scholarly journals Opacity, liquidity and disclosure requirements

Author(s):  
André Stenzel ◽  
Wolf Wagner
2006 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharad Asthana ◽  
Jayanthi Krishnan

Corporate disclosures of auditor fees (beginning in February 2001) caused considerable concern among regulators and investors about auditor independence because they revealed that nonaudit fees were a substantial proportion of total auditor fees. However, in 2003 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced revised disclosure requirements, specifying a broader definition of audit fees, and additional fee categories (SEC 2003). About 31 percent of our sample firms adopted the new rules in advance of the required date. We investigate the pattern of early adoption of the new fee disclosure rules by companies. Our results indicate that companies with greater nonaudit fee ratios during the prior year, companies that could show a greater decline in nonaudit fee ratios due to reclassification under SEC (2003), and companies that had greater audit-related fees after the reclassification were likely to adopt the new rules early. We conjecture that companies that had the most to gain from reclassifying fees—possibly by reducing negative investor perceptions about nonaudit services—adopted the new rules earlier than required.


SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 215824402098854
Author(s):  
E. Chuke Nwude ◽  
Comfort Amaka Nwude

This article undertakes an empirical investigation on how firm board characteristics relate with corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD) in the banking industry of developing economies with a particular interest in Nigeria. The study focuses on a sample of 11 out of the 13 Nigerian listed national commercial banks which provide similar services and are subject to the same regulations and disclosure requirements by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) from 2007 to 2018. Multiple regression analysis was employed on panel data obtained from the banks’ audited financial statements. The findings show that board with large number of persons, low proportion of persons operating outside the bank operations, and higher percentage of feminine directors on the board support higher level of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The results of large number of persons on board and better proportion of feminine administrators support the resource dependency theory and agency theory which offer the broad theoretical underpinnings for this study. The low percentage of nonexecutive administrators negates stand of bank regulators. This implies that banks with an oversized board size, gender diversity, and less board independence are seemingly favorably disposed to improve on CSR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document