Rating the Ratings: How Good are Commercial Governance Ratings?

282 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Internal Audit Outsourcing and the Risk of Misleading or Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Did Sarbanes-Oxley Get It Wrong? (2012, unknown): “Academic research demonstrates that Audit Integrity’s risk measures are as good as or superior to other academic and commercial measures for predicting accounting restatements, SEC enforcement actions, and shareholder lawsuits (Correia 2009; Daines et al. 2010; Price et al. 2011).”
Shareholder Voting and Corporate Governance Around the World (2015, unknown): “S.-firm results, for U.S. firms Daines, Gow, and Larcker (2010) do not find any relation between shareholder voting patterns and a firm’s RiskMetrics governance rating.”
Detecting and Predicting Accounting Irregularities: A Comparison of Commercial and Academic Risk Measures (2011, methodology): “Dechow et al. (2011), building on the Beneish (1997, 1999) model”
Corporate governance practices in emerging markets: The case of GCC countries (2014, background): “…done by La Porta et al. (1998), Klapper and Love (2002), Gompers et al. (2003), De Toledo and Pillicer (2006), Brown and Caylor (2006), Leal and Carvalhal-da-Silva (2005), Ananchotikul (2007), Garay and Gonzalez (2008), Daines et al., 2010; Ibrahimpasic (2012) and Hassan (2012), are among others.”
Are Mutual Funds Active Voters (2015, unknown): “Second, Daines et al. (2010) find that the recommendations of proxy advisory firms are unable to predict future Q or operating performance.”