Timothy J. Louwers

TL;DR: In this paper, the challenges associated with the identification, examination, and disclosure of related party transactions are discussed and issues and research evidence related to nondisclosure and reliance on management assertions, risk assessment, materiality, fraud detection, the effect of related-party transactions on corporate governance, and international auditing issues.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined 83 SEC enforcement actions involving both fraud and related party transactions and found that the most frequent types of transactions in the enforcement actions were loans to related parties, payments to company officers for services that were either unapproved or non-existent, and sales of goods or services to related entities in which the existence of the relationship was not disclosed.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that ethical management practices may be a correlated omitted variable in these studies, thus resulting in causal inference problems in the previous research, and they argue that, rather than the board of directors monitoring and reducing abnormal accruals as has been posited, management who was not engaging in abusive earnings management was attempting to signal the market regarding the quality of the firm's financial information through its choice of board membership.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined 43 SEC enforcement actions against auditors related to the examination of related-party transactions and concluded that the audit failures in these fraud cases were more the result of a lack of auditor professional skepticism and due professional care than any deficiency in current auditing standards.

TL;DR: An anonymous survey of university accounting faculty was conducted to assess current perceptions of the peer review process in accounting journals as discussed by the authors, which revealed that most respondents are fairly positive about the peer-review process, especially the process being fair/unbiased and improving the quality of research; the most serious perceived threats to review process integrity involve reviewer misconduct (e.g., delaying reviews for self-interest or rejecting papers for revenge).