Mark S. Beasley

Errors in accounting estimates and their relation to audit firm type

We assess accuracy and bias in the accounting estimate of outstanding claim losses reported in the audited statutory financial statements of 197 property-casualty insurers during 1979-1983. Our analysis shows that claim loss estimation errors exceed materiality in over 90% of our sample. For errors that exceed materiality, the average absolute error, determined with the benefit of hindsight, is over 17 times materiality and over 8% of assets. Regression models generally do not support differences in estimate accuracy or bias across audit firm type, and therefore suggest that estimation error characteristics are not a basis for differentiating among auditors.

The value impact of strategic intent on firms engaged in information systems outsourcing

While information systems outsourcing has been on the rise in recent years, empirical evidence about whether IS outsourcing is value creating for shareholders is limited. Little is known about what factors influence the relation between information systems outsourcing and firm value. This study examines the effect of information systems outsourcing announcements on firm value by analyzing whether equity market reactions are associated with the managements strategic intent for outsourcing and firm characteristics of the outsourcing firm. After examining 103 IS outsourcing announcements made during the period from 1996 to 2003, results suggest that value is created for firms outsourcing with short-term operational intent rather than for longer term strategic reasons. In addition, the increase in firm value from an IS outsourcing announcement is positively associated with the firms operating asset efficiency and the firm being in a service industry.

Should You Offer a Job to Your External Auditor

Companies searching for senior executive talent often lure partners from the firms that perform their annual audits. But this can be risky, warn the authors. Is it worth it? How can you manage those risks?

Research Insights About Risk Governance: Implications From a Review of ERM Research

In recent years, expectations for increased risk governance have been placed explicitly on boards of directors. In response, boards are being held responsible for not only understanding and approving management’s risk management processes, but they are also being held responsible for assessing the risks identified by those processes as part of overseeing management’s pursuit of value. These increasing responsibilities have led a number of organizations to adopt enterprise risk management (ERM) as a holistic approach to risk management that extends beyond traditional silo-based risk management techniques. As boards, often through their audit committee, consider management’s implementation of ERM as part of the board’s risk oversight, a number of questions emerge that can be informed by academic research related to ERM. This article summarizes findings from ERM research to provide insights related to the board’s risk governance responsibilities. We also identify a number of research questions that warrant further analysis by governance scholars. It is our hope that this article will spawn varying types of research about ERM and corporate governance.