IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v50y2026i3p562-587.html

The bomb-crater effect of CSRC random inspections: evidence from internal control quality

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Xie
  • Bin Lin
  • Xiaojian Tang
  • Chuyi Wu
  • Junqin Huang

Abstract

This study examines the efficacy of an innovative public enforcement mechanism: the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) random inspections. Since 2016, the CSRC has carried out random inspections in which both inspectors and inspection targets are randomly selected. The selected inspectors conduct on-site inspections focusing on information disclosure, corporate governance, and other normative operations of the selected listed companies. Unlike other public enforcement mechanisms, the inspection targets in this approach are completely random. Random inspections are thought to save regulatory costs and overcome problems such as selective enforcement, with the potential to create an effective deterrent for listed companies, resulting in a “governance effect”. However, random inspections may also induce a “gambler’s fallacy” among executives in the inspected companies, resulting in the “bomb-crater effect”. We find that internal control quality decreases significantly in randomly inspected companies, supporting the bomb-crater effect hypothesis. Moreover, the deterioration in internal control quality caused by CSRC random inspections is more pronounced in firms with overconfident executives and in non-state-owned enterprises. In addition, the reduced quality of internal controls triggered by random inspections leads to lower-quality accounting information, an increased likelihood of financial restatements, and more frequent non-standard audit opinions. Overall, our results reveal the presence of bomb-crater effect in CSRC random inspections.

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Xie & Bin Lin & Xiaojian Tang & Chuyi Wu & Junqin Huang, 2026. "The bomb-crater effect of CSRC random inspections: evidence from internal control quality," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(3), pages 562-587, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:50:y:2026:i:3:p:562-587
    DOI: 10.1080/01559982.2025.2548138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01559982.2025.2548138
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01559982.2025.2548138?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

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:accfor:v:50:y:2026:i:3:p:562-587. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    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.