Corporate Governance Ratings: Good or Bad?

If something is important, eventually it gets measured. The last several years clearly have demonstrated that corporate governance is important, so it is no surprise that an industry has emerged to provide ratings of companies\u27 corporate governance. There are several governance ratings providers, and three have been chosen that illustrate the types of rating systems currently in use: 1. Institutional Shareholder Services, 2. Corporate Library-Board Effectiveness Ratings, and 3. Governance Metrics International. For each service, the rating system\u27s purpose, methodology, and criteria are presented. What is good about governance ratings? The ratings further promote the importance of good governance, and they can focus attention on key governance elements that often are linked to positive corporate outcomes. What are the limitations of governance ratings? Good governance is a nebulous construct, and the inside of the boardroom is not observable to outsiders

How Consulting Services Could Kill Private-Sector Auditing

The article presents a discussion of recommendations for improving sustainability of a public company auditing profession in the U.S., adapted from a submission by Dana R. Hermanson to the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession of the Treasury Department

Management Accounting & Academe

Management accounting offers rewarding research opportunities. If researchers are able to identify more efficient ways to analyze internal accounting data, these new methods can be adopted immediately by interested companies. Breakthroughs in management accounting research do not have to filter through a standard-setting body before they can have an impact on practice. Due to the absence of management accounting rules, the great demand for management accounting research, and the availability of management accounting data, it is not surprising that academic research is beginning to drive the field of management accounting

The Internal Control Paradox: What Every Manager Should Know

Examines some conflicting trends concerning internal control systems of companies in the 1990s. Definition of internal control; Trends toward internal control; Trends away from internal control; Balanced view of internal control; Solution to the internal control paradox

Organizational Control Systems: Matching Controls with Organizational Levels

Companies today face a number of risks, such as environmental liabilities, losses from misuse of derivatives or harassment suits, which underscore the need for better control systems. Clearly, there is a tradeoff between having too much versus too little control. However, in addition to the amount of control, the mix of controls is important in maintaining the right balance within an organization. A framework is proposed that should help managers determine the appropriate matching of control types and control levels in their organizations. The matching is discussed for both traditional companies and modern, information-age companies

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Insights for Internal Auditors

Douglas Faggioli, president and CEO of Nature\u27s Sunshine Products (NSP) made the above remarks as he accepted, on behalf of NSP, a 2004 100 Best Corporate Citizens award from Business Ethics magazine. NSP received the award two years in a row. Less than two years later, NSP would discover a bribery scheme in its Brazil operations that would expose it to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Faggioli and the company\u27s CFO, Craig Huff, along with NSP, would be plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, and the SEC would fine each officer $25,000. In order to register and import more products in Brazil, NSP made undocumented cash payments to Brazilian customs brokers, some of which were ultimately paid to Brazilian customs officials. NSP\u27s Brazilian subsidiary falsified its books and hid the nature of these payments in its filings with the SEC. NSP\u27s internal investigation revealed internal control weaknesses, which likely led to the violations

Audit Committee Material Weaknesses in Smaller Reporting Companies

One of the critical elements of internal control over financial reporting is an effectively functioning audit committee. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) defines an audit committee as committee (or equivalent body) established by and amongst the board of directors of an issuer for the purpose of overseeing the accounting and financial reporting processes of the issuer and audits of the financial statements of the issuer. Recent SOX section 404 filings by smaller reporting companies ( nonaccelerated filers, or registrants with less than $75 million of public float), however, indicate that some small companies still are struggling to develop effective audit committees. Examining the disclosures made by smaller reporting companies and then analyzing the available resources can be useful for small businesses seeking to establish and maintain effective audit committees. The SEC rules public companies to issue an annual report on the company\u27s internal control over financial reporting and to include an auditor\u27s opinion on their effectiveness

Are America\u27s Top Business Students Steering Clear of Accounting?

Examines top business students\u27 perceptions of the accountancy profession and how these perceptions may influence the students\u27 career choices. Assertion that students choose accounting for financial reasons; Appeal of accounting work to nonaccounting students; Implications for the recruitment of top business students

The Fraud Diamond: Considering the Four Elements of Fraud

Focuses on the use of the elements of the fraud diamond to prevent and detect accounting fraud. Essential traits for committing fraud; Steps in assessing fraud risk through the use of the fourth element of the diamond; Ways for auditors to prevent potential fraud

Going Beyond Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance: Five Keys to Creating Value

Discusses the factors involved in implementing Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for U.S. accounting firms. Appreciation of the goal behind the law; Comprehension of the accounting fraud; Aggressiveness in addressing ethical attitudes and rationalization