Board, Audit Committee, Culture

Managerial Auditing Journal
Board, audit committee, culture and earnings management: Malaysian evidence

Rashidah Abdul Rahman, Fairuzana Haneem Mohamed Ali,
Article information:
Downloaded by Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang, UIN Walisongo At 18:55 23 November 2017 (PT)
To cite this document:

Rashidah Abdul Rahman, Fairuzana Haneem Mohamed Ali, (2006) "Board, audit committee, culture and
earnings management: Malaysian evidence", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 21 Issue: 7, pp.783-804,
https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900610680549
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900610680549
Downloaded on: 23 November 2017, At: 18:55 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 64 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10833 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Independent audit committee characteristics and real earnings management", Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 2 pp. 153-172 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2013-0865">https://
doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2013-0865</a>
(2006),"Board Characteristics, Audit Committee Characteristics and Abnormal Accruals", Pacific
Accounting Review, Vol. 18 Iss 2 pp. 47-68 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01140580610732813">https://
doi.org/10.1108/01140580610732813</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:609256 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-6902.htm
Board, audit
Board, audit committee, culture committee,
and earnings management: culture
Malaysian evidence
783
Rashidah Abdul Rahman
Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia, and

Fairuzana Haneem Mohamed Ali
Universiti Tenaga National, Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – Aims to investigate the extent of the effectiveness of monitoring functions of board of
directors, audit committee and concentrated ownership in reducing earnings management among
97 firms listed on the Main Board of Bursa Malaysia over the period 2002-2003.
Design/methodology/approach – The current study employs the cross-sectional modified version
of Jones, where abnormal working capital accruals are used as proxy for earnings management.
Findings – The study reveals that earnings management is positively related to the size of the board
of directors. This supports the view that larger boards appear to be ineffective in their oversight duties
relative to smaller boards. A possible explanation for the insignificant relationship between other
corporate governance mechanisms (independence of board and audit committee) and earnings
management is that the board of directors is seen as ineffective in discharging their monitoring duties
due to management dominance over board matters. The apparent reason for this phenomenon is
attributed to the board of directors’ relative lack of knowledge in company’s affairs. The study also
found that ethnicity (race) has no effect in mitigating earnings management, possibly due to the more
individualistic behaviour of the Bumiputra directors. The modernisation of Malaysia and also the
increase in Bumiputra ownership of national wealth may have caused the Malays to be more
individualistic, similar to their Chinese counterpart.
Originality/value – Since, there are relatively few studies conducted in this area specifically among
Malaysian firms, this study will broaden the scope by providing empirical evidence of the relationship
between various corporate governance characteristics, cultural factors and earnings management.
Keywords Earnings, Boards of directors, Audit committees, Culture, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Based on agency theory, issues associated with the separation between ownership and
control will lead managers (agents) to act in an opportunistic manner by increasing
their personal wealth at the expense of the owners (principal) of an organisation (Jensen
and Meckling, 1976). As financial statements provide value-relevant information to the
external parties of the organisation, the heavy reliance placed on accounting numbers
create powerful incentives for managers to manipulate earnings to their own
advantage. The incentives for managers to manipulate reported earnings may be
influenced by job security, contractual agreements between managers and the external
stakeholders, self-interest in the presence of compensation schemes or the need to Managerial Auditing Journal
Vol. 21 No. 7, 2006
achieve target earnings and to meet market expectations (Healy and Wahlen, 1999). pp. 783-804
As such, earnings management, even if it is being done not in violation of the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-6902
accounting standards, may lead to inaccurate information about the company. Hence, it DOI 10.1108/02686900610680549
MAJ is crucial for an organisation to have an effective corporate governance mechanism to
21,7 safeguard the rights of the investors in getting the true and fair information of the
company.
The 1997 economic crisis in Malaysia has exposed serious weaknesses in corporate
governance practices namely, weak financial structure, over-leveraging by companies,
lack of transparency, disclosure and accountability. The introduction of the Malaysian
784 Code of Corporate Governance (2000) and the Bursa Malaysia Revamped Listing
Requirement (2001) highlight the importance of corporate governance and disclosure

requirements. This is particularly so with regard to the appointment of the majority of
independent directors to the board and the forming of an audit committee comprising
of at least three independent directors to strengthen capital market, boost investors’
confidence and improve the credibility and accountability of financial information
produced by listed companies. As such, the focus of the study is to acquire an
understanding of whether the existence of corporate governance mechanisms, namely
the composition of the board of directors and audit committees, are effective in
extenuating earnings management behaviour amongst Malaysian public listed
companies. In essence, by examining the relationship between earnings management
and corporate governance characteristics, the effectiveness of board monitoring can be
further evaluated and improvised by the regulators. This study also aims to provide
additional evidence that supports or rejects prior research findings in developed
countries and to determine whether the findings can be generalised in Malaysia.
Malaysia is of interest because it is a developing country with an emerging capital
market and unlike the dispersed shareholding of the Anglo-Saxon world, Malaysia is
characterised by concentrated shareholding. Many of the listed companies in Malaysia
are family owned or controlled, with many companies having evolved from traditional
family owned enterprises, reflecting different cultural traditions and aspirations
(Claessens et al., 2000). Unlike companies with dispersed shareholding, there is a
reduced agency problem in a company with concentrated ownership due to a better
matching of the control rights of the dominant shareholder with its cashflow rights.
Thus, the incentive of the controlling shareholder is more likely to be aligned to the
interest of other shareholders. In fact, past studies have shown that concentrated or
block ownership can assist the board in increasing its monitoring effectiveness
(Shleifer and Vishny, 1997). As such, the study also aims to provide evidence on the
impact of the presence of block shareholdings by outside investors on the effectiveness
of the board in mitigating opportunistic earnings management activity in Malaysia.
Previous studies in the area (Peasnell et al., 2001; Klein, 2002; Xie et al., 2003) have
examined the effectiveness of corporate governance attributes in mitigating earnings
management behaviour but they have not examined cultural factors that may affect
the level of earnings management in a country. Cultural factors are important because
the traditions of a nation are instilled in its people and might help explain why things
are as they are (Haniffa and Cooke, 2002). Malaysia has its own unique historical
background resulting from the cultural influence of different countries that either
occupied Malaysia (Britain) or have had business practices in Malaysia (India and
China). Hence, it is made up of various races, religions, creeds, customs and languages.
These multiracial groups fall into two main categories: those with cultural affinities
indigenous to the region, classified as the Malays or Bumiputras (literally meaning
“sons of the soil”), and those whose cultural affinities lie outside, classified as
non-Bumiputra (consisting primarily of Chinese, Indians and others). Relative to their Board, audit
Chinese counterparts, the Malay directors have been found to have a higher level of committee,
voluntary disclosure (Haniffa and Cooke, 2002) and thus may have fewer tendencies to
manage earnings. The examination of the level of earnings management in a culture
multiracial society like Malaysia will, therefore, contribute to the existing knowledge
on earnings management.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. The next section discusses the 785
relevant literature on issues pertaining to earnings management and the role of board
monitoring together with cultural factors, which lead to the development of
hypotheses. The third section explains the research method followed by a discussion
of the results in section four. The paper ends with a summary and the conclusion of the
research.
Literature review and hypotheses development

Earnings management occurs:
. . . when managers use judgement in financial reporting and in structuring transactions to
alter financial reports to either mislead some stakeholders about the underlying economic
performance of the company, or to influence contractual outcomes that depend on reported
accounting numbers (Healy and Wahlen, 1999, p. 6).
However, earnings management, unlike fraud, involves the selection of accounting
procedures and estimates that conform to generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP). That is, any firms that have earnings management would be manifested
within the bounds of accepted accounting procedure manipulation.
The management’s use of judgment in financial reporting has both costs and
benefits. Benefits include potential improvements in the management’s credible
communication of private information to stakeholders that improve resource allocation
decisions (Healy and Palepu, 1995). However, shareholders will face potential agency
costs if managers manage earnings to obtain abnormal private gains that may take the
form of increased compensation (Guidry et al., 1999) or reduced likelihood of dismissal
when performance is low (Weisbach, 1988). The act of managing earnings does not
necessarily reflect the true performance of the company, a situation that may
contribute to shareholders and investors making inaccurate judgments about the
company. Thus, effective board monitoring is important in reducing the incidence of
earnings management when incentives for such manipulations are high.
Board of directors’ characteristics

Agency theory supports the idea that to increase the board’s independence from
management, boards should be dominated by outside directors. Among the arguments
is that non-executive directors are needed to monitor and control the actions of the
directors whose behaviour has been referred to by Jensen and Meckling (1976) as
“opportunistic”. The presence of those non-executive directors may influence the quality
of directors’ deliberations and decisions, provide strategic direction and improve
performance (Zahra and Pearce, 1989), thus ensuring that management is acting in a
responsible way and in the best interests of the shareholders as well as the stakeholders.
The resource dependence theory also argued for more non-executive directors on the
board, due to their expertise, prestige and contacts (Kesner and Johnson, 1990).
MAJ However, some researchers do acknowledge the drawbacks of having a high
21,7 proportion of non-executive directors on the board. Such shortcomings include stifling
strategic actions (Goodstein et al., 1994), excessive monitoring (Baysinger and Butler,
1985), lack of business knowledge to be effective (Patton and Baker, 1987) and lack of
real independence (Demb and Neubauer, 1992). This is especially so if these
non-executives are former employees of the firm or have personal relationships with
786 one of the executives.
Nevertheless, there has been considerable pressure on firms to increase the number
of non-executive directors on the board in the UK and USA (Davies, 2000). Similarly, all
public listed companies in Malaysia must ensure that at least one-third of their board of
directors consists of independent non-executive directors, thus enhancing the board’s
independence of the management (Bursa Malaysia Revamped Listing Requirement,
2001).
Several studies present evidence suggesting that effective governance with board
independence improve firm performance (Agrawal and Knoeber, 1996; Baysinger and
Butler, 1985), while the dominance of non-executive directors (in terms of numbers)
could provide them with more power to force management to improve the quality of
firm disclosure (Haniffa and Cooke, 2002). Unlike a Canadian study by Park and Shin
(2003) who found no significant difference between discretionary accruals (DAC) and
board composition, studies by Beasley (1996) and Klein (2002) found otherwise. Their
studies suggested that having outside independent directors on the board provide
added value to the board monitoring process. Beasley (1996) found a significant
negative relationship between outside directors and the occurrence of fraudulent
financial statements, whilst Klein (2002), Xie et al. (2003) and Peasnell et al. (2001)
found that outside directors are negatively associated with DAC. Peasnell et al. (2001)
suggested that the board balance between executive and non-executive directors
contributes towards the integrity of financial statements.
Hence, previous empirical findings seem to suggest that boards which are
structured to be more independent of the management are effective in monitoring the
corporate financial accounting process, thus leading us to the following hypothesis:
H1. There is a significant negative relationship between discretionary accruals
(DAC) and the proportion of independent directors on the board.
In addition, independent directors who had served the board for a certain period may
develop better governance competencies as well as provide additional knowledge and
expertise to the firm, thus are capable of monitoring management performance. For
example, Peasnell et al. (2001) found the average tenure of non-executive directors on
the board is negatively associated with the level of earnings management. Experience
as board members of the firm allows outside directors to gain a better understanding of
the firm and its people, thus enabling them to develop better governance competencies.
This leads to the following hypothesis:
(DAC) and the competence of independent directors on the board.
Further, the Malaysian code recommends that the role of the chairman be separated
from that of the CEO. This is to ensure that the CEO would not be in a position with too
much power to handle daily business operations. Proponents of the agency theory also
argue for the separation of these two roles. The chairman, they argue should be Board, audit
independent of company’s affairs while being on the board and in so doing will be a committee,
useful check on the over-ambitious plans of the CEO (Blackburn, 1994). Proponents of
the stewardship theory, on the other hand, argue that this role duality (where a CEO is culture
also the chairman of the firm) will improve firm performance because the
management’s compensation is tied to the firm performance, and that the CEO’s
strategic vision can shape the destiny of the firm with minimum board interference 787
(Rechner and Dalton, 1991).

Past studies have reported that companies with duality function did not perform as
well as their counterparts (Abdul Rahman and Haniffa, 2005) and are more likely to be
subjected to accounting enforcement actions by the SEC for infringement of GAAP
(Dechow et al., 1995). In addition, Klein (2002) found that absolute value of DAC is
positively related to the CEO who holds a position on the board’s nominating and
compensation committee. The results indicate that a CEO with excessive power over
board matters could easily manipulate earnings. Hence, it is hypothesised that:
(DAC) and the separation of the roles of CEO and chairman.
Board size is viewed as another important element in board characteristics that may
have an effect on earnings management. The optimum number of board members
should be appropriately determined by the whole board to ensure that there are enough
members to discharge responsibilities and perform various functions (Malaysian Code
of Corporate Governance, 2000). Goodstein et al. (1994) argued that smaller boards,
between four to six members might be more effective since they are able to make
timely strategic decisions, while larger boards are capable of monitoring the actions of
top management (Zahra and Pearce, 1989). In fact, large board members with varied
expertise could increase the synergetic monitoring of the board in reducing the
incidence of earnings management. Xie et al. (2003) and Peasnell et al. (2001) found that
having a larger board is associated with less earnings management. As such, the next
hypothesis, which is related to board size and earnings management, is set as follows:
(DAC) and the size of boards.
Audit committee
Malaysian public listed companies have been required by Bursa Malaysia (previously
known as Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange) to establish an audit committee since
1 August 1994. In addition, the code specifies that an audit committee should comprise
at least three directors, the majority of whom are independent, while its chairman
should be an independent non-executive director. The establishment of the audit
committee is to ensure continuous communication between external auditors and the
board, where the committee meets regularly with the auditors to review financial
statements and audit processes and also internal accounting systems and control.
A study by Muhamad Sori et al. (2001) found that the Malaysian audit committee
chairman perceives that the committee plays an effective role in monitoring audit and
financial functions.
Vicknair et al. (1993) stated that in order to function effectively, audit committees
must be independent of the management as it allows both the internal and external
MAJ auditors to remain free of undue influences and interferences from corporate
21,7 executives. Peasnell et al. (2001) did not find sufficient evidence on the effectiveness of
the audit committee in reducing the level of earnings management. However, other
empirical studies generally show that the independence of the audit committee has
been found to be not only negatively associated with the occurrence of financial fraud
(Beasley, 1996; Dechow et al., 1995), DAC (Xie et al., 2003), and being sanctioned for
788 fraudulent or misleading reporting (Abbot and Parker, 2000), but are also positively
related to financial reporting (Felo et al., 2003). Similarly, Choi et al. (2004) found that
when members of the audit committee hold shares in a company, they have less
incentive to deter earnings management. Thus, independence of the audit committee is
arguably a key factor in enhancing their role in preventing misstatements in the
financial statements. Hence, the next hypothesis is as follows:
(DAC) and the proportion of independent directors on the audit committee.
In addition, the need to have competent and experienced directors, particularly in
financial aspects, is equally important to audit committee members since the primary
function of an audit committee is to monitor the financial reporting process of an
organisation. Xie et al. (2003) and Choi et al. (2004) reported that outside directors who
are financially competent, are effective as monitors in reducing earnings management
behaviour. Further, Felo et al. (2003) found the percentage of audit committee members
having expertise in accounting or financial management is positively related to the
quality of financial reporting. The Bursa Malaysia listing requirements stipulates
among others, that at least a member of the audit committee must possess relevant
skills, experience and qualified knowledge, such as being a member of the Malaysian
Institute of Accountants. Hence, an audit committee that has knowledge and skills in
financial reporting is more likely to uncover opportunistic earnings management
activity by the management:
(DAC) and the competence of members of the audit committee.
Further, an audit committee that is independent and competent will play a more active,
effective and efficient monitoring role. Xie et al. (2003) reported that the number of
board meetings is negatively associated with the level of earnings management,
indicating that the board that meets regularly could be better monitors. This may stem
from the notion that an active board that devotes time to rectifying any immediate
issues may deter earnings management. As such, the following hypothesis is
developed:
(DAC) and the frequency of meetings of audit committee.
Concentrated ownership
Unlike in the UK and the USA which have a dispersed shareholder base, ownership
and control in Malaysian public listed corporations tend to be much more concentrated,
with shares often being owned by identifiable and cohesive groups of “insiders” who
have longer term stable relationships with the company. They may be members of the
company’s founding families or a small group of shareholders, such as lending banks,
other companies (through cross shareholdings and pyramidal ownership structures) or Board, audit
the government (Claessens et al., 2000). Past studies have shown that concentrated or committee,
block ownership can assist the board in increasing its monitoring effectiveness
(Shleifer and Vishny, 1997) and in terminating top executives in poor performing firms culture
(Denis et al., 1997). With regard to earnings management, Chtourou et al. (2001) found
that firms with low-level DAC have a larger percentage of shares owned by
blockholders. Thus, the presence of shareholders owning a large block of shares in a 789
company provides an additional monitoring mechanism that may deter opportunistic

earnings management:
(DAC) and concentrated ownership.
Cultural characteristics
Accounting research has for many years focussed on the influence of cultural values on
the development of accounting practices. Past studies have provided evidence on the
following: that accounting practices and disclosure are a function of the nation’s
cultural values (Perera, 1989; Mohd Iskandar and Pourjalali, 2000); that cultural
heritage affects attitudes towards business related fraud (Watson, 2003); and that an
organisation’s culture can predispose a company into considering fraudulent financial
reporting (Geriesh, 2003). Hofstede (1991) defines culture as the “collective
programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or
category of people from another”. Among the components of national culture are the
prevalent value systems that are transferred from generation to generation. Values
refer to the broad preferences for one state of affairs over others. They are the acquired
knowledge that people use to interpret experiences; direct feelings of good and evil, and
affect perceptions of how things are, that eventually affect behaviour (Hofstede, 1991).
Chuah (1995) argues that the mind of Malaysian managers is influenced by race,
education and the type of organisation they work for. Using Hofstede’s (1983) four
dimensions (individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity) in
underlying the differences in the nation’s cultural values, Abdullah (1992) provides
evidence that the Malays are rated lower on individualism, which is partly attributed to
the fact that Islam emphasises groups and societies rather than individuals (Baydoun
and Willet, 1995). In addition, the concept of zakat (tax) in Islam promotes the
development of collectivism in the community by providing a mechanism for the rich
to help the poor. Using race and education as surrogate for culture, Haniffa and Cooke
(2002) found the Chinese to be more individualistic and more secretive in their
disclosure partly due to their entrepreneurial skills that have a greater influence on the
Malaysian economy. They, however, found Malaysian firms dominated by Malay
directors have a higher level of voluntary disclosure, which is consistent with the
Islamic business ethics that encourages transparency in business, thus may have fewer
tendencies to manage earnings. As such, the presence of Malay directors on the
board of a company and on audit committees may deter opportunistic earnings
management:
(DAC) and the proportion of Malay directors on the board.
MAJ H10. There is a significant negative relationship between discretionary accruals
21,7 (DAC) and the proportion of Malay directors on the audit committee.
Research design
The study examines 100 top companies listed on Bursa Malaysia Main Board,
790 ranked by Market Capitalisation at 31 December 2001 (Investors Digest, 2002)
January, for the period January 2002 to December 2003. A final sample comprising
of 97 top companies for both years is selected from the list after excluding several
companies that did not meet certain criteria in the study. For example, companies
in the finance sector are excluded in the study since these companies come
separately under the Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1989. Moreover,
they posses a unique and different working capital structure (Klein, 2002). In
addition, utilities companies are also excluded because they are very much
regulated by the government and acquire different incentives and opportunities to
manage earnings (Peasnell et al., 2001). Companies that do not have complete
financial data, complete information on directors or whose annual reports are
unavailable are also excluded.
Data relating to the board of directors and the audit committee attributes are
gathered using the company’s annual report as disclosed on the Bursa Malaysia
web site. Financial data are obtained from the Datastream. Any missing financial
figures from Datastream are acquired from the annual report.
Measuring earnings management

Consistent with Xie et al. (2003) and Peasnell et al. (2001), working capital accruals are
used in this study as a measure for earnings management, as managers have a great
deal of discretion in determining the actual earnings a firm reports in any given period
(Teoh et al., 1998). In addition, managing earnings through accruals manipulation is
more subtle and difficult to detect by a lay user of financial statements.
Consistent with empirical evidence from recent contemporary researches in
earnings management, namely Klein (2002), Xie et al. (2003), Dechow et al. (1995) and
Peasnell et al. (2001), the current study uses the cross-sectional modified version of
Jones (1991). While the ability of the modified Jones (1991) model in measuring
earnings management has been challenged by some researchers, Dechow et al. (1995)
and Guay et al. (1996) found that the model is the most powerful in detecting earnings
manipulation in the event of managers exercising their discretion over revenue
recognition. For example, managers could determine the appropriate timing to
recognise credit sales, which would either increase or decrease the reported earnings
over a period. In addition, a cross-sectional analysis is used in this study, instead of
time series as sample size can be maximised and survivorship bias problem can be
eliminated (Peasnell et al., 2001).
In employing the modified Jones’ (1991) model, working capital accruals are
decomposed into non-discretionary and DAC. The non-DAC or normal accruals are
estimates by managers that represent changes in the underlying economic
performance of the company. For example, as the level of sales and purchases
during the growth period increases, the magnitude of accounts payable and accounts
receivable would increase accordingly. On the other hand, DAC are open to managers’
discretion and hence are operationalised as a proxy for earnings management in Board, audit
the study. committee,
Non-DAC are estimated during the observation year (the year in which earnings
management is estimated) as: culture
NDACi;t ¼ að1=TAi;t21 Þ þ bðDREVi;t 2 DRECi;t =TAi;t21 Þ ð1Þ
where NDACt ; non-DAC for company i in year t scaled by lagged total assets; DRECi;t ; 791
net receivables for company i in year t less net receivables in year t 2 1; DREVi;t ;
revenues for company i in year t less revenues in year t 2 1; TAi;t21 ; total assets for
company i at the end of year t 2 1; a and b are industry-specific parameters.
The change in receivables is subtracted from the change in revenues to reflect the
fact that the change in receivables is treated as discretionary. Estimates of the
industry-specific parameters a and b are obtained by using the following OLS
regression model as illustrated in equation (2), in the estimation period. Equation (2)
use data from all companies matched on the year of observation and are categorised in
the same industry groupings. All variables in the regression model are deflated by
lagged total assets to reduce heteroscedasticity problems (Teoh et al., 1998; Abdul
Rahman and Abu Bakar, 2004; Abdul Rahman and Wan Abdullah, 2005).
WCAj;t =TAj;t21 ¼ a1 ð1=TAj;t21 Þ þ b1 ðDREVj;t =TAj;t21 Þ þ 1t ð2Þ
where WCAj;t ; working capital accruals in year t for industry j; defined as change in
non-cash current assets minus the change in current liabilities, a1and b1, denote the
OLS estimates of a and b in equation (1) above, 1t ; the regression residuals.
In essence, the working capital accruals are regressed on the change in revenue
since the underlying assumption under this model is that revenue is a component of
non-DAC. Equation (2) is estimated separately each year for all firms listed on
Datastream that are in the same industry category. Consistent with Klein (2002),
industries with less than eight observations are excluded in the analysis. The
regression coefficients in equation (2) (i.e.a1and b1) represent the parameter of interest
in estimating changes in non-DAC.
The discretionary working capital accruals (DAC) is then defined as the remaining
portion of the working capital accruals:
DACi;t ¼ WCð1=Ai;t Þ 2 NDACi;t ð3Þ
where DACi,t, discretionary accruals for firm i in year t; WC, working capital; NDAC,
non-DAC for firm i in year t.
Measurement procedure
The variables and their measurements used in this study are summarised in Table I.
Consistent with Klein (2002), Becker et al. (1998) and Warfield et al. (1995), the study
incorporates absolute value of DAC as the dependent variable. The direction of
earnings management is disregarded to include the combined effect of income
increasing and income decreasing earnings management.
The variables for board of directors and audit committee are measured at the
beginning of the year in which earnings management occurs. Four variables that
represent board of directors’ attributes are the proportion of independent directors,
21,7
792
MAJ
Table I.
variables
Summary of the
operationalisation of
Variables Measurement scale
Dependent variable Obtained using modified Jones model

Discretionary accruals
Board of directors
Proportion of independent non-executive directors (BDIND) No of independent non-executive directors/total no of board members
Average tenure of independent non-executive directors (INDTENURE) Average no of years of board service of independent non-executive
directors
CEO duality (DUALITY) Indicator variable with the value of “1” if the roles of chairman and CEO
are combined and “0” otherwise
Board size (BDSIZE) Total no of board members
Audit committee
Proportion of independent directors (ACIND) No of independent non-executive directors/total no of audit committee
members
Competence (ACQLFD) Indicator variable with the value of “1” if at least one member is a qualified
accountant and “0” otherwise
Frequency of meetings (ACMEETINGS) No of meetings conducted
Corporate ownership
Concentrated/block ownership (BLOCK) Combined number of significant shareholders/total no of ordinary shares
Cultural characteristics
Ethnic composition of directors on board (ECBD) Ratio of Bumiputra directors to total number of directors on board
Ethnic composition of directors on audit committee (ECAC) Ratio of Bumiputra directors to total number of directors on audit
committee
Control variables
Return on assets (ROA) EBIT/total assets
Leverage (LEV) Total debt/total assets
Cash flow (CFO) Cash flow from operations
Size (SIZE) Log of total assets
Book to market value ratio (GROWTH) Book value of equity/market value of equity
Big5 auditor (Big5) Indicator variable with the value of “1” if audited by Big5 and “0”
otherwise
competence, CEO duality and board size. The proportion of independent directors on Board, audit
the board is measured by dividing the total number of independent non-executive committee,
directors by the total number of board members (Klein, 2002; Xie et al., 2003; Peasnell
et al., 2001). As defined by Bursa Malaysia, an independent director is a director who is culture
independent of the management and free from any business or other relationship
which could interfere with the exercise of the independent judgment or the ability to act
in the best interest of the stakeholders. 793
Similar to Chtourou et al. (2001) and Peasnell et al. (2001), competence of the board is
measured using the average tenure of the independent non-executive directors (the
total number of years of service divided by the number of independent non-executive
directors in a company). CEO duality is the separation of the role of chairman and CEO,
where firms that combined the title are labelled “1” and firms that separated the title
are labelled “0”. Board size refers to the total number of board members, similar to that
employed by Xie et al. (2003) and Peasnell et al. (2001).
Similar to the studies conducted by Chtourou et al. (2001) and Abdul Rahman and
Haniffa (2003), concentrated ownership is based on the percentage shareholding of the
combined number of significant shareholders in a company. Three variables that
exemplify the audit committee characteristics are the proportion of independent
directors, competence and the activity of the audit committee. As summarised in
Table I, the proportion of independent non-executive directors in the audit committee is
calculated by dividing the total number of independent non-executive directors in the
audit committee by the total number of audit committee members. The competence of
an audit committee is measured based on the accounting qualification of the members
of the committee (Choi et al., 2004) taking the value of 1, if at least one member of the
committee is a qualified accountant and 0 otherwise. Similar to Choi et al. (2004), the
study also incorporates the frequency of meetings to gauge the audit committee’s
activity.
The measurement of race as surrogate for culture in this study is acknowledged to
be biased but the effect of race may be significant in a multiethnic society like Malaysia
where each group maintains and practices its own cultural values and religious beliefs.
The ethnic composition of directors on board is measured as the ratio of Bumiputra
directors to the total number of directors on board, whilst the ethnic composition of the
audit committee is the ratio of Bumiputra directors to the total number of directors on
the audit committee.
Factors other than corporate governance practices and cultural factors may also
contribute to the reduction of earnings management. The study uses six control
variables: ROA, leverage, cash flow, size, book to market value ratio and Big5 auditors,
as summarised in Table I. Bartov et al. (2000) reported that firms experiencing financial
difficulties (proxy by book to market ratios and financial leverage) as well as low firm
performance (ROA and cash flow) have more incentive to engage in earnings
management activity. This is because, higher leverage and lower firm performance
means higher bankruptcy risk, which in turn will lead to litigation risks. Past studies
have also shown that companies employing Big5 auditors reported lower levels of DAC
than companies employing non-Big5 auditors (Becker et al. 1998). In comparison to low
quality auditors, high quality auditors such as Big5 auditors are more likely to detect
questionable accounting practices and to a certain extent may compel management to
follow accounting practices as prescribed by the accounting standards.
MAJ In addition, the log of book value of total assets is used as a proxy for size because
21,7 smaller firms are less scrutinised by authorities and is therefore more inclined to
manage earnings (Xie et al., 2003). Becker et al. (1998) and Dechow et al. (1995) reported
a significant negative association between DAC and cash flow. This is particularly so
in the event where companies are close to debt covenant restrictions, quite often the
level of cash flow is also low. Hence, managers are more inclined to manage earnings
794 upwards.
Findings
Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics of the DAC and the continuous independent variables used in
the sample are shown in Tables II and III. As shown in Table II, the magnitude of
absolute value of DAC of the companies in the sample has a small mean value of 0.04
whereas the minimum value is very much closer to 0 (0.0001). These findings are
consistent with Klein (2002) where a minimum value of absolute DAC among large US
firms was 0.00002. However, the average absolute DAC among US companies is 0.11.
Based on the one sample T-test, the p-value for absolute values of DAC is significantly
different from 0 at 1 per cent significant level. As such, the test provides evidence that
on average, large Malaysian public corporations manage their reported earnings.
As in Table III, 90 per cent of audit committees in the study meet the Bursa
Malaysia Listing Requirement of having at least one qualified accountant as a member
of the audit committee.
Table III also shows that 81 per cent of the sample firms employ Big5 audit firms as
opposed to only 19 per cent of the companies employing non-Big5 public accounting
firms as their auditors. This is due to the complex and sophisticated nature of activities
of large companies. In addition, proficient and competent auditors will raise the
investors’ perception of the credibility of the audited financial statements.
A correlation coefficient analysis is further performed to examine the relationship
between the dependent and independent variables. This test examines the extent to
which both dependent and each independent variable in the study are related. Prior to
conducting the correlation analysis, the variables are analysed for their distribution. The
purpose of the normality test is to determine the correct type of statistical analysis to be
employed in further examining the relationship of the variables. In order to conduct
Pearson correlation analysis, both dependent and independent variables must be
normally distributed continuous variables (Keller and Warrack, 2003). The data are said
to be normal if the standard skewness is within ^ 1.96 and standard kurtosis of ^ 2.
Variables that are not normally distributed, as shown in Table II, are transformed
using normal scores to fulfil the assumption of normality (different transformations
using rank and log were undertaken but transformations using normal scores produce
better estimation and have more advantages than the others). The main advantage of
using normal scores transformation is that the exact statistical properties can be
determined (Haniffa and Cooke, 2002). Both the F- and T-tests and the regression
coefficients derived using this transformation gave more meaningful interpretations.
It also offers a means of transforming a non-normal dependent variable into normality
thus implying that errors are normally distributed by the assumptions of OLS. It also
preserves monotonicity in relationships with higher ranked values of the independent
variables being associated with higher ranked values of the dependent variables (the
Min Mean Max Median Skewness Kurtosis Standard Deviation
Discretionary accruals 2 0.21 0.0132 0.29 0.013 0.068 0.175 0.07

Absolute value of discretionary accruals 0.0001 0.0468 (0.000) * 0.2966 0.029 1.937 4.325 0.05
Cash flow from operations (ln) 2 0.15 0.073 0.53 0.0716 1.204 5.55 0.081
ROA 2 0.10 0.089 0.63 0.084 2.612 16.511 0.079
Leverage 0.0006 0.21 0.67 0.194 0.610 20.435 0.16
Size (ln) 5.20 6.25 7.51 6.264 0.011 20.022 0.45
Book to market ratio 0.00 0.123 1.993 0.010 3.389 11.732 0.328
Board size 5 8.89 16 9.00 0.465 0.175 2.22
Independent directors 0.13 0.3850 0.71 0.360 0.680 0.594 0.09
Average tenure of independent directors 0.5 6.9906 28.60 4.67 1.546 2.235 5.93
Concentrated ownership 0.10 0.3676 0.75 0.330 0.364 20.907 0.17
Independent directors of audit committee (AC) 0.17 0.6843 1.0 0.670 2 0.430 2.186 0.14
Number of AC meetings 3.0 4.97 9.0 5.00 1.388 1.595 1.2
Bumiputra composition on board of directors 0 0.4800 1.0 0.417 0.327 20.833 0.26
Bumiputra composition of AC 0 0.5332 1.0 0.50 2 0.171 20.382 0.27
Note: *Significance level
culture
variables
Descriptive statistics of
committee,
Board, audit
795
Table II.
MAJ converse is also true). In addition, when there is non-linearity with data concentration,
21,7 this transformation disperses the concentration.
As illustrated in Table IV, all corporate governance and cultural variables are not
significantly related to earnings management. Notwithstanding this, there are a few
observations that require further elaboration. For instance, the coefficient of correlation
between board size and DAC is positive. This indicates that as the size of the board of
796 directors increases, the level of earnings management also increases. In addition, the
results of x 2-test also provide no significant relationship between DAC and the two
variables, duality role and the competence of audit committee.
The correlation matrix in Table IV confirms that there is no multicollinearity among
variables since none of the variables correlates above 0.8 or 0.9. In addition, there is no
predictor variable that produces a variance inflation factor greater than 10, confirming
that collinearity is not a problem in this study.
Multivariate analysis
As an extension of the correlation analysis performed earlier, a multiple regression
analysis is employed to gauge the explanatory power of the independent variables
against DAC.
Based on the statistical analysis shown in Table V, the adjusted R 2 value for the
model is 12.8 per cent. The low value of adjusted R 2 in this study indicates that there
are other factors that strongly explain the variation in the level of earnings
management. Contrary to the first hypothesis that states there is a negative
relationship between DAC and the proportion of independent directors, the result
indicates that there is no significant relationship between independent directors and
earnings management. This finding is in contrast to that found by Klein (2002), Xie
et al. (2003) and Peasnell et al. (2001) where independent directors are negatively related
to DAC. Nevertheless, the result is similar to that found by Chtourou et al. (2001), Park
and Shin (2003) and Choi et al. (2004) where there is no significant relationship between
outside directors and DAC.
The result also indicates that the competence of independent directors based on the
age of their tenure as board members, may not be adequate in assessing and evaluating
financial statements. Thus, the second hypothesis is rejected. The findings suggest
that independent directors in Malaysian firms have not been effective in carrying out
their monitoring functions. Arguably, their ineffectiveness in discharging their
monitoring duty may be due to the lack of expertise, lack of required skills and
knowledge in the business environment.
Apart from that, the insignificant relationship between DAC and the duality role
found in this study indicates that separating the role of the CEO and chairman has no
effective monitoring function in curbing earnings management, thus rejecting H3. The
Duality role (per cent) Separation (per cent)
CEO duality 10 90
Table III. Accounting qualification No qualification
Descriptive statistics for Audit committee competence 90 10
nominal independent and Big5 Non-Big5
control variables Auditors 81 19
DAC BDIND ACIND BLOCK DUA-LITY BDSIZE ACQLFD INDTENURE
DAC 1
BDIND 0.016, 0.825 1
ACIND 2 0.032, 0.660 0.338, 0.000 * 1
BLOCK 0.033, 0.650 2 0.061, 0.398 0.021, 0.770 1
DUALITY 2 0.095, 0.187 2 0.015, 0.834 2 0.135, 0.061 * * 2 0.018, 0.799 1
BDSIZE 0.105, 0.145 2 0.254, 0.000 * 0.067, 0.355 2 0.069, 0.336 2 0.078, 0.282 1
ACQLFD 2 0.009, 0.905 2 0.033, 0.649 0.131, 0.069 * * 2 0.035, 0.632 0.05, 0.487 0.101, 0.160 1
INDTENURE 2 0.085, 0.238 0.030, 0.683 2 0.10, 0.885 0.190, 0.008 * 0.016, 0.829 0.080, 0.266 2 0.352, 0.000 * 1
ACMEETINGS 2 0.062, 0.394 0.144, 0.045 * 0.003, 0.965 2 0.217, 0.002 * 0.056, 0.439 2 0.128, 0.075 * * 2 0.081, 0.259 2 0.110, 0.127
ROA 0.177, 0.104 2 0.106, 0.143 2 0.111, 0.123 0.194, 0.007 * 2 0.053, 0.464 0.072, 0.322 0.047, 0.515 2 0.014, 0.846
LEV 0.059, 0.412 0.102, 0.159 2 0.055, 0.449 2 0.134, 0.063 * * 2 0.109, 0.129 2 0.038, 0.599 2 0.102, 0.158 0.095, 0.187
CFO 0.02, 0.779 2 0.099, 0.171 2 0.101, 0.162 0.270, 0.000 * 2 0.102, 0.157 0.101, 0.159 2 0.079, 0.276 0.083, 0.247
SIZE 2 0.117, 0.103 0.057, 0.430 2 0.002, 0.981 0.062, 0.91 0.027, 0.705 0.161, 0.025 * 2 0.011, 0.874 0.206, 0.004 *
GROWTH 2 0.167, 0.020 * 2 0.014, 0.845 0.093, 0.196 0.054, 0.453 2 0.090, 0.214 2 0.004, 0.961 0.054, 0.453 0.057, 0.426
BIG5 0.040, 0.576 0.087, 0.227 2 0.041, 0.574 0.217, 0.002 * 2 0.200, 0.005 * 2 0.097, 0.178 0.110, 0.126 2 0.073, 0.314
BUMI BD 2 0.018, 0.807 0.049, 0.498 0.124, 0.084 * * 0.107, 0.136 2 0.166, 0.021 * 0.049, 0.498 0.091, 0.214 2 0.183, 0.010 *
BUMI AC 2 0.019, 0.790 2 0.081, 0.263 0.024, 0.736 2 0.005, 0.946 2 0.081, 0.264 0.132, 0.066 * * 2 0.001, 0.985 2 0.049, 0.496
ACMEETING ROA LEV CFO SIZE GROWTH BIG5 BUMI BD BUMI AC
DAC
BDIND
ACIND
BLOCK
DUALITY
BDSIZE
ACQLFD
INDTENURE
ACMEETINGS 1
ROA 2 0.064, 0.373 1
LEV 0.095, 0.188 2 0.012, 0.869 1
CFO 2 0.106, 0.141 0.678, 0.000 * 2 0.065, 0.367 1
SIZE 0.241, 0.001 * 2 0.117, 0.104 0.250, 0.000 * 2 0.094, 0.190 1
GROWTH 0.002, 0.978 0.006, 0.939 2 0.136, 0.058 * * 0.105, 0.144 2 0.266, 0.000 * 1
BIG5 2 0.171, 0.017 * 0.134, 0.062 * * 2 0.199, 0.005 * 0.172, 0.017 2 0.062, 0.393 0.052, 0.475 1
BUMI BD 0.165, 0.021 * 2 0.111, 0.125 0.107, 0.139 2 0.033, 0.646 0.141, 0.051 * 0.133, 0.065 * * 2 0.059, 0.417 1 *
BUMI AC 0.095, 0.190 2 0.057, 0.433 0.204, 0.004 * 0.008, 0.915 0.119, 0.097 * * 0.111, 0.124 2 0.097, 0.178 0.740, 0.000 * 1
Notes: *Significant at 0.05 level, * *significant at 0.10 level

culture
variables
Correlation analysis of
committee,
Board, audit
797
Table IV.
MAJ
Variables Predicted sign Coefficient p-value
21,7
Intercept 20.867 0.589
Independent non-executive directors 2 1.420 0.226
Average tenure of independent directors 2 20.024 0.242
CEO duality 2 20.366 0.311
798 Concentrated ownership 2 0.887 0.185
Board size 2 0.113 0.024 *

Bumiputra composition on board of directors 2 0.272 0.521
Bumiputra composition on audit committee 2 0.009 0.982
Independent non-executive directors of audit committee 2 20.548 0.496
Audit committee competence 2 20.260 0.497
Number of audit committee meetings 2 20.062 0.505
ROA þ 2.548 0.149
Leverage 2 0.699 0.305
Cash flow from operations 2 22.142 0.219
Size 2 20.631 0.015 *
Table V. Growth 2 20.962 0.004 * *
Multiple regression Big5 2 0.053 0.851
results between DAC and Adjusted R 2 0.128
corporate governance p-value 0.037
mechanisms and cultural
variables Notes: * *Significant at 0.01 level, *significant at 0.05 level
result is similar to that found by Chtourou et al. (2001) although it is in contrast to

Klein’s (2002), where the level of DAC decreases among companies that separate the
role of the CEO and chairman.
However, the results in Table V show that there is a significant positive relationship
between DAC and board size. The result indicates that the larger the board, the more
ineffective it is in its monitoring function. This is consistent with the findings of
Yermack’s (1996) study, which found that smaller boards are associated with better
firm performance. This is particularly true of large US industrial corporations, where
market values for firms with smaller boards are high. In addition, Jensen (1993) and
Lipton and Lorsch (1992) argue that large boards are less effective in their oversight
duties relative to smaller boards and are susceptible to the CEO’s domination over
board matters. When a board gets too big, co-ordinating and processing problems
becomes difficult. Smaller boards also tend to reduce the possibility of free riding by
individual directors, thus increasing their accountability.
There is also insufficient evidence to allow us to accept the fifth, sixth and seventh
hypotheses (i.e. there is a negative relationship between DAC and the proportion of
independent directors, the competence of audit committee and the frequency of
meetings). In this regard, the finding is similar to that found by Peasnell et al. (2001)
who found no relationship between the independence of an audit committee and
earnings management. However, this finding is in contrast to what Choi et al. (2004)
and Park and Shin (2003) found. Their studies showed that audit committee members
with experience in financial institutions are effective monitors in reducing earnings
management. Xie et al. (2003) found that an active board is negatively related to the
level of earnings management. The fact that audit committees have an insignificant
role in preventing the incidence of earnings management indicates that the Board, audit
establishment of an audit committee in listed companies in Malaysia has yet to committee,
achieve success in its monitoring role.
The result also shows a negative relationship between DAC and concentrated/block culture
ownership, thus rejecting the H8. The insignificant relationship between block
ownership and earnings management found in this study signifies that block ownership
is not as effective as propagated by agency theorists in reducing agency problems, 799
particularly in preventing opportunistic earnings management. This is similar to that

found by Park and Shin (2003) and Abdul Rahman and Haniffa (2005). There is also
insufficient evidence to allow us to accept the ninth and tenth hypotheses where the
presence of Bumiputra directors on the board and the audit committee may detect
earnings management.
Among the control variables, only size and growth are found to be significantly
related to DAC. This supports the theory that smaller companies that are subject to
less scrutiny by the authorities and regulators are more inclined to engage in earnings
management. As predicted, companies with high growth opportunities are less
inclined to smooth their earnings, as any surprise earnings would have an adverse
impact on the firms. These findings are consistent with those found by Klein (2002) and
Xie et al. (2003) who reported that firm size is significantly related to earnings
management and Bowen et al. (2003) who also found growth opportunities to be
significant and negatively related to DAC.
Conclusion
The objective of the study is to examine the relationship between earnings management
and corporate governance characteristics, mainly board of directors and audit
committee attributes. The prediction made about good corporate governance practices
mitigating opportunistic earnings management activity was found to be inaccurate. All
corporate governance variables except for board size tested in this study have no
significant relationship with earnings management. The study uses the number of
directors on the board to represent board size. On average, Malaysian companies have
about eight board members. The regression analysis provides evidence that board size is
positively related to earnings management, thus implying that a smaller board size
could mean that the directors are more focused in solving any issues that may arise.
Conversely, a larger board may be difficult to control and potential conflicts of interest
may arise among directors, thus hampering the monitoring process of management
activity.
A plausible explanation for the insignificant relationship between corporate
governance mechanisms and earnings management may be based on the managerial
hegemony theory. This theory is in contradiction to the agency theory on the grounds
that board of directors are seen as ineffective in discharging their monitoring duties
due to management dominance over board matters. Also, the main reason for this
deficiency is the management’s control over the selection of outside board members
(Kosnik, 1987). Another apparent reason is attributed to the outside board members’
relative lack of knowledge in company’s affairs. This is not surprising as most
independent directors gain such knowledge as a by-product of their board service.
Given that they are busy with other activities, they are more reliant on management for
information. Although, in general, companies comply with the Code and the Bursa
MAJ Malaysia Listing Requirements, the corporate governance framework that is in place
21,7 may not serve its ultimate objectives if directors on the board do not posses the
required skills, knowledge and experience.
Boards that are not functioning would be detrimental to the organisation,
particularly to the shareholders. As clearly stipulated in section 169 (15) of the
Companies Act, 1965, directors are responsible for ensuring that the financial
800 statements prepared reflect a true and fair view of the state of the affairs of the
company. Moreover, in accordance to the Malaysian Accounting Standard Board No. 1

(MASB 1) on “Presentation of Financial Statements” the board of directors is
responsible for the preparation and presentation of its financial statement. In light of
these statutory requirements, the board of directors has to be financially competent to
be able to produce reliable and transparent financial statements. Having only one
qualified and experienced director may not be sufficient for companies to deter
earnings management. As such, the professional and regulatory bodies should
continuously provide adequate and relevant training for the directors.
The fact that audit committees have an insignificant role in preventing the incidence
of earnings management indicates that the establishment of an audit committee in
listed companies has yet to achieve its intended goals. Although the Code stipulates
that the main task of an audit committee is to oversee the financial reporting process,
this study provides evidence that audit committees in actual fact have not effectively
carried out their duties.
It is claimed that the Malays in comparison to the Chinese have a lower rating on
individualism (Abdullah, 1992) as Islam reinforces groups and societies rather than
individuals, thus encouraging transparency in business and leading to fewer
tendencies to manage earnings. The findings in the current study, however, indicate
that the race as a cultural factor has no effect in mitigating earnings management.
A possible reason for this is that Malaysia has been experiencing modernization (Mohd
Iskandar and Pourjalali, 2000), while the need for survival in a competitive
environment has led the Malays to be more individualistic, just like the Chinese.
Another possible reason for this individualistic behavioural tendency is the increase in
wealth among the Malays since the introduction of the National Economic Policy (NEP)
in 1970, and later the National Development Policy (NDP) in 1991, which
institutionalise a positive discrimination in favour of the Bumiputras. These policies
involve the addressing of economic imbalance among the races, the eradication of
poverty, and the enhancement of the economic status of the country. As a result,
Bumiputra ownership of national wealth has increased from 2.4 per cent in 1970 to
about 21 per cent in 1995 (Mid-term Review of the Seventh Malaysia Plan, 1999),
although this is still short of the NEP’s 30 per cent target. It is Hofstede (1983) who
found that individualistic behaviour appears stronger when a nation is wealthier.
Finally, this study takes the view that earnings management is undesirable because
it is costly to shareholders. It also does not take into account the alternative view that
under certain circumstances the effect of earnings management is not detrimental to
shareholders. Earnings management activity by the managers can be viewed as
beneficial to the shareholders, particularly where accounting discretion is used in
improving informativeness of reported earnings (Peasnell et al., 2001). As such, the
directors may not deter earnings management since they perceive that the
shareholders’ interest will not be adversely affected. It can therefore be concluded
that future research needs to examine in-depth the extent to which DAC is harmful or Board, audit
beneficial to the shareholders. By distinguishing and focusing only on the DAC that are committee,
costly to shareholders, a more accurate picture can be obtained in examining the
effectiveness of board of directors in constraining earnings management. culture
References 801
Abbott, L.J. and Parker, S. (2000), “Auditor selection and audit committee characteristics”,
Auditing: Journal of Practice and Theory, Fall, pp. 47-66.
Abdullah, A. (1992), “The influence of ethnic values on managerial practices in Malaysia”,
Malaysian Management Review, March, pp. 25-34.
Abdul Rahman, R. and Abu Bakar, A. (2004), “Earnings management and Malaysian corporate
acquisitions”, Malaysian Accounting Review Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Abdul Rahman, R. and Haniffa, R. (2003), “Internal control mechanisms and performance of
Malaysian listed firms”, paper presented at the ANZAM 2003 Conference, Perth,
2-4 December.
Abdul Rahman, R. and Haniffa, R. (2005), “The effect of role duality on corporate performance in
Malaysia”, International Scientific of Corporate Ownership and Control, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 40-7.
Abdul Rahman, R. and Wan Abdullah, W.R. (2005), “The new issue puzzle in Malaysia:
performance and earnings management”, National Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 91-110.
Agrawal, A. and Knoeber, C.R. (1996), “Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency
problems between manager and shareholders”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, Vol. 31, pp. 377-89.
Bartov, E., Gul, F.A. and Tsui, J.S.L. (2000), “Discretionary-accruals models and audit
qualifications”, working paper, New York University, New York, NY.
Baydoun, N. and Willet, R. (1995), “Cultural relevance of western accounting systems to
developing countries”, Abacus, March, pp. 125-41.
Baysinger, B. and Butler, H. (1985), “Corporate governance and the board of directors:
performance effects of changes in board composition”, Journal of Law, Economics, and
Organization, Vol. 1, pp. 101-24.
Beasley, M. (1996), “An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director
composition and financial statement fraud”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 71, pp. 443-65.
Becker, C.M., Jiambalvo, J. and Subramanyam, K.R. (1998), “The effect of audit on the quality of
earnings management”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 15, pp. 1-24.
Blackburn, V. (1994), “The effectiveness of corporate control in the US corporations”, Corporate
Governance – An International Review, Vol. 2, p. 196.
Bursa Malaysia Revamped Listing Requirem (2001), available at: www.bursamalaysia.com
Bowen, R.M., Rajgopal, S. and Venkatachalam, M. (2003), “Accounting discretion, corporate
governance and firm performance”, working paper, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Choi, J.H., Jeon, K.A. and Park, J.I. (2004), “The role of audit committees in decreasing earnings
management: Korean evidence”, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and
Performance Evaluation, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 37-60.
Chtourou, S.M., Bedard, J. and Courteau, L. (2001), “Corporate governance and earnings
management”, working paper, University of Laval Canada.
MAJ Chuah, B.H. (1995), “The unique breed of Malaysian managers”, Management Times, New Straits
Times, Malaysia, March.
21,7
Claessens, S., Djannklov, S. and Lang, L.H.P. (2000), “The separation of ownership and control in
east Asian corporations”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 58, pp. 81-112.
Davies, P.L. (2000), “The board of directors: composition, structure, duties and powers”, working
paper, paper presented at OECD’s Company Law Reform in OECD Countries: A
802 Comparative Outlook of Current Trends, Stockholm, 7-8 December.
Dechow, P., Sloan, R. and Sweeney, A. (1995), “Detecting earnings management”, The
Accounting Review, Vol. 70, pp. 193-225.
Demb, A. and Neubauer, F.F. (1992), The Corporate Board: Confronting the Paradoxes, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Denis, D.J., Denis, D.K. and Sarin, A. (1997), “Ownership structure and top executive turnover”,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 45, pp. 193-221.
Felo, A.J., Krishnamurthy, S. and Solieri, S.A. (2003), “Audit committee characteristics and the
perceived quality of financial reporting: an empirical analysis”, paper presented at the
2001 American Accounting Association (AAA) Annual Meeting.
Geriesh, L. (2003), “Organisational culture and fraudulent financial reporting”, The CPA Journal,
Vol. 73, pp. 28-32.
Goodstein, J., Gautam, K. and Boeker, W. (1994), “The effect of board size and diversity on
strategic change”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 241-50.
Guay, W.R., Kothari, S.P. and Watts, R.L. (1996), “A market-based evaluation of discretionary
accruals models”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 34, pp. 83-105.
Guidry, F., Leone, A.J. and Rock, S. (1999), “Earnings-based bonus plans and earnings
management by business-unit managers”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 26,
pp. 85-108.
Haniffa, R.M. and Cooke, T.E. (2002), “Culture, corporate governance and disclosure in Malaysian
corporations”, ABACUS, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 317-49.
Healy, P.M. and Palepu, K. (1995), “The challenges of investor communication”, Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 111-40.
Healy, P.M. and Wahlen, J.M. (1999), “A review of the earnings management literature and
its implications for standard setting”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 365-83.
Hofstede, G.H. (1983), “National cultures in four dimensions: a research theory of cultural
differences among nations”, International Studies of Management and Organisation,
Vol. 13, pp. 46-74.
Hofstede, G.H. (1991), “Management in a multicultural society”, Malaysian Management Review,
April.
Investors Digest (2002), January.
Jensen, M.C. (1993), “The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control
systems”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 48, pp. 831-80.
Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976), “Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs
and ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 305-6.
Jones, J. (1991), “Earnings management during import relief investigations”, Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 29, pp. 193-228.
Keller, G. and Warrack, B. (2003), Statistics for Management and Economics, 6th ed., Thomson
Learning.
Kesner, I.F. and Johnson, R.B. (1990), “An investigation of relationship between board Board, audit
composition and shareholder suits”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 169-79.
committee,
Klein, A. (2002), “Audit committee, board of directors’ characteristics, and earnings
management”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 33, pp. 375-400. culture
Kosnik, R.D. (1987), “Greenmail: a study of board performance in corporate governance”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 163-85.
Lipton, M. and Lorsch, J.W. (1992), “A modest proposal for improved corporate governance”, The 803
Business Lawyer, Vol. 48, pp. 59-77.

Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance (2000), Malaysian Law Journal Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia.
Mohd Iskandar, T. and Pourjalali, H. (2000), “Cultural influences on the development of
accounting practices in Malaysia”, Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 126-47.
Muhamad Sori, Z., Mohamad, S., Abdul Hamid, M.A. and Nassir, A. (2001), “The effectiveness of
the audit committee: the chairman’s perception”, Akauntan Nasional, February.
Park, W.Y. and Shin, H.H. (2003), “Board composition and earnings management in Canada”,
Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 185, pp. 1-27.
Patton, A. and Baker, J. (1987), “Why do not directors rock the boat?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 65, pp. 10-2.
Peasnell, K.V., Pope, P.F. and Young, S. (2001), “Board monitoring and earnings management: do
outside directors influence abnormal accruals?”, working paper, Lancaster University,
Lancaster.
Perera, M.H.B. (1989), “Towards a framework to analyse the impact of culture on accounting”,
The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 24, pp. 42-56.
Rechner, P.L. and Dalton, D.R. (1991), “CEO duality and organisational performance: a
longitudinal analysis”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 155-60.
Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (1997), “A survey of corporate governance”, The Journal of
Finance, Vol. 52, pp. 737-83.
Teoh, S.H., Welch, I. and Wong, T. (1998), “Earnings management and the long-run market
performance of initial public offerings”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 53, pp. 1935-74.
Vicknair, D., Hickman, K. and Carnes, K.C. (1993), “A note on audit committee independence:
Evidence from the NYSE on grey area directors”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 53-7.
Warfield, T.D., Wild, J.J. and Wild, K.L. (1995), “Managerial ownership, accounting
choices and informativeness of earnings”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 20,
pp. 61-91.
Watson, D.M. (2003), “Cultural dynamics of corporate fraud”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 40-55.
Weisbach, M. (1988), “Outside directors and CEO turnover”, Journal of Financial Economics,
Vol. 20, pp. 413-60.
Xie, B., Davidson, N.W. and DaDalt, P. (2003), “Earnings management and corporate governance:
the roles of the board and the audit committee”, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 295-316.
Yermack, D. (1996), “Higher market valuation of a company with a small board of directors”,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 40, pp. 185-211.
Zahra, S.A. and Pearce, J.A. II (1989), “Board of directors and corporate financial performance: a
review and integrative model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp. 291-334.
MAJ Further reading
21,7 Christopher, P. (2004), “Corporate governance and the role of non-executive directors in large UK
companies: an empirical study”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 52-63.
Conyon, M., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (1986), “Large shareholders and corporate control”,
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, pp. 461-88.
DeAngelo, L. (1986), “Accounting numbers as market valuation substitutes: a study of
804 management buyouts of public shareholders”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 61, pp. 400-20.
Dechow, P.M., Sloan, R.G. and Sweeney, A.P. (1996), “Causes and consequences of earnings
manipulation: an analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC”,
Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 13, pp. 1-36.
McConnell, J.J. and Servaes, H. (1990), “Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate
value”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 595-612.
Corresponding author
Rashidah Abdul Rahman can be contacted at: shidah@salam.uitm.edu.my
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. ShawtariFekri Ali, Fekri Ali Shawtari, Har Sani MohamadMuslim, Muslim Har Sani Mohamad, Abdul
RashidHafiz Majdi, Hafiz Majdi Abdul Rashid, AyedhAbdullah Moh’d, Abdullah Moh’d Ayedh. 2017.
Board characteristics and real performance in Malaysian state-owned enterprises (SOEs). International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 66:8, 1064-1086. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Alicia Ramírez-Orellana, María J. Martínez-Romero, Teresa Mariño-Garrido. 2017. Measuring fraud and
earnings management by a case of study: Evidence from an international family business. European Journal
of Family Business . [Crossref]

3. Amer Al-JaifiHamdan, Hamdan Amer Al-Jaifi, Hussein Al-rassasAhmed, Ahmed Hussein Al-rassas, Ali
AL-QadasiAdel, Adel Ali AL-Qadasi. 2017. Corporate governance strength and stock market liquidity
in Malaysia. International Journal of Managerial Finance 13:5, 592-610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Jana Oehmichen. 2017. East meets west—Corporate governance in Asian emerging markets: A literature
review and research agenda. International Business Review . [Crossref]
5. Ammar Ali Gull, Mehdi Nekhili, Haithem Nagati, Tawhid Chtioui. 2017. Beyond gender diversity:
How specific attributes of female directors affect earnings management. The British Accounting Review
. [Crossref]
6. Roshima Said, Corina Joseph, Noor Zahirah Mohd Sidek. Corporate Governance and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure: The Moderating Role of Cultural Values 189-206. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
7. AmmerMohammed Abdullah, Mohammed Abdullah Ammer, Ahmad-ZalukiNurwati A., Nurwati A.
Ahmad-Zaluki. 2017. The role of the gender diversity of audit committees in modelling the quality of
management earnings forecasts of initial public offers in Malaysia. Gender in Management: An International
Journal 32:6, 420-440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Satwinder Singh, Naeem Tabassum, Tamer K. Darwish, Georgios Batsakis. 2017. Corporate Governance
and Tobin's Q as a Measure of Organizational Performance. British Journal of Management 26. . [Crossref]
9. Al-JaifiHamdan Amer, Hamdan Amer Al-Jaifi. 2017. Ownership concentration, earnings management
and stock market liquidity: evidence from Malaysia. Corporate Governance: The international journal of
business in society 17:3, 490-510. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Murya Habbash, Salim Alghamdi. 2017. Audit quality and earnings management in less developed
economies: the case of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Management & Governance 21:2, 351-373. [Crossref]
11. Trang Cam Hoang, Indra Abeysekera, Shiguang Ma. 2017. The Effect of Board Diversity on Earnings
Quality: An Empirical Study of Listed Firms in Vietnam. Australian Accounting Review 27:2, 146-163.
[Crossref]
12. MohammedNor Farizal, Nor Farizal Mohammed, AhmedKamran, Kamran Ahmed, JiXu-Dong, Xu-
Dong Ji. 2017. Accounting conservatism, corporate governance and political connections. Asian Review of
Accounting 25:2, 288-318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. ElghuweelMohamed I., Mohamed I. Elghuweel, NtimCollins G., Collins G. Ntim, OpongKwaku K.,
Kwaku K. Opong, AvisonLynn, Lynn Avison. 2017. Corporate governance, Islamic governance and
earnings management in Oman. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 7:2, 190-224. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
14. Benjamin T. Albersmann, Daniela Hohenfels. 2017. Audit Committees and Earnings Management
– Evidence from the German Two-Tier Board System. Schmalenbach Business Review 18:2, 147-178.
[Crossref]
15. KolsiMohamed Chakib, Mohamed Chakib Kolsi, GrassaRihab, Rihab Grassa. 2017. Did corporate
governance mechanisms affect earnings management? Further evidence from GCC Islamic banks.
International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management 10:1, 2-23. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
16. SalehiMahdi, Mahdi Salehi, JafarzadehAzadeh, Azadeh Jafarzadeh, NourbakhshhosseinyZeinab, Zeinab
Nourbakhshhosseiny. 2017. The effect of audit fees pressure on audit quality during the sanctions in Iran.
International Journal of Law and Management 59:1, 66-81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Tobias Dauth, Paul Pronobis, Stefan Schmid. 2017. Exploring the link between internationalization of top
management and accounting quality: The CFO’s international experience matters. International Business
Review 26:1, 71-88. [Crossref]
18. Sok Fun Chin, Kin Boon Tang, Ayoib Che Ahmad. 2017. Financial restatement and firm performance
in family controlled and CEO duality companies: evidence from post 2007 Malaysian Code of Corporate
Governance. SHS Web of Conferences 34, 04006. [Crossref]
19. AbdullahShamsul Nahar, Shamsul Nahar Abdullah, IsmailKu Nor Izah Ku, Ku Nor Izah Ku Ismail. 2016.
Women directors, family ownership and earnings management in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting
24:4, 525-550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. NeifarSouhir, Souhir Neifar, HaliouiKhamoussi, Khamoussi Halioui, Ben AbdelazizFouad, Fouad Ben
Abdelaziz. 2016. The motivations of earnings management and financial aggressiveness in American firms
listed on the NASDAQ 100. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 17:4, 397-420. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
21. AlzoubiEbraheem Saleem Salem, Ebraheem Saleem Salem Alzoubi. 2016. Disclosure quality and earnings
management: evidence from Jordan. Accounting Research Journal 29:4, 429-456. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
22. OutaErick Rading, Erick Rading Outa, WaweruNelson M., Nelson M. Waweru. 2016. Corporate
governance guidelines compliance and firm financial performance. Managerial Auditing Journal 31:8/9,
891-914. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Ahmed HajiAbdifatah, Abdifatah Ahmed Haji, AnifowoseMutalib, Mutalib Anifowose. 2016. Audit
committee and integrated reporting practice: does internal assurance matter?. Managerial Auditing Journal
31:8/9, 915-948. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Wan MohammadWan Masliza, Wan Masliza Wan Mohammad, WasiuzzamanShaista, Shaista
Wasiuzzaman, Nik SallehNik Mohamad Zaki, Nik Mohamad Zaki Nik Salleh. 2016. Board and audit
committee effectiveness, ethnic diversification and earnings management: a study of the Malaysian
manufacturing sector. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 16:4, 726-746.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Ebraheem Saleem Salem Alzoubi. 2016. Audit quality and earnings management: evidence from Jordan.
Journal of Applied Accounting Research 17:2, 170-189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Al-Rassas Ahmed Hussein, Ahmed Hussein Al-Rassas, Kamardin Hasnah, Hasnah Kamardin. 2016.
Earnings quality and audit attributes in high concentrated ownership market. Corporate Governance: The
international journal of business in society 16:2, 377-399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Hafiza Aishah Hashim, Muneer Amrah. 2016. Corporate governance mechanisms and cost of debt.
Managerial Auditing Journal 31:3, 314-336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Nik Mohd Norfadzilah Nik Mohd Rashid, Rohaya Md Noor, Norazam Matsuki, Nor Azlina AbRahman,
Normah Omar. 2016. The Longitudinal Study of Earnings Management: Analysis on Companies
Financial Abilities. Procedia Economics and Finance 35, 136-145. [Crossref]
29. Juliana Anis Ramli, Mohd Ismail Ramli. 2016. Corporate Governance and Corporate Performance of
Malaysian Companies: Examining from an Islamic Perspective. Procedia Economics and Finance 35,
146-155. [Crossref]
30. Sharifah Faatihah Syed Fuzi, Syahrina Adliana Abdul Halim, M.K. Julizaerma. 2016. Board Independence
and Firm Performance. Procedia Economics and Finance 37, 460-465. [Crossref]
31. Balachandran Muniandy, John Hillier. 2015. Board independence, investment opportunity set and
performance of South African firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 35, 108-124. [Crossref]
32. Saeed Pahlevan Sharif, Ming Ming Lai. 2015. The effects of corporate disclosure practices on firm
performance, risk and dividend policy. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 12:4, 311-326.
[Crossref]
33. Abdifatah Ahmed Haji. 2015. The role of audit committee attributes in intellectual capital disclosures.
Managerial Auditing Journal 30:8/9, 756-784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Effiezal Aswadi Abdul Wahab, Anwar Allah Pitchay, Ruhani Ali. 2015. Culture, corporate governance
and analysts forecast in Malaysia. Asian Review of Accounting 23:3, 232-255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Abdifatah Ahmed Haji, Sanni Mubaraq. 2015. The implications of the revised code of corporate
governance on firm performance. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 5:3, 350-380. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
36. Muhammad Anees Khan, Mohd Yussoff Ibrahim. Corporate governance mechanism constraining Earning
Management in Malaysian listed companies 340-344. [Crossref]
37. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, Mazlina Mat Zain. 2015. Corporate governance and dividends payout: are they
substitutes or complementary?. Journal of Asia Business Studies 9:2, 177-194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Wan Adibah Wan Ismail, Khairul Anuar Kamarudin, Siti Rahayu Sarman. 2015. The quality of earnings in
Shariah-compliant companies: evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research
6:1, 19-41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Ching Wen Chi, Ken Hung, Hui Wen Cheng, Pang Tien Lieu. 2015. Family firms and earnings
management in Taiwan: Influence of corporate governance. International Review of Economics & Finance
36, 88-98. [Crossref]
40. . Global Convergence and Corporate Governance–Related Financial Reporting Issues 17-53. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
41. . References 229-255. [Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
42. Khamsi Che Abdul Hamid, Sarina Othman, Memiyanty Abdul Rahim. 2015. Independence and Financial
Knowledge on Audit Committee with Non-compliance of Financial Disclosure: A Study of Listed
Companies Issued with Public Reprimand in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 172,
754-761. [Crossref]
43. Nur Dalila Jamaludin, Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi, Amrizah Kamaluddin. 2015. Board Structure and Earnings
Management in Malaysian Government Linked Companies. Procedia Economics and Finance 28, 235-242.
[Crossref]
44. Aziatul Waznah Ghazali, Nur Aima Shafie, Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi. 2015. Earnings Management: An
Analysis of Opportunistic Behaviour, Monitoring Mechanism and Financial Distress. Procedia Economics
and Finance 28, 190-201. [Crossref]
45. Satirenjit Kaur Johl, Shireenjit Kaur, Barry J. Cooper. 2015. Board Characteristics and Firm Performance:
Evidence from Malaysian Public Listed Firms. Journal of Economics, Business and Management 3:2,
239-243. [Crossref]
46. Nor Farhana Selahudin, Nor Balkish Zakaria, Zuraidah Mohd. Sanusi. 2014. Remodelling the Earnings
Management with the Appearance of Leverage, Financial Distress and Free Cash Flow: Malaysia and
Thailand Evidences. Journal of Applied Sciences 14:21, 2644-2661. [Crossref]

47. Effiezal Aswadi Abdul Wahab, Willie E. Gist, Wan Zurina Nik Abdul Majid. 2014. Characteristics of non-
audit services and financial restatements in Malaysia. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics
10:3, 225-247. [Crossref]
48. Rahimah Mohamed Yunos, Syahrul Ahmar Ahmad, Normala Sulaiman. 2014. The Influence of Internal
Governance Mechanisms on Accounting Conservatism. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 164,
501-507. [Crossref]
49. Noor Afza Amran, Kamarul Bahrain Abdul Manaf. 2014. Board Independence and Accounting
Conservatism in Malaysian Companies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 164, 403-408. [Crossref]
50. Nor Farhana Selahudin, Nor Balkish Zakaria, Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi, Pornanong Budsaratragoon. 2014.
Monitoring Financial Risk Ratios and Earnings Management: Evidence from Malaysia and Thailand.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 145, 51-60. [Crossref]
51. Normah Omar, Rashidah Abdul Rahman, Bello Lawal Danbatta, Saliza Sulaiman. 2014. Management
Disclosure and Earnings Management Practices in Reducing the Implication Risk. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 145, 88-96. [Crossref]
52. Saliza Sulaiman, Bello Lawal Danbatta, Rashidah Abdul Rahman. 2014. Figure Massaging Practices in
Malaysian Firms: Are they Fraudulent?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 145, 29-39. [Crossref]
53. Rohana Othman, Ili Farhana Ishak, Siti Maznah Mohd Arif, Nooraslinda Abdul Aris. 2014. Influence of
Audit Committee Characteristics on Voluntary Ethics Disclosure. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
145, 330-342. [Crossref]
54. Nelson Waweru. 2014. Factors influencing quality corporate governance in Sub Saharan Africa: an
empirical study. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 14:4, 555-574.
55. Hasnah Kamardin. Managerial Ownership and Firm Performance: The Influence of Family Directors and
Non-Family Directors 47-83. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
56. Nelson Waweru. 2014. Determinants of quality corporate governance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Managerial
Auditing Journal 29:5, 455-485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Azlan Amran, Shiau Ping Lee, S. Susela Devi. 2014. The Influence of Governance Structure and
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Sustainability Reporting Quality. Business Strategy and
the Environment 23:4, 217-235. [Crossref]
58. Jesus Sáenz González, Emma García-Meca. 2014. Does Corporate Governance Influence Earnings
Management in Latin American Markets?. Journal of Business Ethics 121:3, 419-440. [Crossref]
59. Neila Boulila Taktak, Ibtissem Mbarki. 2014. Board characteristics, external auditing quality and earnings
management. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 4:1, 79-96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Mastura Jaafar, Raihanah Othman, Alireza Jalali. 2014. Main Determinations of Female Entrepreneurs
in the Construction Industry in Malaysia. Project Management Journal 45:1, 76-86. [Crossref]
61. Hany Kamel, Sobhy Elkhatib. 2013. The perceptions of audit committees’ role in an emerging market: the
case of Egypt. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences 29:2, 85-98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Sandra Alves. 2013. The impact of audit committee existence and external audit on earnings management.
Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 11:2, 143-165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Sherliza Puat Nelson, Susela Devi. 2013. Audit committee experts and earnings quality. Corporate
Governance: The international journal of business in society 13:4, 335-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Ibrahim El‐Sayed Ebaid. 2013. Corporate governance and investors' perceptions of earnings quality:
Egyptian perspective. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 13:3, 261-273.
65. Arifur Khan, Mohammad Badrul Muttakin, Javed Siddiqui. 2013. Corporate Governance and Corporate
Social Responsibility Disclosures: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Business Ethics 114:2,
207-223. [Crossref]
66. Suhaily Hasnan, Rashidah Abdul Rahman, Sakthi Mahenthiran. 2013. Management Motive, Weak
Governance, Earnings Management, and Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Malaysian Evidence. Journal of
International Accounting Research 12:1, 1-27. [Crossref]
67. Haslinda Yusoff, Siti Salwa Mohamad, Faizah Darus. 2013. The Influence of CSR Disclosure Structure
on Corporate Financial Performance: Evidence from Stakeholders’ Perspectives. Procedia Economics and
Finance 7, 213-220. [Crossref]
68. Tuan‐Hock Ng, Lee‐Lee Chong, Hishamuddin Ismail. 2012. Is the risk management committee only a
procedural compliance?. The Journal of Risk Finance 14:1, 71-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Balachandran Muniandy, Muhammad Jahangir Ali. 2012. Development of financial reporting
environment in Malaysia. Research in Accounting Regulation 24:2, 115-125. [Crossref]
70. Muslim Har Sani Mohamad, Hafiz Majdi Abdul Rashid, Fekri Ali Mohammed Shawtari. 2012. Corporate
governance and earnings management in Malaysian government linked companies. Asian Review of
Accounting 20:3, 241-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Hany Kamel, Said Elbanna. 2012. Investigating the phenomenon of earnings management in the Egyptian
stock market. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 12:3, 337-352.
72. Rahimah Mohamed Yunos, Zubaidah Ismail, Malcolm Smith. 2012. Ethnicity and accounting
conservatism: Malaysian evidence. Asian Review of Accounting 20:1, 34-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Bana Abuzayed. 2012. Working capital management and firms’ performance in emerging markets: the
case of Jordan. International Journal of Managerial Finance 8:2, 155-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Hasnah Kamardin, Hasnah Haron. 2011. Internal corporate governance and board performance in
monitoring roles. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 9:2, 119-140. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
75. Sandra Maria Geraldes Alves. 2011. The effect of the board structure on earnings management: evidence
from Portugal. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 9:2, 141-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Samsuddin Mohd. Amin, Rohaya Md. Noor, Nor'azam Mastuki, Abdul Rauf Ambali. Corporate
governance and tax compliance 117-122. [Crossref]
77. Mazlina Mustapha, Ayoib Che Ahmad. 2011. Agency theory and managerial ownership: evidence from
Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal 26:5, 419-436. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Zunaidah Sulong, Pervaiz K. Ahmed. 2011. Ownership structure, board governance, dividends and firm
value: an empirical examination of Malaysian listed firms. International Journal of Business Governance
and Ethics 6:2, 135. [Crossref]
79. Azlina Abdul Jalil, Rashidah Abdul Rahman. 2010. Institutional investors and earnings management:
Malaysian evidence. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 8:2, 110-127. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
80. Patrick Velte. 2010. The link between supervisory board reporting and firm performance in Germany and
Austria. European Journal of Law and Economics 29:3, 295-331. [Crossref]
81. Peter Baxter. 2010. Factors associated with the quality of audit committees. Pacific Accounting Review 22:1,
57-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Himu Bindu Kota, Sarika Tomar. 2010. Corporate governance practices in Indian firms. Journal of
Management & Organization 16:2, 266-279. [Crossref]
83. Hima Bindu Kota, Sarika Tomar. 2010. Corporate governance practices in Indian firms. Journal of
Management & Organization 16:02, 266-279. [Crossref]
84. Jerry W. Lin, Mark I. Hwang. 2010. Audit Quality, Corporate Governance, and Earnings Management:
A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Auditing 14:1, 57-77. [Crossref]
85. Fairuz Ramli, Anuar Nawawi, Rashid Ameer. 2010. Director independence and performance of listed
companies: evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 5:4, 280.
[Crossref]
86. Hany Kamel, Said Elbanna. 2009. Assessing the perceptions of the quality of reported earnings in Egypt.
Managerial Auditing Journal 25:1, 32-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Wan Nordin Wan-Hussin. 2009. The impact of family-firm structure and board composition on corporate
transparency: Evidence based on segment disclosures in Malaysia. The International Journal of Accounting
44:4, 313-333. [Crossref]
88. Patrick Velte. 2009. Die Corporate Governance-Berichterstattung des Aufsichtsrats — Eine empirische
Untersuchung im deutschen Prime Standard zum Einfluss auf die Unternehmensperformance.
Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 61:7, 702-737. [Crossref]
89. Ruth W. Epps, Tariq H. Ismail. 2009. Board of directors' governance challenges and earnings
management. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 5:3, 390-416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Dezie L. Warganegara, Intan Indriastari. 2009. Do Indonesian Firms Inflate Their Reported Earnings
Prior to IPOs?. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 7:2, 61-79. [Abstract] [PDF]
91. Bradley Pomeroy, Daniel B. Thornton. 2008. Meta-analysis and the Accounting Literature: The Case
of Audit Committee Independence and Financial Reporting Quality. European Accounting Review 17:2,
305-330. [Crossref]
92. Hafiza Aishah Hashim, Susela Devi. Board characteristics, ownership structure and earnings quality:
Malaysian evidence 97-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
93. Nisan Selekler Goksen, Abdulmecit Karatas. 2008. Board structure and performance in an emerging
economy: Turkey. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 4:2, 132. [Crossref]

Board, Audit Committee, Culture

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Board, Audit Committee, Culture

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Managerial Auditing Journal

Board, audit committee, culture and earnings management: Malaysian evidence

To cite this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia, and

Requirement (2001) highlight the importance of corporate governance and disclosure

Literature review and hypotheses development

Board of directors’ characteristics

(Rechner and Dalton, 1991).

company provides an additional monitoring mechanism that may deter opportunistic

Measuring earnings management

Dependent variable Obtained using modified Jones model

Min Mean Max Median Skewness Kurtosis Standard Deviation

Discretionary accruals 2 0.21 0.0132 0.29 0.013 0.068 0.175 0.07

Duality role (per cent) Separation (per cent)

DAC BDIND ACIND BLOCK DUA-LITY BDSIZE ACQLFD INDTENURE

ACMEETING ROA LEV CFO SIZE GROWTH BIG5 BUMI BD BUMI AC

Notes: *Significant at 0.05 level, * *significant at 0.10 level

Board size 2 0.113 0.024 *

result is similar to that found by Chtourou et al. (2001) although it is in contrast to

particularly in preventing opportunistic earnings management. This is similar to that

company. Moreover, in accordance to the Malaysian Accounting Standard Board No. 1

Business Lawyer, Vol. 48, pp. 59-77.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

of Family Business . [Crossref]

Thailand Evidences. Journal of Applied Sciences 14:21, 2644-2661. [Crossref]

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Notes: Significant at 0.05 level, *significant at 0.10 level