Social scientists often estimate models from correlational data, where the independent variable has not been exogenously manipulated; they also make implicit or explicit causal claims based on these models. When can these claims be made? We answer this question by first discussing design and estimation conditions under which model estimates can be interpreted, using the randomized experiment as the gold standard. We show how endogeneity – which includes omitted variables, omitted selection, simultaneity, common-method variance, and measurement error – renders estimates causally uninterpretable. Second, we present methods that allow researchers to test causal claims in situations where randomization is not possible or when causal interpretation could be confounded; these methods include fixed-effects panel, sample selection, instrumental variable, regression discontinuity, and difference-in-differences models. Third, we take stock of the methodological rigor with which causal claims are being made in a social sciences discipline by reviewing a representative sample of 110 articles on leadership published in the previous 10 years in top-tier journals. Our key finding is that researchers fail to address at least 66% and up to 90% of design and estimation conditions that make causal claims invalid. We conclude by offering 10 suggestions on how to improve non-experimental research.

On making causal claims : A review and recommendations

We evaluate and summarize the large body of audit fee research and use meta-analysis to test the combined effect of the most commonly used independent variables. The perspective provided by the meta-analysis allows us to reconsider the anomalies, mixed results, and gaps in audit fee research. We find that, although many independent variables have consistent results, several show no clear pattern to the results and others only show significant results in certain periods or particular countries. These variables include a loss by the client and leverage, which have become significant in comparatively recent studies; internal auditing and governance, both of which have mixed results; auditor specialization, regarding which there is still some uncertainty; and the audit opinion, which was a significant variable before 1990 but not in more recent studies.

/pdf/audit-fees-a-meta-analysis-of-the-effect-of-supply-and-1cnxb3yx18.pdf

Audit Fees: A Meta-analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes*

In many respects, Australian boards more closely approach normative "best practice" guidelines for corporate governance than boards in other Western countries. Do Australian firms then demonstrate a board demographic-organisational performance link that has not been found in other economies? We examine the relationships between board demographics and corporate performance in 348 of Australia’s largest publicly listed companies and describe the attributes of these firms and their boards. We find that, after controlling for firm size, board size is positively correlated with firm value. We also find a positive relationship between the proportion of inside directors and the market-based measure of firm performance. We discuss the implications of these finding and compare our findings to prevailing research in the US and the UK.

Board composition and corporate performance: how the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance

In many respects, Australian boards more closely approach normative “best practice” guidelines for corporate governance than boards in other Western countries. Do Australian firms then demonstrate a board demographic-organisational performance link that has not been found in other economies? We examine the relationships between board demographics and corporate performance in 348 of Australia’s largest publicly listed companies and describe the attributes of these firms and their boards. We find that, after controlling for firm size, board size is positively correlated with firm value. We also find a positive relationship between the proportion of inside directors and the market-based measure of firm performance. We discuss the implications of these findings and compare our findings to prevailing research in the US and the UK.

/pdf/board-composition-and-corporate-performance-how-the-1n11ku30cv.pdf

Board Composition and Corporate Performance: how the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance

This paper examines the relationship between board characteristics and external audit fees for Fortune 1000 companies. Competing arguments exist regarding the possible relationship between board characteristics and fees. One view is that a more independent, diligent, and expert board would be more concerned with effectively discharging its monitoring role and would be more supportive of the external audit function. Such a board would be likely to insist on enhanced audit scope, thus increasing the audit fee. An alternative view is that a more independent, diligent, and expert board would reduce the auditor's assessment of control risk and would substitute some of its own monitoring for the monitoring of the auditor. This would reduce audit effort, thus decreasing the audit fee. Consistent with the first view, we find significant positive relationships between board independence, diligence, and expertise and audit fees. A more independent, diligent, and expert board does not appear to substitute for audit effort; rather, such a board may complement auditor oversight. These results add to the growing body of literature documenting a relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and various facets of the financial reporting and audit processes. In addition, the results add to our understanding of the determinants of audit fees.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/000706501.pdf?abstractid=231582

Board Characteristics and Audit Fees

This paper examines the impact of board composition and ownership structure on audit quality in the UK prior to the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance ( 5 ). In this study I use audit fees as a proxy for audit quality and seek to investigate whether the proportion of non-executives, the extent of managerial ownership or ownership by large blockholders influences the extent of auditing, and consequently, the audit fee. Utilizing data from a sample of 402 quoted companies I find that the proportion of non-executive directors has a significant positive impact on audit fees. I also find that audit fees are negatively related to the proportion of equity owned by executive directors. I find no evidence that ownership by large blockholders (institutional or otherwise) or CEO/chairman duality has a significant impact on audit fees. Overall, the findings suggest that non-executive directors encourage more intensive audits as a complement to their own monitoring role while the reduction in agency costs expected through significant managerial ownership results in a reduced need for intensive auditing.

The impact of board composition and ownership on audit quality: evidence from large uk companies☆☆☆

This paper presents a review of empirical research on the impact of acquisitions on firm performance. The evidence suggests that, in the short run, acquisitions have at best an insignificant impact on shareholder wealth. Long-run performance analysis reveals overwhelmingly negative returns, while the evidence using accounting performance measures is mixed. The review also examines the impact of bid characteristics on performance. The acquisition of hostile targets, transactions that are paid for with cash and acquisitions of larger targets are associated with superior (or at least less negative) performance, while there is mixed evidence on the benefits of related acquisitions. A number of recent studies find that acquirers with superior pre-bid performance tend to experience significant underperformance in the post-bid period.

The impact of acquisitions on firm performance: A review of the evidence

Although researchers in business and management are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of endogeneity affecting regression analysis, they frequently do not have the right methodological toolkit to adjust for this issue. In this paper we discuss such a toolkit. There are also areas in business and management research which to date seem to be mostly oblivious about the endogeneity issue. We highlight such an area, which studies the question of whether firms that are cross-listed on a foreign stock exchange are charged premium fees by their auditors. When the same methodology (pooled ordinary least squares) as in the existing literature is used, the existence of an audit fee premium for cross-listed firms seems to be confirmed. However, once methodologies are used which adjust for the various types of endogeneity (i.e. omitted variable bias, simultaneous and dynamic endogeneity) there is no longer support for the existence of such a generalized premium. Hence, not only do we illustrate that failure to adjust for endogeneity has severe consequences such as drawing the wrong inferences, but we also review various ways to control for the different types of endogeneity.

/pdf/endogeneity-how-failure-to-correct-for-it-can-cause-wrong-3thaigjair.pdf

Endogeneity - how failure to correct for it can cause wrong inferences and some remedies

Holderness (1990) suggests that directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance has an important governance role in publicly owned companies. This article empirically tests Holderness's monitoring hypothesis by examining the association between board composition, managerial ownership, external shareholder control, and the purchase of D&O insurance for a sample of 366 companies in the United Kingdom. The results generally support the monitoring hypothesis. In large companies, where monitoring through external ownership is costly, D&O insurance and outside directors are utilized to monitor managers. In smaller companies, monitoring is more likely to be undertaken through internal and external ownership with less reliance on D&O insurance.

Insuring the Agents: The Role of Directors' and Officers' Insurance in Corporate Governance

Even though audit committees have traditionally been a key component of corporate governance regulation, the last decade has witnessed a greater emphasis on audit committee regulation and a parallel intensification of academic research on the subject. This review synthesizes recent empirical research seeking to investigate various aspects of audit committees’ governance role. The review is structured around current regulatory expectations of audit committees seeking to document the extent to which specific characteristics of good practice influence various components of audit committee effectiveness. It is found that larger and more independent audit committees as well as those with financial expertise are more likely to seek a higher level of external audit coverage and assurance. There is also evidence that more independent audit committees are associated with the purchase of lower levels of non-audit services from auditors, thereby seeking to preserve the independence of the external audit process. There seems a consensus that more independent audit committees and those with greater accounting/financial expertise have a positive impact on the quality of financial statements. Evidence on the stock market reaction to audit committee issues suggests that investors both welcome the presence of audit committees and react positively when members are appointed with relevant expertise. It is also found that internal auditors view certain audit committee characteristics, specifically independence, expertise and frequency of meetings, as leading to more effective audit committee performance. In summary, therefore, this review documents a significant amount of evidence offering support to current regulations concerning the desired characteristics of audit committees.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/ijmr347.pdf?abstractid=2335773&mirid=1

Noel O'Sullivan

Papers

The impact of board composition and ownership on audit quality: evidence from large uk companies☆☆☆

The impact of acquisitions on firm performance: A review of the evidence

Endogeneity - how failure to correct for it can cause wrong inferences and some remedies

Insuring the Agents: The Role of Directors' and Officers' Insurance in Corporate Governance

The Governance Role of Audit Committees: Reviewing a Decade of Evidence