Board Characteristics, Accounting Report Integrity, and the Cost of Debt

By Ronald C. Anderson, Sattar A. Mansi, David M. Reeb. 2004

1,888 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/40fc0e6b5cd03019e091ec04b126de2dfe89f3d2

How researchers see this paper

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

In Accounting

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Audit Committee Financial Expertise, Competing Corporate Governance Mechanisms, and Earnings Management (2006, neutral): “, 1999; and Klein, 2002a), with audit committee independence (e.g., see Carcello and Neal, 2000; 2003; Klein, 2002a; Abbott et al., 2004; Anderson et al., 2004; and Bédard et al., 2004), and with audit committee size (Abbott et al.”
Do Corporate Boards Affect Firm Performance? New Evidence from the Financial Crisis (2012, positive): “Similar to Anderson et al. (2004) and Guner et al. (2008), we separate the sample's financial experts into insider financial experts and outside financial experts.”
Impact of supply base structural complexity on financial performance: Roles of visible and not‐so‐visible characteristics (2017, result): “Last, we find that an executive board consisting of members with longer tenure is associated with stronger financial performance, confirming prior results in the literature (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004).”
The Impact of CFO Gender on Bank Loan Contracting (2013, neutral): “, Anderson et al. (2004) and Armstrong et al.”
Board Hierarchy, Independent Directors, and Firm Value: Evidence from China (2016, background): “We control for the percentage of independent directors (ID%) because it contributes to board effectiveness (Anderson et al. 2004).”
Board Characteristics and Firm Performance: Evidence from New Zealand (2011, background): “, Lipton & Lorsch, 1992; Jensen 1993; Yermack, 1996) others have suggested larger boards are better for improving firm performance (Pfeffer, 1972; Klein, 1998; Adam & Mehran, 2003; Anderson et al., 2004; Coles et al., 2008). Scholars have argued for smaller boards on grounds of easy co-ordination, c”
The Impact of Supervisory Board Composition on CSR Reporting. Evidence from the German Two-Tier System (2016, background): “The subject of empirical corporate governance research is, for instance, the inﬂuence of independent members on the board on earnings quality [38], the existence and prevention of management fraud [39], as well as the quality of the external audit [31] and the cost of capital of the company [40].”
Corporate governance structure and firm performance in developing economies: evidence from Nigeria (2009, background): “However, there is another school of thought that believes that firms with larger board size have the ability to push the managers to pursue lower costs of debt and increase performance ( Anderson et al. , 2004”
Accounting Conservatism and Board of Director Characteristics: an Empirical Analysis (2007, neutral): “Anderson et al. (2004) and Ashbaugh et al.”