Instructor: Ole-Kristian Hope (CFA, CPA, CMA), Deloitte Professor of Accounting

August 13-17, 2012

For applications and enquiries please contact Elisabeth Stiegler at NHH no later than May 28.

This intensive course in capital-markets oriented accounting research at NHH offer an introductory survey of empirical research in accounting.

Students should expect to spend the summer preparing for the course. The course content will be finalized and papers assigned approximately eight weeks prior to course start. A detailed course schedule will be made available to registered students at that time. The course will primarily cover recently published articles as well as current working papers. Creativity in research ideas as well as basic research design issues is emphasized.

No prior background in accounting research is expected for this introductory course. However, students are expected to be highly motivated and have a positive attitude. There will be a low tolerance for laziness.

Associate Professor of Accountancy

The George Washington University, U.S.A.

Website Link:  http://business.gwu.edu/faculty/angela_gore.cfm

email:  angela.gore@utu.fi; agore@gwu.edu

“A good scientist needs a thick skin and an irrational sense of optimism.”

I.  Logistics

Registration:  Students for the course will be selected in the order of registration.  Due to the nature of the course, it is limited to a maximum of 15 participants.  Priority will be given to KATAJA members (e.g. students belonging to GSA).  Registration should be done via e-mail to the Departmental Coordinator Noora Kedonperä (noora.kedonpera@utu.fi).  Deadline for registration is Friday, 2 March 2012.

Venue and time:  Sessions will be held in the Turku School of Economics at the University of Turku, Rehtorinpellonkatu 3, 20500 Turku.  The course comprises two related parts.  The first part will be held from 5 Mar – 9 Mar 2012, and the second part is from 16 Apr – 20 Apr 2012.  For further enquiries, please contact either Angela Gore (angela.gore@utu.fi) or Hannu Schadéwitz (hannu.schadewitz@utu.fi).

The seminar will be held in the following specific locations, from 9-12 each day:

II. Course Objectives

This course will provide an introduction to empirical financial accounting research, with a focus on two specific areas:  disclosure and governance-related research.  We’ll study both a variety of recent work in order to introduce you to the latest developments in the area, along with a few ‘classics,’ to help you identify potential research paper/dissertation topics.  We’ll also spend time discussing the elements of good research papers (such as writing a good introduction, and thinking about what referees look for) to help increase your chances of successfully publishing your future work.

III. Course Grade

Your course grade will consist of the following:

Grading will be on a scale of 0-5, 6 ECTS cr units.

1. Participation and presentations

The format of this class will primarily be discussion, which means that you’ll be required to do a lot of talking.  We will cover approximately two or three papers during each class meeting.  One student will be responsible for leading the discussion of most papers (and we will allocate the papers at the first class meeting; I will lead the discussion for the papers on the first day for both weeks 1 and 2).  The presenter will orient the discussion around the following questions:

1. What is the question of interest (main hypothesis or prediction), the motivation (why is this topic interesting and important), and how does it relate to the existing literature?
2. How do the authors attempt to answer the question of interest, with a focus on methods and research design?
3. What are the main findings and results?
4. Did the authors answer the question(s) proposed?  Why or why not?
5. What improvements would you make to this paper, and/or what questions are left unanswered?

Normally the presentation should last around 30-45 minutes if uninterrupted.  However, interruptions are expected:  the non-presenting students (and myself) are strongly encouraged to ask questions and make comments during the presentations, as they arise.   I do not expect the presenter to know everything about the paper, or to be able to answer all questions (neither can I!).  However, non-presenting students should read the assigned papers thoroughly to the extent that they can explain the paper to a lay person, and make useful comments.  Each non-presenting student should ask at least one question about every paper, and/or provide thoughtful comments.

Paper summaries:

To help you be ready for the paper discussions, I ask that you prepare a short summary for each paper.  The summaries should be oriented around the above five questions, and should be sufficiently succinct (on average, one page, but no more than two pages) to allow using them for future reference.  Note that I will not collect these summaries, however, I’ll likely notice if you don’t prepare them.

Optional papers:

In addition to the listed papers, which we will discuss in more detail, I have also listed a series of “optional” papers.  These are meant for your reference, both to help you gain a broader perspective on particular areas, and to give you other works to consider for those topics which capture your interest.  I will occasionally refer to these papers as we go, and/or discuss a summary of major points, but do not expect you to have read them in detail.

2. Homework 

We will have approximately 3 homework assignments each week.  Examples of homework include writing up a one-page research idea; looking up a paper to determine its research impact; and writing a referee report.  Tentative due dates are listed on the attached course outline.

Course Outline

Papers:

Week 1:

Baber and Gore, 2008.  Consequences of GAAP disclosure regulation:  evidence from municipal debt.  The Accounting Review 83 (3):  565-591.

Beyer, Cohen, Lys, and Walther, 2010. The financial reporting environment:  review of the recent literature.  Journal of Accounting and Economics 50:  296-343.

Botosan, 1997.  Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital.  The Accounting Review 72: 323-350.

DeAngelo and DeAngelo, 1991.  Union negotiations and corporate policy:  A study of labor concessions in the domestic steel industry during the 1980s.  Journal of Financial Economics 30:  3-43.

Del Guercio, Seery, and Woidtke, 2008.  Do boards pay attention when institutional investor activists ‘just vote no’?  Journal of Financial Economics 90:  84-103.

Field, Lowry, and Shu, 2005.  Does disclosure deter or trigger litigation?  Journal of Accounting and Economics 39:  487–507.

Graham, Harvey, and Rajgopal, 2005.  Economic implications of corporate financial reporting.  Journal of Accounting and Economics 40: 3-73.

Graham, Liu, and Qiu,  2008.  Corporate misreporting and bank loan contracting.  Journal of Financial Economics 89:  44-61.

Healy and Palepu, 2001.  Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets:  a review of the empirical disclosure literature.  Journal of Accounting and Economics 31:  405-440.

Heitzman, Wasley, and Zimmerman,  2010.   The joint effects of materiality thresholds and voluntary disclosure incentives of firms’ disclosure decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 49: 109–132.

Klasa, Maxwell, and Ortiz-Molina,  2009.  The strategic use of corporate cash holdings in collective bargaining with labor unions.  Journal of Financial Economics 92:  421-442.

Watts and Zuo, 2011.  Accounting conservatism and firm value:  Evidence from the global financial crisis.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Optional references (week 1):

Bainbridge, 2005.  Shareholder activism and institutional investors.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Bushman and Landsman, 2010.  The pros and cons of regulating corporate reporting:  a critical review of the arguments.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Campello, Graham, and Harvey, 2010.  The real effects of financial constraints:  Evidence from a financial crisis.  Journal of Financial Economics 97:  470-487.

Core, 2001.  A review of the empirical disclosure literature:  a discussion.  Journal of Accounting and Economics 31:  441.

Farber, Hsieh, Jung, and Li, 2010.  Labor unions and accounting conservatism.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Gore, 2004.  The effects of GAAP regulation and bond market interaction on local government Disclosure.  Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 23 (1):  23-52.  (See figure 1)

Karpoff, 2001.  The impact of shareholder activism on target companies: A survey of empirical findings.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Kim and Skinner, 2011.  Measuring securities litigation risk.  Journal of Accounting and Economics, forthcoming.

Klein, 1998.  Firm performance and board committee structure.  Journal of Law and Economics 41 (1):  275-303.

Leftwich, 1980.  Market failure fallacies and accounting information.  Journal of Accounting and Economics 2:  193-211.

Leung, Li, and Rui,  2009.  Labor union (sic) and accounting conservatism.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Liberty and Zimmerman, 1986.  Labor union contract negotiations and accounting choices.  The Accounting Review 61 (4):  692-712.

Watts and Zimmerman, 1986.  Positive Accounting Theory, disclosure regulation chapter, 156-178.

Week 2:

Adams, Hermalin, and Weisbach, 2009.  The role of boards of directors in corporate governance:  a conceptual framework and survey.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Aggarwal, Evans, and Nanda, 2011.  Nonprofit boards:  Size, performance and managerial incentives.  Journal of Accounting and Economics, forthcoming.

Armstrong, Guay, and Weber,  2010.  The role of information and financial reporting in corporate governance and debt contracting.  Journal of Accounting and Economics 50:  179-234.

Brown, 2005.  The importance of circulating and presenting manuscripts:  evidence from the accounting literature.  The Accounting Review 80: 55-83.

Chaney, Faccio, and Parsley, 2011.  The quality of accounting information in politically connected firms.  Journal of Accounting and Economics 51 (1-2):  58-76.

Chen, Kido, and Weber,  2011.  The influence of elections on the accounting choices of governmental entities.  Journal of Accounting Research conference paper, Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Clarkson, 2012.  Publishing:  Art or science?  Reflections from an editorial perspective.  Accounting and Finance, forthcoming; available on ssrn.

Core, Guay, and Verdi, 2006.  Agency problems of excess endowment holdings in not-for-profit firms.  Journal of Accounting and Economics 41:  307-333.

Faccio, McConnell, and Masulis, 2006.  Political connections and corporate bailouts.  Journal of Finance 61 (6):  2597-2635.

Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick, 2003.  Corporate governance and equity prices.  Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 107-155.

Larcker, Richardson, and Tuna, 2007.  Corporate governance, accounting outcomes, and organizational performance.  The Accounting Review 82 (4):  963-1008.

Linck, Netter, and Yang, 2008.  The determinants of board structure.  Journal of Financial Economics 87:  308-328.

Zimmerman, 1989.  Improving a manuscript’s readability and likelihood of publication.  Issues in Accounting Education 4 (2):  458-466.

Optional references (week 2):

Blanes, Draca, and Fons-Rosen, 2010.  Revolving door lobbyists.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Faccio, 2006.  Politically connected firms.  American Economic Review 96 (1):  369-386.

Heck, 2009.  Most prolific authors in the accounting literature over the past half century:  1959-2008.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Hermalin and Weisbach, 1998.  Endogenously chosen boards and their monitoring of the CEO.  American Economic Review 88:  96-118.

Hutton, Marcus, and Tehranian,  2009.  Opaque financial reports, R2, and crash risk.  Journal of Financial Economics 94:  67-86.

Shleifer and Vishny, 1998.  Survey of corporate governance.  American Economic Review 88: 96-118.

Van Lent, 2012.  Discussion of the influence of elections on the accounting choices of governmental entities.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

General optional methodological pieces that you may use as references:

Lee and Lemieux, 2009.  Regression discontinuity designs in economics.  Unpublished working paper, ssrn.

Thompson, 2011.  Simple formulas for standard errors that cluster by both firm and time.  Journal of Financial Economics 99:  1-10.

Professor Eli Amir

Course objectives:

This course covers selected topics in empirical research in financial analysis. We aim at understanding how accounting research questions are addressed using empirical-archival methods. To obtain a broad understanding of empirical research in financial analysis, it is necessary to read thoroughly, and understand the required readings. For each paper, you should be able to answer three questions: (1) what is the research question? (2) How is it answered, i.e., what is the approach, what is the setting? (3) What answer is reached? We will use these questions in our discussions. You need to come prepared to discuss the topics in class. While I do not expect you to find critical flaws in every paper, I would like you to try by reading them with skepticism. Your appreciation for the research will be that much greater.

Registration for the course:

In order to register for the course, please send email to Prof. Juha-Pekka Kallunki (juha-pekka.kallunki@oulu.fi) by June 1, 2012.

Class Materials:

The materials include a collection of articles to be discussed in class or for background reading.

Term Paper:

• Term paper is optional, 2 additional ECTS units.
• Term papers should be written by small groups of 2-3 students, the groups being formed by the students themselves.
• The authoring groups can choose any sensible topic that somehow deals with the preparation or use of financial statement information.
• The paper can be a literature review of a specific area, a theoretical development of a specific idea, or an empirical paper testing one or more hypotheses on defined phenomena.
• Students wishing to write a term paper should write their names and the preliminary topic of their paper on a separate list by August 6, 2008.
• The deadline for the paper is 30 September 2012. The paper should be sent as an email attachment (preferably pdf format to Prof. Kallunki at juha-pekka.kallunki@Oulu.fi).

Grading

The course grade is based on a closed-book final exam of up to 3 hours (75%) and class participation (25%).

Instructions for Pre-Course Preparation

The papers that will be discussed in class are assigned to class participants. Please read your assigned paper very carefully (for paper assignments, please see the enclosed list).

Following the reading, you should prepare a summary of one page (single space, font  12) along the following sub-topics:

1. Objective of the study/ Research question(s).
2. Methodology.
3. Summary of results.
4. Conclusions.

The summary should be sent by e-mail to me [eamir@london.edu] by August 10, 2012. These reports will be distributed to all students. During class, I’ll ask questions about methodological details of the individual who was assigned that paper. In addition, each class participant is responsible for reading all the papers prior to the class itself.

Course Content

Background Reading:

These papers will provide you with some background on most of the topics covered in the course. These papers will neither be covered in class nor in the final examination.

Lev, B., “On the Usefulness of Earnings and Earnings Research: Lessons and Directions from Two Decades of Empirical Research,” Journal of Accounting Research, 1989, v27(Supp), 153-201.

Nissim, D., and S.H. Penman, 2001, Ratio Analysis and Equity Valuation: From Research to Practice. Review of Accounting Studies, vol. 6, pp. 109–154.

Class Materials

The materials for the class include a list of 20 papers. I will try to cover all of them in class. However, as class time is limited, some of these papers will be covered only briefly.

The course is taught over three days with four 75-minute sessions in each day (a total of 12 sessions). Below you will find the references for the papers that I plan to discuss in class.

Day 1

Session 1 (9:00 – 10:30) – Event study methodology, market reaction to earnings

• Ball, R.and P. Brown, “An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting Income Numbers,” Journal of Accounting Research, 1968, v6(2), 159-178.
• Beaver, W. H. 1968. The information Content of annual earnings announcements. Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 67-92.

Session 2 (11:00 – 12:30) – Return earnings association tests

• Easton, P. D., T S. Harris. 1991. Earnings as an explanatory variable for returns. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring), pp. 19-36.
• Easton, P. D., T. S. Harris, and J. A. Ohlson. 1992. Aggregate accounting earnings can explain most of security returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 15 (June/September), pp. 119-142.

Session 3 (14:00 – 15:30) – Financial analysis using earnings components and ratios

• Ohlson, J. A., and S. H. Penman. 1992. Disaggregated accounting data as explanatory variables for returns. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, vol. 7, pp. 553-573.
• Lev, B. and S. R. Thiagarajan. 1993. Fundamental Information Analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, v31, no. 2, pp. 190-215.
• Amir, E., T. S. Harris, and E. K. Venuti. 1993. A comparison of the value relevance of U.S. versus non-U.S. GAAP accounting measures using form 20-F reconciliations. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (Supplement): 230-263.

Day 2

Session 1 (9:00 – 10:30) – Financial analysis using earnings components and ratios

• Ou, J. A. and S. H. Penman. 1989. Financial Statement Analysis and the Prediction of Stock Returns. Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 295-329.
• Amir, E., I. Kama, and J. Livnat. 2011. Conditional versus Unconditional Persistence of RNOA Components: Implications for Valuation. Review of Accounting Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June).

Session 2 (11:00 – 12:30) – Analyzing Accounting Conservatism

• Basu, S. 1997. The conservatism principle and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24: 77-104.
• Amir, E., Y. Guan and G. Livne. 2011. The Association between Auditor Independence and Accounting Conservatism. Working Paper, London Business School (April).

Session 3 (14:00 – 15:30) – Non-Financial Information and Accruals

• Sloan, R. G., “Do Stock Prices Fully Reflect Information in Accruals and Cash Flows about Future Earnings?,” The Accounting Review, 1996, v71(3,Jul), 289-315.
• Amir, E. and B. Lev. “Value-Relevance of Nonfinancial Information: The Wireless Communications Industry,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1996, v22(1-3,Aug-Dec), 3-30.

Day 3

Session 1 (9:00 – 10:30) – Analyzing Pension Information

• Amir, E., and S. Benartzi. 1998. The Assumed Rate of Return on Pension Funds and Asset Allocation as Predictors of Portfolio Performance. The Accounting Review 73 (July): 335-352.
• Amir, E., Y. Guan and D. Oswald. 2011. The Effect of Pension Accounting on Corporate Pension Asset Allocation. Review of Accounting Studies, Vol. 15 (June), pp. 345-3660.
• Amir, E., and A. Ziv. 1997. Recognition, disclosure or delay: Timing the adoption of SFAS 106. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 61-81.

Session 2 (10:45 – 12:15) – Analyzing R&D

• Lev, B. and T. Sougiannis. 1996. The capitalization, amortization and value relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics 22: 107-138.
• Amir, E., Y. Guan and G. Livne. 2007. The Association of R&D and Capital Expenditures with subsequent Earnings Variability. Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting 34 (1 & 2): 222-246.

Session 3 (13:00 – 14:30) – Auditing

• Amir, E., Y. Guan and G. Livne. 2011. Auditor Independence, Bond rating and the Cost of Capital Before and After Sarbanes-Oxley: The Case of Newly Issued Public Debt. European Accounting Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 633–664.
• Amir, E., J.P. Kallunki, H. Nilsson. 2012. The Association between Individual Audit Partners’ Risk Preferences and the Composition of their Client Portfolios. Working Paper, London Business School, University of Oulu, and Stockholm School of Economics (March).

Instructor: Ole-Kristian Hope (CFA, CPA, CMA), Deloitte Professor of Accounting

E-mail: okhope@rotman.utoronto.ca

August 9-13, 2011

PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Course objectives

The objective of this course is to provide you with a brief introduction to the empirical financial accounting literature. (As such, note that at NHH, this is not considered a stand- alone course but rather is taken in conjunction with other accounting seminars.) We will focus on topics in disclosure “and international accounting.” Instead of studying “classics,” we will instead primarily read and discuss recent and current papers. In addition to discussing articles, an important part of the course is informal discussion related to how to conduct research and publish papers, as well as related career issues. We will not have much time (if any) to discuss methodological issues; thus it is imperative that you acquire methodological skills through other courses.

We will concentrate on articles that attempt to shed light on the factors underlying firms’ disclosure choices as well as studies that attempt to demonstrate the economic effects associated with differences in firms’ disclosure behavior. I do not apologize for including some of my own studies. I am not claiming that these are in any sense better than alternative papers; however, it makes sense for me for an instructor to focus on his strengths. More generally, we will not try to memorize the individual studies, but rather try to learn from them about topics, research design, methodology, the research process, etc. In fact, we should anticipate to learn more from each other than from the papers themselves.

Course style

This course will be conducted primarily as a seminar/workshop with only intermittent “lectures” given by the instructor. Although course participants are responsible for reading the assigned manuscripts for each class, the responsibility for leading the discussion will rotate among us. The discussion leader is not only to summarize the research, but also to help facilitate an in-depth understanding of the methodological innovations and problems in the manuscript.

Discussion Leader Papers have been assigned to a student who will prepare a written summary (approx. two pages) that will be given to all participants at the beginning of that session, and which may serve as a reference during the discussion. This student will begin class discussion by summarizing the paper and placing it in context. I may interject and ask questions to the discussion leader or other participants at any time (i.e., expect “cold calling”). An outline for the written summary might include the following:

• research question and its importance • research method (model, sample, statistical analysis) • results • critique • contribution (relative to closely related papers – and related to overall importance of topic)

[Depending on enrollment, for some of the (more involved) papers we may also have a back-up. He/she will not present the paper, but will be available to answer detailed questions regarding the content of the paper.]

Other students Every participant is expected to read all assigned papers carefully and to participate in our discussions. Each student ought to prepare questions and comments on each assigned paper.

Papers marked as Supplementary

Read if you’re interested in this line of research. Otherwise skim quickly or skip. We will generally not go through these papers. However, I may refer to some of them. (If you’re a serious PhD student, you should read these and many, many more…)

Course grade

Your grade will be based on the following:

1. Class participation, including presentations (67%). Course credit will not be granted unless you participate fully.

2. Research proposal (33%). This will be a maximum five page document (with reasonable font size, line spacing, and margins) that contains a description of an original research idea pertaining to the (preferably empirical financial) accounting literature. In particular, you should describe the research question, its potential contribution to the extant literature, the proposed research design, etc. Note that the proposal is required in order to obtain course credit.

Venue and time: Our sessions will be held in “Det Runde Vinduet” (close to the cafeteria on the lower level). Note we will start exactly when listed (not five or ten minutes after the hour).

Monday 1-4: Introduction and background (general; introducing each other; research tools; research process; dissertation and publishing) plus one disclosure paper

Botosan. 1997. Disclosure Level and the Cost of Capital. The Accounting Review. A simple but very well cited paper (first in this line of research).

Supplementary reading:

Lang, M. and R. Lundholm. 1996. Corporate disclosure policy and analyst behavior. The Accounting Review (October). Very well cited and you definitely need to know this article.

Ball. 2009. “Market and political/regulatory perspectives on the recent accounting scandals.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Verrecchia. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics (especially 141-175).

Tuesday 9-12: Hope on disclosure and agency costs (and intro to segment disclosure; pay-for-performance; private firms and financing constraints)

Hope and Thomas. 2008. “Managerial Empire Building and Firm Disclosure.” Journal of Accounting Research. [Note the research design.]

De Franco, Hope, and Larocque. 2010. “The Effects of Disclosure on the Pay- Performance Relation.” Working paper, University of Toronto.

Hope, Thomas, and Vyas. 2010. “Transparency, Ownership, and Financing Constraints in Private Firms.” Working paper, University of Toronto and University of Oklahoma.

Supplementary reading:

Hope, Kang, Thomas, and Vasvari. 2009. “The Effects of SFAS 131 Geographic Segment Disclosures by U.S. Multinational Companies on the Valuation of Foreign Earnings.” Journal of International Business Studies

Bebchuk. L.A. and J.M. Fried. 2005. Pay without performance: Overview of the issues. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 17 (4): 8-23.

Dyck, A., and L. Zingales. 2004. “Private benefits of control: An international comparison.” Journal of Finance Vol. 59: 537-600.

Rajan, R., and L. Zingales. 1998. “Financial Dependence and Growth”. The American Economic Review Vol. 88: 559-586.

Tuesday 2-4: Disclosure variations and cost of capital effects

Francis, Khurana, and Pereira. 2005. “Disclosure Incentives and Effects on Cost of Capital Around the World.” Accounting Review Vol. 80 No. 4: 1125-1162.

Hail and Leuz. 2006. “International differences in the cost of equity capital: Do legal institutions and securities regulation matter?” Journal of Accounting Research.

Supplementary reading:

Francis, Nanda, and Olsson. 2008. “Voluntary Disclosure, Earnings Quality, and Cost of Capital.” Journal of Accounting Research. This is a long paper but you should be aware of (1) the results and (2) the methodologies employed.

Hope, Kang, Thomas, and Yoo 2009. “Impact of excess auditor remuneration on cost of equity capital around the world. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance.

Wednesday 9 – 12: Disclosure and agency and proprietary costs Note that this will likely be our “toughest” session, so be well prepared so we can focus on important issues.

Berger and Hann. 2007. “Segment Profitability and the Proprietary and Agency Costs of Disclosure.” Accounting Review. [Since this is a long (but very nice) paper, the write-up and discussion should focus on main issues and tests and briefly describe sensitivity analyses.]

Bens, Berger, and Monahan. 2009. “Discretionary Disclosure in Financial Reporting: An Examination Comparing Internal Firm Data to Externally Reported Segment Data.” Working paper, University of Arizona, University of Chicago, and INSEAD. Make sure you carefully read Berger and Hann (2007) first. This is another long article, so let’s make sure we focus on the most important issues.

Bova, Dou, and Hope. 2010. “Employee Ownership and Firm Disclosure.” Working paper, University of Toronto.

Wednesday 1-4: International variations in earnings quality

Burgstahler, Hail, and Leuz. 2006. “The importance of reporting incentives: Earnings management in European private and public firms.” The Accounting Review.

Chen, Hope, Li, and Wang. 2010. Financial reporting quality and investment efficiency of private firms in emerging markets. Working paper.

Dou, Hope, and Thomas. 2010. Relationship-Specificity, Incomplete Contracts, and Income Smoothing: An International Study. Working paper, University of Toronto and University of Oklahoma.

Supplementary reading:

Leuz, Nanda, Wysocki. 2003. “Earnings management and investor protection: An international comparison.” Journal of Financial Economics 69. Widely cited (and note subtle inferences in Dou, Hope, and Thomas).

Thursday: 10 – 12: Brief intro to cross-listing literature

Lang, Ready, and Wilson. Earnings management and cross listing: Are reconciled earnings comparable to U.S. earnings? 2006. Journal of Accounting & Economics

Piotroski and Srinivasan. 2008. “Regulation and Bonding: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Flow of International Listings.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Supplementary reading:

Hope, Kang, Kim, and Pereira. 2010. “Voluntary disclosure practices by foreign firms cross-listed in the United States. Working paper.

Hope, Kang, and Zang. 2007. “Bonding to the Improved Disclosure Environment in the United States and the Capital Market Consequences.” Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics. A nice paper even though published in a small journal.

Thursday 2-4: Financial analysts

Bae, Tan, and Welker. 2008. “International GAAP Differences: The Impact on Foreign Analysts.” The Accounting Review (long but nice paper).

Ke and Yu. 2009. Why Don’t Analysts Use Their Earnings Forecasts in Generating Stock Recommendations? Working paper, Pennsylvania State University and University of T exas.

Supplementary reading: Hope.” 2003. “Disclosure practices, enforcement of accounting standards and analysts’

forecast accuracy: An international study. Journal of Accounting Research.

Barniv, Hope, Myring, and Thomas. 2009. Do Analysts Practice What They Preach and Should Investors Listen? Effects of Recent Regulations. The Accounting Review Vol. 84 No. 4.

Barniv, Hope, Myring, and Thomas. 2010. International Evidence on Analyst Stock Recommendations, Valuations, and Returns. Forthcoming, Contemporary Accounting Research.

Friday 8:30 – 10:30: More on international variations

Barth, Landsman and Lang. 2008. “International Accounting Standards and Accounting Quality.” Journal of Accounting Research Vol. 46 No. 3.

Lang, Lins, and Maffett. 2009. “Transparency, Liquidity, and Valuation: International Evidence.” Working paper, UNC and University of Utah.

Supplementary reading:

Ball. 2006. “IFRS – pros and cons for investors.” Accounting and Business Research. An easy to read and beautiful article!

Bradshaw and Miller. 2008. “Will harmonizing accounting standards really harmonize accounting? Evidence from non-U.S. firms adopting US GAAP.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance. Note the very useful appendix!

Bradshaw, Bushee, and Miller 2004. “Accounting choice, home bias and U.S. investment in non-U.S. firms.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Covrig, DeFond, and Hung. 2007. Home bias, foreign mutual fund holdings, and the voluntary adoption of International Accounting Standards. Journal of Accounting Research.

Daske, Hail, Leuz, and Verdi. 2009. “Adopting a Label: Heterogeneity in the Economic Consequences of IFRS Adoptions.” Working paper, Mannheim, Wharton, Chicago, and MIT.

There are obviously a very large number of recent/current papers on IFRS adoption. However, I personally find many of these to be dreadfully boring…

We should have time to think about and discuss whether there still are interesting financial reporting differences left to examine… Let’s try to brainstorm. For example, what’s special about the Nordic countries (or Europe) with respect to accounting and institutional factors?

Friday 10:35 – 12: Voluntary brief individual meetings to discuss your research and PhD studies

For information about registration and access to the course website please contact: Elisabeth.Stiegler@nhh.no

The course is designed for PhD students in the Accounting and Business PhD degree programmes. This course will be especially helpful to students who wish to use economics-based archival research in their dissertations and subsequent research.

Introduction to empirical accounting research is a stand-alone course (4 ECTS).

Overall course objective:

To introduce students to empirical accounting research by reading and discussing “classical” and other central articles from international journals within the field.

More specifically the course objectives are:

• To provide an overview of major areas of capital market based empirical accounting research and to give the students a knowledge of classic, widely cited research papers
• To introduce students to research methodologies used in empirical accounting research
• To develop the ability to critically evaluate empirical accounting research
• To facilitate the development of research projects within the field.

Course outline:

The course is conducted primarily as a seminar/workshop with introductory lectures and perspective remarks given to the various topics by the instructor. Course participants are assigned the task of author on selected papers. The papers will also have a student assigned as a discussant. Other students will be expected to ask questions and provide critical feedback on the papers; this will then lead to an active discussion among all individuals about the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.

Course grade

Your grade (pass/not pass) will be based on the following:

• Class participation, including presentations

Lecturers:

(Primary lecturer) Wayne R. Landsman, Professor of Accounting at UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Thomas Plenborg, Professor of Accounting at the Copenhagen Business School CBS, Copenhagen

Frank Thinggaard, Professor of Accounting at the Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University

Number of participants

The maximum number of participants is around 15 ph.d. students. Preference is given to ph.d. students from the Nordic Accounting Research Network.

Venue

Aarhus School of Business, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Aarhus V., Denmark

When

May 23 – May 26, 2011 (Monday – Thursday in week 21)

Registration

PhD students from Danish Universities and Business Schools will be entitled to full funding of their participation fee, travel costs and overnight arrangements from the Danish Research Council (FSE).

All other course participants are responsible for their own travel costs and overnight arrangements. A participation fee of EUR100 will be charged to cover meals and refreshments during the PhD Course.

To register, please submit your application by April 20, 2011 to Susanne Lannie, sla@asb.dk

Accommodation

Unfortunately, there is no accommodation on campus.
> Book accommodation on VisitAarhus’s website

Travel information
> How to get to Aarhus School of Business

Contact

Academic organiser:
Frank Thinggaard
fth@asb.dk or  +45 89 48 63 42

Administrative organiser:
Susanne Lannie
sla@asb.dk or +45 89 48 66 54

The course is designed for PhD students in the Accounting and Business PhD degree programmes, as the discussions, illustrations and projects will cut across disciplinary boundaries. This course will be especially helpful to students who wish to use the survey, experimental and/or quasi-experimental methods in their dissertations and subsequent research. However, students who plan to use economics-based archival research will also find it helpful to be a well-informed consumer of behavioural research. Archival studies often test hypotheses developed in behavioural research, and behavioural studies provide explanations for anomalies documented in archival research.

 
Lecturers

• Stephen K. Asare, JD, PhD, CFE KPMG Term Professor Fisher School of Accounting, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida
• Iris Stuart, Professor Department of Accounting, Auditing and Law Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration
• Claus Holm, PhD Professor Accounting Research Centre, Department of Business Studies Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University

 
download course outline

 
When and where

 
Registration

 
Accommodation

 
Travel information

 
Contact

Instructor: Ole-Kristian Hope (CFA, CPA, CMA), Deloitte Professor of Accounting

E-mail: okhope@rotman.utoronto.ca

August 9-13, 2010

PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Course objectives

The objective of this course is to provide you with a brief introduction to the empirical financial accounting literature. (As such, note that at NHH, this is not considered a stand- alone course but rather is taken in conjunction with other accounting seminars.) We will focus on topics in disclosure “and international accounting.” Instead of studying “classics,” we will instead primarily read and discuss recent and current papers. In addition to discussing articles, an important part of the course is informal discussion related to how to conduct research and publish papers, as well as related career issues. We will not have much time (if any) to discuss methodological issues; thus it is imperative that you acquire methodological skills through other courses.

We will concentrate on articles that attempt to shed light on the factors underlying firms’ disclosure choices as well as studies that attempt to demonstrate the economic effects associated with differences in firms’ disclosure behavior. I do not apologize for including some of my own studies. I am not claiming that these are in any sense better than alternative papers; however, it makes sense for me for an instructor to focus on his strengths. More generally, we will not try to memorize the individual studies, but rather try to learn from them about topics, research design, methodology, the research process, etc. In fact, we should anticipate to learn more from each other than from the papers themselves.

Course style

This course will be conducted primarily as a seminar/workshop with only intermittent “lectures” given by the instructor. Although course participants are responsible for reading the assigned manuscripts for each class, the responsibility for leading the discussion will rotate among us. The discussion leader is not only to summarize the research, but also to help facilitate an in-depth understanding of the methodological innovations and problems in the manuscript.

Discussion Leader

Papers have been assigned to a student who will prepare a written summary (approx. two pages) that will be given to all participants at the beginning of that session, and which may serve as a reference during the discussion. This student will begin class discussion by summarizing the paper and placing it in context. I may interject and ask questions to the discussion leader or other participants at any time (i.e., expect “cold calling”). An outline for the written summary might include the following:

• research question and its importance
• research method (model, sample, statistical analysis)
• results
• critique
• contribution (relative to closely related papers – and related to overall importance of topic)

[Depending on enrollment, for some of the (more involved) papers we may also have a back-up. He/she will not present the paper, but will be available to answer detailed questions regarding the content of the paper.]

Other students

Every participant is expected to read all assigned papers carefully and to participate in our discussions. Each student ought to prepare questions and comments on each assigned paper.

Papers marked as Supplementary

Read if you’re interested in this line of research. Otherwise skim quickly or skip. We will generally not go through these papers. However, I may refer to some of them. (If you’re a serious PhD student, you should read these and many, many more…)

Course grade

Your grade will be based on the following:

1. Class participation, including presentations (67%). Course credit will not be granted unless you participate fully.

2. Research proposal (33%). This will be a maximum five page document (with reasonable font size, line spacing, and margins) that contains a description of an original research idea pertaining to the (preferably empirical financial) accounting literature. In particular, you should describe the research question, its potential contribution to the extant literature, the proposed research design, etc. Note that the proposal is required in order to obtain course credit.

Venue and time: Our sessions will be held in “Det Runde Vinduet” (close to the cafeteria on the lower level). Note we will start exactly when listed (not five or ten minutes after the hour).

Monday 1-4: Introduction and background (general; introducing each other; research tools; research process; dissertation and publishing) plus one disclosure paper

Botosan. 1997. Disclosure Level and the Cost of Capital. The Accounting Review. A simple but very well cited paper (first in this line of research).

Supplementary reading:

Lang, M. and R. Lundholm. 1996. Corporate disclosure policy and analyst behavior. The Accounting Review (October). Very well cited and you definitely need to know this article.

Ball. 2009. “Market and political/regulatory perspectives on the recent accounting scandals.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Verrecchia. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics (especially 141-175).

Tuesday 9-12: Hope on disclosure and agency costs (and intro to segment disclosure; pay-for-performance; private firms and financing constraints)

Hope and Thomas. 2008. “Managerial Empire Building and Firm Disclosure.” Journal of Accounting Research. [Note the research design.]

De Franco, Hope, and Larocque. 2010. “The Effects of Disclosure on the Pay- Performance Relation.” Working paper, University of Toronto.

Hope, Thomas, and Vyas. 2010. “Transparency, Ownership, and Financing Constraints in Private Firms.” Working paper, University of Toronto and University of Oklahoma.

Supplementary reading:

Hope, Kang, Thomas, and Vasvari. 2009. “The Effects of SFAS 131 Geographic Segment Disclosures by U.S. Multinational Companies on the Valuation of Foreign Earnings.” Journal of International Business Studies

Bebchuk. L.A. and J.M. Fried. 2005. Pay without performance: Overview of the issues. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 17 (4): 8-23.

Dyck, A., and L. Zingales. 2004. “Private benefits of control: An international comparison.” Journal of Finance Vol. 59: 537-600.

Rajan, R., and L. Zingales. 1998. “Financial Dependence and Growth”. The American Economic Review Vol. 88: 559-586.

Tuesday 2-4: Disclosure variations and cost of capital effects

Francis, Khurana, and Pereira. 2005. “Disclosure Incentives and Effects on Cost of Capital Around the World.” Accounting Review Vol. 80 No. 4: 1125-1162.

Hail and Leuz. 2006. “International differences in the cost of equity capital: Do legal institutions and securities regulation matter?” Journal of Accounting Research.

Supplementary reading:

Francis, Nanda, and Olsson. 2008. “Voluntary Disclosure, Earnings Quality, and Cost of Capital.” Journal of Accounting Research. This is a long paper but you should be aware of (1) the results and (2) the methodologies employed.

Hope, Kang, Thomas, and Yoo 2009. “Impact of excess auditor remuneration on cost of equity capital around the world. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance.

Wednesday 9 – 12: Disclosure and agency and proprietary costs Note that this will likely be our “toughest” session, so be well prepared so we can focus on important issues.

Berger and Hann. 2007. “Segment Profitability and the Proprietary and Agency Costs of Disclosure.” Accounting Review. [Since this is a long (but very nice) paper, the write-up and discussion should focus on main issues and tests and briefly describe sensitivity analyses.]

Bens, Berger, and Monahan. 2009. “Discretionary Disclosure in Financial Reporting: An Examination Comparing Internal Firm Data to Externally Reported Segment Data.” Working paper, University of Arizona, University of Chicago, and INSEAD. Make sure you carefully read Berger and Hann (2007) first. This is another long article, so let’s make sure we focus on the most important issues.

Bova, Dou, and Hope. 2010. “Employee Ownership and Firm Disclosure.” Working paper, University of Toronto.

Wednesday 1-4: International variations in earnings quality

Burgstahler, Hail, and Leuz. 2006. “The importance of reporting incentives: Earnings management in European private and public firms.” The Accounting Review.

Chen, Hope, Li, and Wang. 2010. Financial reporting quality and investment efficiency of private firms in emerging markets. Working paper.

Dou, Hope, and Thomas. 2010. Relationship-Specificity, Incomplete Contracts, and Income Smoothing: An International Study. Working paper, University of Toronto and University of Oklahoma.

Supplementary reading:

Leuz, Nanda, Wysocki. 2003. “Earnings management and investor protection: An international comparison.” Journal of Financial Economics 69. Widely cited (and note subtle inferences in Dou, Hope, and Thomas).

Thursday: 10 – 12: Brief intro to cross-listing literature

Lang, Ready, and Wilson. Earnings management and cross listing: Are reconciled earnings comparable to U.S. earnings? 2006. Journal of Accounting & Economics

Piotroski and Srinivasan. 2008. “Regulation and Bonding: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Flow of International Listings.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Supplementary reading:

Hope, Kang, Kim, and Pereira. 2010. “Voluntary disclosure practices by foreign firms cross-listed in the United States. Working paper.

Hope, Kang, and Zang. 2007. “Bonding to the Improved Disclosure Environment in the United States and the Capital Market Consequences.” Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics. A nice paper even though published in a small journal.

Thursday 2-4: Financial analysts

Bae, Tan, and Welker. 2008. “International GAAP Differences: The Impact on Foreign Analysts.” The Accounting Review (long but nice paper).

Ke and Yu. 2009. Why Don’t Analysts Use Their Earnings Forecasts in Generating Stock Recommendations? Working paper, Pennsylvania State University and University of T exas.

Supplementary reading: Hope.” 2003. “Disclosure practices, enforcement of accounting standards and analysts’

forecast accuracy: An international study. Journal of Accounting Research.

Barniv, Hope, Myring, and Thomas. 2009. Do Analysts Practice What They Preach and Should Investors Listen? Effects of Recent Regulations. The Accounting Review Vol. 84 No. 4.

Barniv, Hope, Myring, and Thomas. 2010. International Evidence on Analyst Stock Recommendations, Valuations, and Returns. Forthcoming, Contemporary Accounting Research.

Friday 8:30 – 10:30: More on international variations

Barth, Landsman and Lang. 2008. “International Accounting Standards and Accounting Quality.” Journal of Accounting Research Vol. 46 No. 3.

Lang, Lins, and Maffett. 2009. “Transparency, Liquidity, and Valuation: International Evidence.” Working paper, UNC and University of Utah.

Supplementary reading:

Ball. 2006. “IFRS – pros and cons for investors.” Accounting and Business Research. An easy to read and beautiful article!

Bradshaw and Miller. 2008. “Will harmonizing accounting standards really harmonize accounting? Evidence from non-U.S. firms adopting US GAAP.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance. Note the very useful appendix!

Bradshaw, Bushee, and Miller 2004. “Accounting choice, home bias and U.S. investment in non-U.S. firms.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Covrig, DeFond, and Hung. 2007. Home bias, foreign mutual fund holdings, and the voluntary adoption of International Accounting Standards. Journal of Accounting Research.

Daske, Hail, Leuz, and Verdi. 2009. “Adopting a Label: Heterogeneity in the Economic Consequences of IFRS Adoptions.” Working paper, Mannheim, Wharton, Chicago, and MIT.

There are obviously a very large number of recent/current papers on IFRS adoption. However, I personally find many of these to be dreadfully boring…

We should have time to think about and discuss whether there still are interesting financial reporting differences left to examine… Let’s try to brainstorm. For example, what’s special about the Nordic countries (or Europe) with respect to accounting and institutional factors?

Friday 10:35 – 12: Voluntary brief individual meetings to discuss your research and PhD studies

ACCT 8610
SEMINAR IN AUDITING RESEARCH
SPRING 2010 SYLLABUS

Time: Week starting May 31

Luleå University of Technology

Professor:                       Dr. Zabi Rezaee

Course Philosophy and Objectives

This course is designed as a discussion-based seminar to provide doctoral students with an understanding of auditing theory, practice and empirical research methods. However, the primary focus of the course is on empirical auditing research. Students are assumed to have had basic knowledge of accounting (financial and managerial), auditing and some research methodology. This course also assumes you are familiar with basic research terminology, fundamental principles of designing and doing research, the use of databases in accounting and auditing and tools for analyzing and critiquing accounting research studies. The specific course objectives are: (1) to develop the skills to read and critique accounting research; (2) to apply these skills to auditing research literature; and (3) to foster the ability to independently formulate academic research projects.

Grading

Given that doctoral students are highly motivated, work hard and dedicated, I expect them to get an A in the course. However A’s will be earned and assessment is based on the following components: written assignments (20%), seminar participation (20%), research project (40 %); and final exam (20 %).

Written Assignments (20 %)

There is a short written assignment each class meeting covering the readings. Students are expected to have read all required assignments and should be prepared to lead the discussion for the papers assigned.

Class Participation (20%)

We will collectively discuss each assigned paper, focusing on the paper’s research question, motivation, objectives and contribution, research design, empirical results, interpretation, implications and limitations of the study. My role will be a facilitator, but you should come to class prepared to discuss each paper in depth. The remaining class time will be devoted to discussing your written assignments. We normally will discuss three papers per class meeting, but more or fewer papers may be assigned, depending on the topic and nature of the papers. Each assigned research paper should be evaluated for the specific criteria below. When you review a paper, you should evaluate it for the following issues as a minimum:

1. Research questions and objectives (are the objectives well motivated).
2. Research design (is the design appropriate to achieve the objectives; are hypotheses supported sufficiently).
3. Review of related studies and use of relevant literature.
4. Research design and use of research data in testing hypotheses.
5. Style and clarity of the exposition.
6. Relevance, contribution and practical, educational and policy implications.

In addition to these issues, you should consider the objectives of the paper and try to identify either (1) a way to extend the paper’s results, (2) dispute the findings of the paper or (3) identify a different research design to achieve the research objectives specified by the author(s).

Research Project (40%)

You are required to complete an updated replication of a prior published study as part of the course requirement; or, alternatively, a pilot study of new research idea. Your project must be approved in advance. The write-up should be include (a) the study’s motivation and background (why the research is interesting and relevant), and (b) the research question/hypothesis to be investigated, and (c) a description of the data/sample and method of analysis (research design), and (d) results of the analysis. The mini-project is in the form of a term-paper and students may choose to replicate an experiment, examine in the research format a particular audit issue, use an empirical database, or any other relevant project approved by the instructor. The objective of the mini-project is to provide participants with an experience in audit research. The mini-project is due the last day of classes and projects not received at the beginning of that class will be assigned a failing grade.

Final Exam (20%)

There will be a comprehensive final exam.

Course Coverage:

Auditing topics that are addressed in this course include, but not limited to, the following:

Topic 1: Auditing Research

DeFond, Mark L. and Jere R. Francis. 2005. Audit Research after Sarbanes-Oxley. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 5-30.

Carcello, Joseph V. 2005. DISCUSSION OF Audit Research after Sarbanes-Oxley. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 31-40.

Nelson, Mark and Hun-Tong Tan. 2005. Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person, and Interpersonal Interaction Perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 41-71.

Trotman, Ken T. 2005. DISCUSSION OF Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person, and Interpersonal Interaction Perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 73-87.

Mutchler, Jane F. 2003. Independence and Objectivity: A Framework for Research Opportunities in Internal Auditing. In Research Opportunities in Internal Auditing, edited by Andrew D. Bailey, Jr., Audrey A. Gramling, and Sridhar Ramamoorti, 231-268. Altamonte Springs, FL: The Institute of Internal Auditors.

Mock, T. and J. Turner. 2001. Issues and Opportunities in Archival Audit Research. International Journal of Auditing 5: 237-249.

Kinney, William R., Jr. 2000. Research Opportunities in Internal Control Quality and Quality Assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19(Supplement): 83-90.

Weidenmier, Marcia L. and Sridhar Ramamoorti. 2006. Research Opportunities in Information Technology and Internal Auditing. Journal of Information Systems 20(1): 205–219.

Jorgensen, Bjorn N., Cheryl L. Linthicum, Andrew J. McLelland, Mark H. Taylor, and Teri Lombardi Yohn. 2007. Recent Developments at the Securities and Exchange Commission: Academic Contributions and Opportunities. Accounting Horizons 21(3): 313–323.

Topic 2: Supply and demand of Audit Services

DeAngelo, L. “Auditor Size and Audit Quality,” Journal of Accounting and Economics (December 1981): 183-199.

Simunic, D. “The Pricing of Audit Services: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Accounting Research (Spring 1980): 161-190.

Francis, J. and E. Wilson. “Auditor Changes: A Joint Test of Theories Relating to Agency Costs and Auditor Differentiation,” The Accounting Review (October 1988): 663-682.

Beatty, R. “Auditor Reputation and the Pricing of Initial Public Offerings,” The Accounting Review (October 1989): 693-709.

Banker, R., H, Chang, and R. Cunningham. “The Public Accounting Industry Production Function,” Journal of Accounting & Economics 35 (2003): 255–281.

Topic 3: Industry Specialization

Eichenseher, J. and P. Danos. “The Analysis of Industry-Specific Auditor Concentration: Towards an Explanatory Model,” The Accounting Review (July 1981): 479-492.

Hogan, C. and D. Jeter. “Industry Specialization by Auditors,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring 1999): 1-17.

Kwon, S. “The Impact of Competition within the Client’s Industry on the Auditor Selection Decision,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring 1996): 53-70.

Craswell, A., J. Francis and S. Taylor. “Auditor Brand Names and Industry Specializations,” Journal of Accounting and Economics (November 1995): 297-322.

Cahan, S., J. Godfrey, J. Hamilton, and D. Jeter. “Auditor Specialization, Auditor Dominance and Audit Fees: The Role of Investment Opportunities,” The Accounting Review (November 2008): 1393-1423.

Krishnan, G. V. 2003. Does big 6 auditor Industry expertise constrain earnings management? Accounting Horizons (Supplement): 1-16.

Balsam, S., J. Krishnan, and J. S. Yang. 2003. Auditor industry specialization and earnings quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (22/2): 71-97.

Casterella, J. R. Francis, B. L. Lewis, and P. L. Walker. 2004. Auditor industry specialization, client bargaining power, and audit pricing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (23/1): 123-140.

Knechel, W. R., V. Naiker, and G. Pacheco. 2007. Does industry specialization matter? Evidence from market reaction to auditor switches Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (26/1): 19-45.

Topic 4: Audit Quality

Francis, J., E. Maydew and C. Sparks. “The Role of Big Six Auditors in Credible Reporting of Accruals,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall 1999): 17-34.

Khurana, I., and K. Raman. “Litigation Risk and the Financial Reporting Credibility of Big 4 versus non-Big 4 Audits: Evidence from Anglo-American Countries,” The Accounting Review (April 2004): 473-496.

Mansi, S., W. Maxwell, and D. Miller. “Does Auditor Quality Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market,” Journal of Accounting Research (September 2004): 755-793.

Balsam, S., J. Krishnan, and J, Yang. “Auditor Industry Specialization and Earnings Quality.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (September 2003): 71-98.

Ahmed, A., S. Rasmussen, and S. Tse. “Audit Quality, Alternative Monitoring Mechanisms, and Cost of Capital: An Empirical Analysis,” SSRN Working Paper, 2008.

Frankel, R.M., M.F. Johnson, and K.K. Nelson. 2002. The relation between auditors’ fees for nonaudit services and earnings quality. The Accounting Review 77 (Supplement): 71-105.

Chung, H., and S. Kallapur. 2003. Client importance, nonaudit services, and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review 78(4): 931-956.

Higgs, J. L., and T. R. Skantz. 2006. Audit and nonaudit fees and the market’s reaction to earnings announcements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (25/1): 1-26.

Francis, J., and M. Yu. “The Effect of Big Four Office Size on Audit Quality.” The Accounting Review (2009, forthcoming).

Johnson, V., I. Khurana, and J.K. Reynolds. “Audit Firm Tenure and the Quality of Accounting Earnings,” Contemporary Accounting Research (Winter 2002): 637-660.

Carey, P., and R. Simnett. “Audit Partner Tenure and Audit Quality,” The Accounting Review (May 2006): 653-676.

Frankel, R., M. Johnson, and K. Nelson. “The Relation Between Auditors’ Fees for Nonaudit Services and Earnings Management.” The Accounting Review (Supplement 2002): 71-105.

Menon, K., and D. Williams, “Former Audit Partners and Accruals,” The Accounting Review (October 2004): 1095-1118

Topic 5: Audit Committees and Corporate Governance

Bedard, J., S. Chtourou, and L. Courteau. “The Effect of Audit Committee Expertise, Independence, and Activity on Aggressive Earnings Management,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (September 2004): 13-36.

Carcello, J., and T. Neal. “Audit Committee Characteristics and Auditor Dismissals following ‘New’ Going-Concern Reports,” The Accounting Review (January 2003): 95-217.

Aggrawal, A., and S. Chandra. “Corporate Governance and Accounting Scandals,” Journal of Law and Economics (October 2005): 371-406.

Abbott, L., S. Parker, G. Peters, and D. Rama. “Corporate Governance, Audit Quality, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” The Accounting Review (July 2007): 803-836.

Fan, J., and T. Wong. “Do External Auditors Perform a Corporate Governance Role in Emerging Markets? Evidence from East Asia,” Journal of Accounting Research (March 2005): 35-72.

Wilson, T. E., and R. A. Grimlund. 1990. An examination of the importance of an auditor’s reputation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (9/2): 43-59.

Chaney, P.K., and K.L. Philipich. 2002. Shredded reputation: The cost of audit failure. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (September): 1221-1245.

Krishnamurthy, S., J. Z. Zhou, and N. Z. Zhou. 2006. Auditor reputation, auditor independence, and the stock-market impact of Anderson’s indictment on its clients. Contemporary Accounting Research (23/2): 465-490.

Francis, J., I. Khurana, and R. Pereira, “The Role of Accounting and Auditing in Corporate Governance and the Development of Financial Markets Around the World,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics (2003), Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-30.

Francis, J., and D. Wang. “The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality Around the World.” Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring 2008): 1-39.

Choi, J., and T. Wong. “Auditors’ Governance Functions and Legal Environments: An International Investigation,” Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring 2007): 1-36.

Kwon, S., C. Lim, and P. Tan. “Legal Systems and Earnings Quality: The Role of Auditor Industry Specialization,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (November 2007): 25-56.

DeFond, M., T. Wong and S. Li 2000. “The Impact of Improved Auditor Independence on Audit Market Concentration in China,” Journal of Accounting & Economics 28 (2000): 269-305.

Topic 6: Internal auditing

Church, Bryan K., Jeffrey J. McMillan, and Arnold Schneider. 2001. Factors Affecting Internal Auditors’ Consideration of Fraudulent Financial Reporting during Analytical Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20(1): 65-80.

Krishnamoorthy, Ganesh. 2002. A Multistage Approach to External Auditors’ Evaluation of the Internal Audit Function. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21(1): 95-121.

Ahlawat, Sunita S. and D. Jordan Lowe. 2004. An Examination of Internal Auditor Objectivity: In-House versus Outsourcing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 23(2): 147-158.

Topic 7: Analytical Procedures

O’Donnell, Ed and Joseph J. Schultz, Jr. 2003. The Influence of Business-Process-Focused Audit Support Software on Analytical Procedures Judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22(2): 265-279.

Glover, Steven M., Douglas F. Prawitt, and T. Jeffrey Wilks. 2005. Why Do Auditors Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? The Role of Outcome and Precision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 197–220.

McDaniel, Linda. 2005. DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditors Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? The Role of Outcome and Precision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 221-228.

Glover, Steven M., Douglas F. Prawitt, and T. Jeffrey Wilks. 2005. REPLY TO DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditors Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? The Role of Outcome and Precision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 229-232.

Kinney, “Attention-Directing Analytical review Using Accounting Ratios: A Case Study, Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1987, 59.73.

Darocca & Holder, “The Use of Analytical Procedures in Review and Audit Engagements,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1985: 80-92.

Heintz & White, “Auditor Judgment in Analytical Review,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Spring 1989, pp. 22-39.

Heiman, V. “Auditors’ Assessment of Likelihood of Error Explanation in Analytical Review,” The Accounting Review,” Vol. 65, No. 4, October 1990, pp. 875-890.

Tabor & Willis, “Empirical Evidence on the Changing Role of Analytical Review Procedures,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1985: 93-103.

Biggs & Wild, “A Note on the Practice of Analytical Review, “Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1984: 68-79.

Kinney & Felix, “Analytical Review Procedures,” Journal of Accountancy, Oct. 1980: 95-105.

Kinney, “The Predictive Power of Limited Information in Preliminary Analytical Review: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Accounting Research, Supl. 1979: 148-165

Topic 8: Financial Statement Fraud

Shelton, Sandra Waller, O. Ray Whittington, and David Landsittel. 2001. Auditing Firms’ Fraud Risk Assessment Practices. Accounting Horizons 15(1): 19–33.

Glover, Steven M., Douglas F. Prawitt, Joseph J. Schultz, Jr., and Mark F. Zimbelman. 2003. A Test of Changes in Auditors’ Fraud-Related Planning Judgments since the Issuance of SAS No. 82. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22(2): 237-251.

Mock, Theodore J. and Jerry L. Turner. 2005. Auditor Identification of Fraud Risk Factors and Their Impact on Audit Programs. The International Journal of Auditing 9: 59-77.

Carcello, Joseph V. and Albert L. Nagy. 2004. Audit Firm Tenure and Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 23(2): 55-69.

Zeff, Stephen A. 2003. How the U.S. Accounting Profession Got Where It Is Today: Part I. Accounting Horizons 17(3): 189-205.

Zeff, Stephen A. 2003. How the U.S. Accounting Profession Got Where It Is Today: Part II. Accounting Horizons 17(4): 267-286.

Kinney, William R. Jr. 2005. Twenty-Five Years of Audit Deregulation and Re-Regulation: What Does it Mean for 2005 and Beyond? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 89–109.

Simunic, Dan A. 2005. DISCUSSION OF Twenty-Five Years of Audit Deregulation and Re-Regulation: What Does it Mean for 2005 and Beyond?  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 111–113.

Elliot, Robert K. 2002. Twenty-first Century Assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice 21(1): 139-146.

Francis, Jere R. and Dechun Wang. 2005. Impact of the SEC’s Public Fee Disclosure Requirement on Subsequent Period Fees and Implications for Market Efficiency. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory24 (Supplement): 145–160.

Rezaee. Z. 2002. Internal auditors’ roles in prevention, detection, and correction of financial statement fraud. Internal Auditing 17 (3) (May/June), 13–20.

Rezaee, Z, Crumbley, L. and R. Elmore. 2004. Forensic accounting education: A survey of academics and practitioners. Advances in Accounting Education Teaching and Curriculum Innovations 6, 193–232

Topic 9: Materiality

Turner,Jl, , The Impact Of Materiality Decisions On Financial Ratios: A Computer Simulation, Sp, 97, 125, 147, Jaaf

Fisher, The Effects of Reporting Auditor Materiality Level Publicly, Privately or Not at All in an Experimental Market Setting,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 1990 Supplement: 184-223.

Whittington & Margheim, The Effects of Risk, Materiality, and Assertion Subjetivity on Externa; Auditor Reliance on Internal Auditors” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1993, pp. 50-64..

Mayper, Doucet & Warren, “Auditors’ Materiality Judgment of Internal Accounting Control Weaknesses,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Fall 1989: 72-88.

Loebbecke, Eining & Willingham, “Auditors’ Experience with Material Irregularities: Frequency, Nature and Detectability, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Spring 1989, pp. 90-100.

Holstrum & Messier, “A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on Materiality,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Fall 1982: 45-63.

Moriarity & Barron, “Modeling the Materiality Judgments of Audit Partners,” Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn 1976: 320-341.

Messier, W. F., Jr., N. Martinov-Bennie, and A. Eilifsen. 2005. A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on Materiality: Two Decades Later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(2): 153–187.

Wright, A. and S. Wright. 1997. An Examination of Factors Affecting the Decision to Waive Audit Adjustments. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 12(1): 15–36.

Nelson, M. W., S. D. Smith, Z-V Palmrose. 2005. The Effect of Quantitative Materiality Approach on Auditors’ Adjustment Decisions. The Accounting Review 80: 897–920.

Brody, R., D. Lowe and K. Pany. 2003. Could $51 Million Be Immaterial When Enron Reports Income of $105 Million? Accounting Horizons 17(2): 153-160.

Kinney, William, David Burgstahler and Roger Martin. 2002. Earnings Surprise “Materiality” as Measured by Stock Returns. Journal of Accounting Research 40(5): 1297-1329.

Turner, Jerry L. 1997. The Impact of Materiality Decisions on Financial Ratios—A Computer Simulation, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Spring 12(2): 125-147.

Turner, Jerry L. 2007. Aligning Auditor Materiality Choice and the Needs of a Reasonable Person. Journal of Forensic Accounting VIII(2): 29-52.

Topic 10: Auditor Independence

Ashbaugh, H., R. LaFond, and B. Mayhew. 2003. Do nonaudit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. The Accounting Review 78(3): 611-639.

Ruddock, C., S. J. Taylor, and S. L. Taylor. 2006. Nonaudit services and earnings conservatism: Is auditor independence impaired? Contemporary Accounting Research (23/3): 701-746.

Zhang, Y., J. Zhou, and N. Zhou. 2007. Audit committee quality, auditor independence, and internal control weaknesses. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (26): 300-327.

Gul, F. A., B. L. Jaggi, and G. V. Krishnan. 2007. Auditor independence: Evidence on the joint effect of auditor tenure and nonaudit fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (26/2): 117-142.

Glazer, A. and H. Jaenicke. 2002. A Pathology of the Independence Standard Board’s Conceptual Framework Project. Accounting Horizons 16(4): 329-352.

Krishnan, Jayanthi, Heibatollah Sami, and Yinqi Zhang. 2005. Does the Provision of Nonaudit Services Affect Investor Perceptions of Auditor Independence? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (24)2: 111–135.

Geiger, Marshall A. and Dasaratha V. Rama. 2003. Audit Fees, Nonaudit Fees, and Auditor Reporting on Stressed Companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22(2): 53-69.

Srivastava, Raj, Ted Mock and Jerry Turner. 2007. Bayesian and Belief Functions Formulas for Auditor Independence Risk Assessment (working paper): University of Kansas.

Cushing, Barry E. and David L. Gilbertson. 2002. Strategic Analysis of Securities Litigation Against Independent Auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21(2): 57-80.

Khurana, Inder K. and K. K. Raman. 2004. Litigation Risk and the Financial Reporting Credibility of Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 Audits: Evidence from Anglo-American Countries. The Accounting Review 79(2): 473–495.

Choi, Jong-Hag, Rajib K, Doogar, and Ananda R. Ganguly. 2004. The Riskiness of Large Audit Firm Client Portfolios and Changes in Audit Liability Regimes: Evidence from the U.S. Audit Market. Contemporary Accounting Research 21(4): 747-785.

Defond, Mark L. 2004. DISCUSSION OF The Riskiness of Large Audit Firm Client Portfolios and Changes in Audit Liability Regimes: Evidence from the U.S. Audit Market. Contemporary Accounting Research 21(4): 787-794

Geiger, Marshall A. and Dasaratha V. Rama. 2006. Audit Firm Size and Going-Concern Reporting Accuracy. Accounting Horizons 20(1): 1–17.

Geiger, Marshall A., K. Raghunandan, and Dasaratha Rama. 2005. Recent Changes in the Association between Bankruptcies and Prior Audit Opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(1): 21-35.

Behn, Bruce K., Steven E. Kaplan, and Kip R. Krumwiede. 2001. Further Evidence on the Auditor’s Going-Concern Report: The Influence of Management Plans. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20(1): 13-28.

Beaulieu, Philip R. 2001. The Effects of Judgments of New Clients’ Integrity upon Risk Judgments, Audit Evidence, and Fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20(2): 85-99.

Kizirian, Timothy G., Brian W. Mayhew, and L. Dwight Sneathen, Jr. 2005. The Impact of Management Integrity on Audit Planning and Evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(2): 49-67.

Chan, K. Hung, Kenny Z. Lin, and Phyllis Lai Lan Mo. 2003. An Empirical Study on the Impact of Culture on Audit-Detected Accounting Errors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22(2): 281-295.

Alles, Michael G., Alexander Kogan, and Miklos Vasarhelyi. 2003. Feasibility and Economics of Continuous Assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21(1): 125-138

Biggs, S. F., and T. J. Mock. 1983. An investigation of auditor decision processes in the evaluation of internal controls and audit scope decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 21(1): 234–255.

Topic 11: Continuous audit

Rezaee. Z, Elam, R. A. Sharbatoghlie and P. McMickle. 2002. Continuous auditing: Building automated auditing capabilities. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 21 (1) (March), 147–163

Alles, Kogan, & Vasarhelyi, Feasibility and Economics of Continuous Assurance, Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, March 2002: 125-138.

Elliott And Jacobson, “The Evolution of the Knowledge Professional,” Accounting Horizons, Vol 16, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 69-80.

Elliot, “Twenty first Century Assurance,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, March 2002: 140-146.

Rezaee. Z and Hoffman, C. 2001. XBRL: Standardized electronic financial reporting. Internal Auditor LVIII (IV) (August), 46–51.

Rezaee. Z, Elam, R. and A. Sharbatgholi. 2001. Continuous auditing: The audit of the future. Management Auditing Journal 16 (3).

Topic 12: Audit Risk

Holt, D. L. & Morrow, P.C., “Risk Assessment Judgments of auditors and Bank Lenders: a comparative analysis of conformance to Bayes’ theorem,” Accounting Organizations & Society, Vol. 17, Number 6, August 1992, pp. 549-560.

Jiambalvo & Waller, “Decomposition and Assessments of Audit Risk,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1984: 1-16.

Wilson & Glezen, “Regression Analysis in Auditing: A Comparison of Alternative Investigation Rules,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Spring 1989, pp. 90-100.

Houghton, C. W. & Fogarty, J. A., “Inherent Risk,” Auditing : A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring 1991, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Cushing & Loebbecke, “Analytical Approaches to Audit Risk: A Survey and Analysis,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Fall 1983: 23-41.

Grobstein & Craig, “A Risk Analysis Approach to Auditing,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1984: 1-16.

Topic 13: Audit Fee

Simunic, D. A. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research (18/1): 161-190.

Whisenant, S., S. Sankaraguruswamy, and K. Raghunandan. 2003. Evidence on the joint determination of audit and non-audit fees. Journal of Accounting Research (41/4): 721-744.

Larcker, D. and S. Richardson. 2004. Fees paid to audit firms, accrual choices, and corporate governance. Journal of Accounting Research. 42(3): 625-658.

Ghosh, A., and S. Lustgarten. 2006. Pricing of initial audit engagements by large and small audit firms. Contemporary Accounting Research 23 (2): 333-368.

Topic 14: Auditor Tenure

Johnson, V. E., I. K. Khurana, and J. K. Reynolds. 2002. Audit firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemporary Accounting Research (19/4): 637-660.

Carey, P., and R. Simnett. 2006. Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review (81/3): 653-676.

Kealey, B. T., H. Y. Lee, and M. T. Stein. 2007. The association between audit-firm tenure and audit fees paid to successor auditors: Evidence from Arthur Anderson. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (26/2): 95-116.

Jenkins, D. S., and U. Velury. 2008. Does auditor tenure influence the reporting of conservative earnings? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (27): 115-132.

Ashton, R. H., J. J. Willingham, and R. K. Elliott. 1987. An empirical analysis of audit delay, Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 275-292.

Ashton, R. H., P. R. Graul, and J. D. Newton. 1989. Audit delay and the timeliness of corporate reporting, Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring): 657-673.

Ettredge, M. L., L. Siu, and C. Li. 2006. The impact of SOX section 404 internal control quality assessment on audit delay in the SOX era. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (November): 1-23.

Note: I reserve the right to change the contents of the syllabus. However, any changes will be announced.

Time: Week starting May 24

Luleå University of Technology

Instructor: Zabi Rezaee, Ph.D., CPA, CMA, CIA, CFE, CGFM
Thompson/Hill Chair of Excellence, Professor of Accountancy

Course Philosophy

In teaching this doctoral seminar course, I act as a facilitator in developing your understanding and appreciation for empirical research in financial reporting. I have high expectations for what we will accomplish in this course based on the assumption that:

1. You have already been exposed to the tenets of accounting research in an introductory seminar.
2. The quality of the class discussions and the ultimate value to be gained in this course are determined largely by the effort put in prior to class.
3. You have taken all prerequisite econometrics courses and have sufficient understanding of the primary research tools and databases used in empirical research.

Course Objectives

The objective of this course is to develop and improve your ability to assess and conduct empirical research in financial reporting by examining past and current research and exploring future research. This course intends to provide students with a fundamental understanding and appreciation of:

(1) The role of theory and anecdotal evidence in applied work and empirical research.

(2) The nature of accounting research questions addressed in an empirical research setting.

(3) The methods commonly used in accounting and business research.

(4) The skills required to design and conduct empirical research.

Course Conduct

This course will be conducted using a seminar format which requires students to take an active part in discussing and evaluating the assigned materials for each class session. I will have the role of the facilitator, providing overall guidance and structure to each class session, offering background information and opening remarks, helping with difficult issues, asking questions, and evaluating the presenter.

1. I will present some background material regarding the assigned topics and issues.
2. Students will present several papers (approximately four papers per student).
3. Each presenter will submit a copy of the presentation materials (e.g., PowerPoint slides), along with a list of at least five discussion questions, two weeks before the forthcoming class.
4. Each student should be prepared with a verbal response to each question on the list (supporting written notes are recommended). The lists are not intended to be exhaustive as we will discuss other issues related to the assigned material.

I will assign a set of papers to each student to evaluate, summarize, and present to the rest of class. Each student is expected to participate fully in class discussions. Student participation in discussions will be assessed on the basis of quality of comments, questions, and ideas, and not simply on the quantity of comments. Students are expected to ask questions of the presenter and engage in demanding and lively discussion. Unless otherwise indicated, assume you are to work individually on all graded assignments. Students address the content of the assigned papers by answering questions such as;

1. What did the authors do?
   1. Research question
   2. Relevance to the academic and business community
2. Why did they do it?
   1. Motivation
   2. Relevance to the prior literature
3. How did they do it?
   1. Theoretical framework
   2. Hypothesis development
   3. Data sources
   4. Sample selection including biases
   5. Empirical test including shortcomings (low power)
4. What are the results and contributions?
   1. Supporting hypothesis
   2. Policy implications
   3. Contributions to the literature
5. What are the major strengths and weaknesses?
6. Is the research question still relevant in the post-SOX era?
7. What is an alternative way to address this topic?
   1. Problems with the tests
   2. Better tests
8. What are the shortcomings of this approach?
9. What are the big unresolved issues in this area?
   1. Alternative explanations for the results
10. How can this study be extended, improved, and made more relevant to the post-SOX regime?
    1. Extensions
    2. Incremented research questions

The Scholarship is open for applications from PhD students enrolled at a Swedish university.

For more information see the Swedish Audit Academy website.