Skip to main content
Log in

The effect of distracted audit committee members on earnings quality

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the impact of distracting events to audit committee members on the firms’ earnings quality. Specifically, we focus on major events occurring simultaneously at other firms in which the audit committee members also serve as board members or CEOs. We find that during the years of major events, the number of board meetings at event firms significantly increases while there is no difference in board meetings at non-event firms. During this period, distracted directors miss more board meetings at the non-event firms than non-distracted directors. Consequently, firms with more distracted audit committee members have lower earnings quality. Our results indicate that director distractions, not director busyness, are associated with the decline in earnings quality. Notably, this decline in earnings quality at non-event firms is confined to the distraction years and audit committee members only. Our results have implications for shareholders and policy makers in assessing the tradeoffs between hiring experienced, qualified directors and the potential distractions that may result from their other commitments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://investor.shareholder.com/ni/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=58416.

  2. The anecdote of Carolyn Woo serving as a director at both AON Corporation and NiSource Inc. provides a simple example. Ms. Woo missed more meetings at AON Corporation around the same time as the merger between NiSource and Columbia Energy. During the same period, the financial reporting quality at AON declines.

  3. The filings can be obtained at http://securities.stanford.edu/filings.html.

  4. To be exact, we define a distraction as occurring if the event date falls between 395 days before the fiscal year end to 30 days before the fiscal year end. We do this to allow the effect of the distraction to materialize in the meeting attendance data reported in the next proxy statement. Our results are similar if we define the distraction window as from the previous fiscal year end to this fiscal year end.

  5. The sample period for our main analyses on earnings quality is from 1996 to 2018.

  6. We use the number of board meetings as an observable measure of director workload and assume that non-observable measures of workload such as reading reports and traveling are highly correlated with board meetings (Gray and Nowland 2018).

References

  • Adams RB, Ferreira D (2008) Do directors perform for pay? J Acc Econ 46:154–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahern KR, Harford J (2014) The importance of industry links in merger waves. J Finance 69:527–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth JR, Deli DN (1996) Factors affecting the number of outside directorships held by CEOs. J Financ Econ 40:81–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown AB, Dai J, Zur E (2016) The effect of director busyness on monitoring and advising: evidence from a natural experiment. Working Paper

  • Chou T-K, Feng H-L (2018) Multiple directorships and the value of cash holdings. Rev Quant Finance Acc 53:663–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen DA, Zarowin P (2010) Accrual-based and real earnings management activities around seasoned equity offerings. J Acc Econ 50:2–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen DA, Dey A, Lys TZ (2008) Real and accrual-based earnings management in the pre-and post-Sarbanes–Oxley periods. Acc Rev 83:757–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Core JE, Holthausen RW, Larcker DF (1999) Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. J Financ Econ 51:371–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechow P, Ge W, Schrand C (2010) Understanding earnings quality: a review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences. J Acc Econ 50:344–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF (1980) Agency problems and the theory of the firm. J Polit Econ 88:288–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control. J Law Econ 26:301–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris SP, Jagannathan M, Pritchard AC (2003) Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. J Finance 58:1087–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fich EM, Shivdasani A (2006) Are busy boards effective monitors? J Finance 61:689–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gande A, Lewis CM (2009) Shareholder-initiated class action lawsuits: shareholder wealth effects and industry spillovers. J Financ Quant Anal. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109009990202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray S, Nowland J (2018) Director workloads, attendance and firm performance. Acc Res J 31(2):214–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Harford J, Schonlau RJ (2013) Does the director labor market offer ex post settling-up for CEOs? The case of acquisitions. J Financ Econ 110:18–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser R (2018) Busy directors and firm performance: evidence from mergers. J Financ Econ 128:16–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones JJ (1991) Earnings management during import relief investigations. J Acc Res 29:193–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan SN, Reishus D (1990) Outside directorships and corporate performance. J Financ Econ 27:389–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krouse S, Lublin JS (2017) Big investors want directors to stop sitting on so many boards. Wall Street J. https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-investors-want-directors-to-stop-sitting-on-so-many-boards-1506418201?st=3xdtsdtp6t07eek. Accessed 16 July 2020

  • Linck JS, Netter JM, Yang T (2008) The effects and unintended consequences of the Sarbanes–Oxley act on the supply and demand for directors. Rev Financ Stud 22:3287–3328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masulis RW, Mobbs S (2014) Independent director incentives: Where do talented directors spend their limited time and energy? J Financ Econ 111:406–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masulis RW, Zhang EJ (2019) How valuable are independent directors? Evidence from external distractions. J Financ Econ 132:226–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muravyev A, Talavera O, Weir C (2016) Performance effects of appointing other firms’ executive directors to corporate boards: an analysis of UK firms. Rev Quant Finance Acc 46:25–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma VD, Iselin ER (2012) The association between audit committee multiple-directorships, tenure, and financial misstatements. Audit J Pract Theory 31:149–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein LC, Zhao H (2019) Independent executive directors: how distraction affects their advisory and monitoring roles. J Corp Finance 56:199–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanyi PN, Smith DB (2014) Busyness, expertise, and financial reporting quality of audit committee chairs and financial experts. Audit J Pract Theory 34:59–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang RR, Verwijmeren P (2020) Director attention and firm value. Financ Manag 49:361–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Editor, Cheng-Few Lee, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments that improve the paper. We also thank Laurel Franzen, Timothy Haight, Larry Kalbers, Satoshi Koibuchi (discussant), Zining Li, David Offenberg, Micah Officer, Qian (Jane) Xie (discussant), and seminar participants at Loyola Marymount University, the 2018 Financial Management Association Annual Meeting, and the 2018 Western Economic Association International Annual Meeting for helpful comments and discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Spizman.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Definitions and sources of data used in this study

This appendix presents the definitions and sources of all variables used in this study

Director-firm-year variables

Variable

Definition

Source(s)

Attend less than 75% of board meetings

Indicator variable in the ISS RiskMetrics database

ISS RiskMetrics

Distracted director

Indicator variable equal to 1 if the director is experiencing a distracting event (lawsuit, merger, or acquisition) at another directorship

ISS RiskMetrics, Thomson Reuters SDC M&A, Securities Class Action Clearinghouse at Stanford University

Audit committee member

Member or chairman of the audit committee

ISS RiskMetrics

Director tenure

Number of years a director has served on the board

ISS RiskMetrics

Director age

Director age

ISS RiskMetrics

Director ownership

Percent of common shares outstanding held by the director, including fully exercised stock options

ISS RiskMetrics

Number of independent directorships

Number of total independent directorships held by the director within the ISS RiskMetrics dataset

ISS RiskMetrics

High-ranked directorship

Indicator variable equal to 1 if this directorship is at least 10% larger than the director’s smallest directorship as measured by market capitalization

ISS RiskMetrics

Firm-year variables

Variable

Definition

Source(s)

Absolute value of discretionary accruals

Modified–Jones model (see below)

Compustat

Distracted audit committee members (% of audit committee size)

Number of distracted audit directors divided by number of directors on audit committee

ISS RiskMetrics

Distracted independent directors (% of total independent directors)

Number of distracted directors divided by number of independent directors

ISS RiskMetrics

Distracted audit committee members (% of total independent directors)

Number of directors who are both distracted and on audit committee divided by number of independent directors

ISS RiskMetrics

Distracted non-audit committee members (% of total independent directors)

Number of directors who are both distracted and not audit committee members divided by number of independent directors

ISS RiskMetrics

Less than 50% of the audit committee is distracted

An indicator variable equal to one if at least one audit committee member is distracted but less than 50% of the audit committee is distracted.

ISS RiskMetrics

At least 50% of the audit committee is distracted

An indicator variable equal to one if at least 50% of the audit committee is distracted

ISS RiskMetrics

Number of board meetings

Number of times the board meets during the year

ExecuComp, Corporate Library

Post-SOX

Indicator variable equal to one if the fiscal year falls after 2001

Compustat

Ln (Assets)

Natural log of total assets (AT)

Compustat

Return on Assets (ROA)

Operating Income/Assets (variable OIBDP/AT in Compustat)

Compustat

Tobin’s Q

(Total assets − book value of equity + market value of equity)/Total Assets

(AT − sum(SEQ, TXDB, ITCB, -PREF) + PRCC_C*CSHO)/AT

Compustat

Loss

Indicator variable equal to one if income before extraordinary items (IB) is negative

Compustat

Market leverage

(Long-term debt + Current debt)/(Total Assets − Book equity + Market cap)

(DLTT + DLC)/(AT − CEQ + PRCC_F*CSHO)

Compustat

Board size

Number of directors on the board

ISS RiskMetrics

Percent independent directors

Number of independent directors on the board/Board size

ISS RiskMetrics

CEO ownership

Percent of common shares outstanding at fiscal year-end owned by the CEO

ExecuComp and Compustat

CEO tenure

Current year minus year became CEO

ExecuComp

CEO-Chairman duality

Indicator variable equal to 1 if the CEO also serves as Chairman of the board

ExecuComp

CEO bonus as % of total compensation

Bonus compensation as a percentage of total CEO compensation

ExecuComp

Option grants as % of outstanding shares

New option grants during the fiscal year scaled by total outstanding shares

ExecuComp

Unexercised exercisable options as % of outstanding shares

Number of unexercised options that have vested by fiscal year end, scaled by total outstanding shares

ExecuComp

Unexercised un-exercisable options as % of outstanding shares

Number of unexercised options that have not vested by fiscal year end, scaled by total outstanding shares

ExecuComp

Appendix 2: Modified Jones Model (Dechow et al. 2010)

For each 2-digit SIC industry group, we estimate Eq. (1) annually, requiring at least 8 observations for each industry-year combination and winsorize all of the regression variables at the 1% level.

$$\frac{{\left( {ibc - cfo} \right)_{i,t} }}{{at_{i,t - 1} }} = \beta_{1} \frac{1}{{at_{i,t - 1} }} + \beta_{2} \frac{{\Delta sales_{i,t} - \Delta rec_{i,t} }}{{at_{i,t - 1} }} + \beta_{3} \frac{{ppe_{i,t} }}{{at_{i,t - 1} }} + \varepsilon_{i,t}$$
(1)

Firm-specific discretionary accruals (DA) are computed as the residual from Eq. (1).

Variable

Definition

Compustat data item

ibc

Earnings before extraordinary items

ibc

cfo

Cash flow from operations

oancf − xidoc

at

Total assets

at

sales

Change in sales

sales

rec

Change in net receivables

rect

ppe

Gross property, plant, and equipment

ppegt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elkinawy, S., Spizman, J. & Tran, H. The effect of distracted audit committee members on earnings quality. Rev Quant Finan Acc 56, 1191–1219 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-020-00923-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-020-00923-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation