This paper investigates the efficiency of stock index options traded over-the-counter (OTC) and on the exchanges in Hong Kong and Japan. Our findings suggest that implied volatility is superior to either historical volatility or a GARCH-type volatility forecast in predicting future volatility in both the OTC and exchange markets. This paper is also one of the first to compare the predictive power of the implied volatility of stock index options traded OTC to that of exchange-traded stock index options. Our evidence suggests that the OTC market is more efficient than the exchanges in Japan, but that the opposite is true in Hong Kong.

The purpose of this paper is to advance research in internal audit (IA) evaluation by developing an IA assessment model that considers interrelationships among specific factors used by external auditors to evaluate the strength of the IA function. The model is based on three factors identified by auditing standards and by prior academic research: Competence, Work Performance, and Objectivity. We develop an analytical expression of the model using the belief function framework in order to overcome limitations of prior research. Our results reveal that modeling the And relationship is essential for assessing the strength of the IA function. As far as interrelationships are concerned, the analysis shows that, when the three factors have a strong or a perfect relationship, the strength of the IA function remains high even if there is positive or negative evidence about one of the factors. This result holds as long as there are high levels of belief about the other two factors. Further, we demonstrate how the quality of corporate governance affects the evaluation of the IA function and how a costbenefit analysis can be applied to this framework to help determine the amount of external audit work needed to comply with standards. Our analysis reveals that the extent of external audit work to be carried out by the external auditor depends on the strength of the IA function and the amount of litigation and regulatory costs likely to be faced by the external auditor. © 2010 CAAA.

The purpose of this paper is to advance research in internal audit (IA) evaluation by developing an IA assessment model that considers interrelationships among specific factors used by external auditors to evaluate the strength of the IA function. The model is based on three factors identified by auditing standards and by prior academic research: Competence, Work Performance, and Objectivity. We develop an analytical expression of the model using the belief function framework in order to overcome limitations of prior research. Our results reveal that modeling the “And” relationship is essential for assessing the strength of the IA function. As far as interrelationships are concerned, the analysis shows that, when the three factors have a strong or a perfect relationship, the strength of the IA function remains high even if there is positive or negative evidence about one of the factors. This result holds as long as there are high levels of belief about the other two factors. Further, we demonstrate how the quality of corporate governance affects the evaluation of the IA function and how a cost–benefit analysis can be applied to this framework to help determine the amount of external audit work needed to comply with standards. Our analysis reveals that the extent of external audit work to be carried out by the external auditor depends on the strength of the IA function and the amount of litigation and regulatory costs likely to be faced by the external auditor.

ABSTRACT We examine how accounting transparency and investor base jointly affect financial analysts' expectations of mispricing (i.e., expectations of stock price deviations from fundamental value). Within a range of transparency, these two factors interactively amplify analysts' expectations of mispricing—analysts expect a larger positive deviation when a firm's disclosures more transparently reveal income‐increasing earnings management and the firm's most important investors are described as transient institutional investors with a shorter‐term horizon (low concentration in holdings, high portfolio turnover, and frequent momentum trading) rather than dedicated institutional investors with a longer‐term horizon (high concentration in holdings, low portfolio turnover, and little momentum trading). Results are consistent with analysts anticipating that transient institutional investors are more likely than dedicated institutional investors to adjust their trading strategies for near‐term factors affecting stock mispricings. Our theory and findings extend the accounting disclosure literature by identifying a boundary condition to the common supposition that disclosure transparency necessarily mitigates expected mispricing, and by providing evidence that analysts' pricing judgments are influenced by their anticipation of different investors' reactions to firm disclosures.

This study investigates whether good governance structures help constrain management's opportunistic behaviors (in the form of transfer pricing manipulations) in one of the world's most dynamic economies. Our data are a unique sample of 266 companies listed on the Shanghai stock exchange that disclose gross profit ratios on related-party transactions. We find that firms with a board that has a higher percentage of independent directors or a lower percentage of “parent” directors (i.e., directors who are representatives of the parent companies of the listed firms), or have different people occupying the chair and CEO positions, or have financial experts on their audit committees, are less likely to engage in transfer pricing manipulations. Overall, our research findings reveal that the quality of corporate governance is important in deterring the use of manipulated transfer prices in related-party sales transactions.

Accounting fraud and how it has affected business practices both in the U.S. and internationally has never been of greater importance than it is now. Called to Account describes fourteen financial frauds that influenced the American public accounting profession and directly led to the development of accounting standards and legislation as practiced in the US today. This entertaining and educational look at these historic frauds helps enliven and increase understanding of auditing and forensic accounting for students. Chapters describe the tricks fraudsters such as Crazy Eddie Antar and Chainsaw Al Dunlap used to fool their auditors. Readers will learn how MiniScribe employees disguised packages of bricks as inventory; how Equity Funding personnel programmed the company’s computer to generate 64,000 phony life insurance policies; and how Enron inflated its profits by selling and then repurchasing money-losing assets. Complementing these chapters on high-profile crimes and criminals are chapters that trace the development of the public accounting profession and explain how each scandal shaped current accounting practices. Designed to complement dry, uninvolving auditing and advanced accounting texts with an engaging narrative, Called to Account also includes discussion questions and a useful chart which shows instructors and students how each chapter illustrates topics in leading accounting and auditing textbooks.

ABSTRACT This paper investigates whether the business press serves as an information intermediary. The press potentially shapes firms' information environments by packaging and disseminating information, as well as by creating new information through journalism activities. We find that greater press coverage reduces information asymmetry (i.e., lower spreads and greater depth) around earnings announcements, with broad dissemination of information having a bigger impact than the quantity or quality of press‐generated information. These results are robust to controlling for firm‐initiated disclosures, market reactions to the announcement, and other information intermediaries. Our findings suggest that the press helps reduce information problems around earnings announcements.

Previous studies document that the stock returns of bond-issuing firms significantly underperform matched peers over the three to five years following issuance. We revisit this phenomenon and show that the underperformance is the result of an omitted return factor (a “bad model problem”). Debt issuers have significantly higher stock market liquidity than size and book-to-market matched counterparts, and differences in liquidity are largest for the worst-performing groups of issuers. When we additionally match on liquidity or when we include a liquidity factor in the model for expected returns, the evidence of underperformance disappears.

The topic of this paper is inference in models in which parameters are defined by moment inequalities and/or equalities. The parameters may or may not be identified. This paper introduces a new class of confidence sets and tests based on generalized moment selection (GMS). GMS procedures are shown to have correct asymptotic size in a uniform sense and are shown not to be asymptotically conservative. The power of GMS tests is compared to that of subsampling, m out of n bootstrap, and “plug-in asymptotic” (PA) tests. The latter three procedures are the only general procedures in the literature that have been shown to have correct asymptotic size (in a uniform sense) for the moment inequality/equality model. GMS tests are shown to have asymptotic power that dominates that of subsampling, m out of n bootstrap, and PA tests. Subsampling and m out of n bootstrap tests are shown to have asymptotic power that dominates that of PA tests.