms were engaged in RPTs. For the failed firms, those that were engaged in RPTs were mostly represented by interlocking directors and were audited by non-Big4 auditors, implying lower monitoring quality may facilitate RPTs. Using a sub-sample, we also found evidence that firms engaged in RPTs were later convicted of questionable accounting and disclosure practices. Practical implications - This research is beneficial to regulators and audit professionals in understanding the potential for adverse outcomes associated with interlocking directors and undisclosed RPTs. While interlocking directors could enrich the external connections of a firm which might facilitate capital resourcing, this study suggests regulators might encourage firms to disclose RPTs when the firm has higher interlocked directors. Originality/value - This study is the first to examine the association between RPTs and interlocking directors using a sample of failed finance companies. RPTs and lack of disclosure were widely attributed with being the determinants of corporate failure in the finance sector. However, failed finance firms remain widely under-researched because of a lack of available data. This study circumvent this limitation by using print media and business news portals to collate information on RPTs and interlocking directors. While prior research indicates that weak corporate governance leads to poor accounting practice, using the interlocking board as a proxy for weak corporate governance, this study is the first to substantiate the adverse effect of interlocking boards and undisclosed RPTs with corporate failure.

Suggested Citation

  • Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan & Jamal Roudaki, 2018. "Related party transactions and finance company failure: New Zealand evidence," Pacific Accounting Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 30(2), pages 199-221, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:parpps:par-11-2016-0098
    DOI: 10.1108/PAR-11-2016-0098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/PAR-11-2016-0098/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/PAR-11-2016-0098/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/PAR-11-2016-0098?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abdullah Almutairi & Baban Eulaiwi & Robert Evans & Grantley Taylor, 2023. "Tax Haven Use and Related‐Party Transactions: Evidence from Australia," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(4), pages 352-374, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:parpps:par-11-2016-0098. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.