IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v16y2019i1p1-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are a Few Huge Outcomes Distorting Financial Misconduct Research?*

* This paper is a replication of an original study

Author

Listed:
  • Emre Kuvvet

Abstract

Research on financial misconduct uses data on enforcement outcomes, such as the penalties that the firm pays. The distribution of most enforcement outcomes shows extreme observations or outliers, but you wouldn’t necessarily glean that by a casual examination of some of the leading research on financial misconduct. In this paper I describe the public-policy context of such research and raise the issue of whether the extreme-values problem has been given adequate attention. I touch on a number of papers, and then focus on a 2018 Journal of Accounting Research article by Andrew Call, Gerald Martin, Nathan Sharp, and Jaron Wilde (CMSW), which purports to show a positive association between the severity of enforcement outcomes and the involvement of a whistleblower. I show that the top one percent of the enforcement outcomes (11 observations) in CMSW’s large sample of 1,133 enforcement actions drive their results; a number of robustness checks suggest that the extreme-values problem is serious. Moreover, I explain numerous sources of fuzziness in their whistleblower coding, and explain that research with the extreme-values problem is highly sensitive to such fuzziness because a few dubious codings can change the results. Unfortunately, CMSW do not disclose how each coding was arrived at, so we cannot peer into the fuzziness to see how the extreme observations came to be coded as they are. I suggest that CMSW could have been upfront about the looming problem of a few extreme values in enforcement outcomes, should have shown how the outliers affect their results, and should have explained and resolved (to the extent possible) the mysteries surrounding the coding. Furthermore, as regards the larger issue of public policy, it should be emphasized that we would expect strong and natural correlations among severity of misconduct, likelihood of penalties, and whistleblowing, like the correlations among the severity of health emergencies, likelihood of medical interventions, and calls to 9-1-1. Correlation is not causation. CMSW do not give this point the emphasis that it deserves. It looms especially large in light of my findings that CMSW’s results are not robust to removing the outliers. Accordingly we should perhaps be surprised that CMSW did not find a statistically significant correlation for one of the enforcement-outcome categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Emre Kuvvet, 2019. "Are a Few Huge Outcomes Distorting Financial Misconduct Research?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 16(1), pages 1-1–34, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:16:y:2019:i:1:p:1-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1108/KuvvetMar2019.pdf?mimetype=pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/1160
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez‐De‐Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2006. "What Works in Securities Laws?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(1), pages 1-32, February.
    2. Files, Rebecca, 2012. "SEC enforcement: Does forthright disclosure and cooperation really matter?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 353-374.
    3. Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Lee, D. Scott & Martin, Gerald S., 2008. "The Cost to Firms of Cooking the Books," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 581-611, September.
    4. repec:cup:jfinqa:v:46:y:2011:i:06:p:1865-1891_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Call, Andrew C. & Kedia, Simi & Rajgopal, Shivaram, 2016. "Rank and file employees and the discovery of misreporting: The role of stock options," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 277-300.
    6. Alexander Dyck & Adair Morse & Luigi Zingales, 2010. "Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(6), pages 2213-2253, December.
    7. Arthur Kraft & Andrew J. Leone & Charles Wasley, 2006. "An Analysis of the Theories and Explanations Offered for the Mispricing of Accruals and Accrual Components," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 297-339, May.
    8. Jonathan M. Karpoff & D. Scott Lee & Gerald S. Martin, 2014. "The Consequences to Managers for Financial Misrepresentation," Springer Books, in: Roberto Pietra & Stuart McLeay & Joshua Ronen (ed.), Accounting and Regulation, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 339-375, Springer.
    9. Yu, Frank & Yu, Xiaoyun, 2011. "Corporate Lobbying and Fraud Detection," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(6), pages 1865-1891, December.
    10. Correia, Maria M., 2014. "Political connections and SEC enforcement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 241-262.
    11. Katherine Guthrie & Jan Sokolowsky & Kam‐Ming Wan, 2012. "CEO Compensation and Board Structure Revisited," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 67(3), pages 1149-1168, June.
    12. Cumming, Douglas & Dannhauser, Robert & Johan, Sofia, 2015. "Financial market misconduct and agency conflicts: A synthesis and future directions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 150-168.
    13. Andrew C. Call & Gerald S. Martin & Nathan Y. Sharp & Jaron H. Wilde, 2018. "Whistleblowers and Outcomes of Financial Misrepresentation Enforcement Actions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 123-171, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2018. "The Role of Stakeholders in Corporate Governance: A View from Accounting Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 12775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Dan Amiram & Zahn Bozanic & James D. Cox & Quentin Dupont & Jonathan M. Karpoff & Richard Sloan, 2018. "Financial reporting fraud and other forms of misconduct: a multidisciplinary review of the literature," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 732-783, June.
    3. Mehta, Mihir N. & Zhao, Wanli, 2020. "Politician Careers and SEC enforcement against financial misconduct," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2).
    4. Heese, Jonas & Krishnan, Ranjani & Ramasubramanian, Hari, 2021. "The Department of Justice as a gatekeeper in whistleblower-initiated corporate fraud enforcement: Drivers and consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    5. Zhang, Jian & Wang, Jialong & Kong, Dongmin, 2020. "Employee treatment and corporate fraud," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 325-334.
    6. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    7. Cumming, Douglas & Dannhauser, Robert & Johan, Sofia, 2015. "Financial market misconduct and agency conflicts: A synthesis and future directions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 150-168.
    8. Cole, Rebel & Johan, Sofia & Schweizer, Denis, 2021. "Corporate failures: Declines, collapses, and scandals," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    9. Li, Keming, 2024. "Informed trading prior to financial misconduct: Evidence from option markets," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Jian Zhang, 2018. "Public Governance and Corporate Fraud: Evidence from the Recent Anti-corruption Campaign in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 375-396, March.
    11. Curti, Filippo & Mihov, Atanas, 2018. "Fraud recovery and the quality of country governance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 446-461.
    12. Niu, Geng & Yu, Li & Fan, Gang-Zhi & Zhang, Donghao, 2019. "Corporate fraud, risk avoidance, and housing investment in China," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 18-33.
    13. Laure Batz, 2020. "Financial impact of regulatory sanctions on listed companies," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 301-337, April.
    14. Aitken, Michael & Cumming, Douglas & Zhan, Feng, 2015. "Exchange trading rules, surveillance and suspected insider trading," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 311-330.
    15. Laure Batz, 2023. "Financial market enforcement in France," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 409-468, June.
    16. CAO, Ning & McGUINNESS, Paul B. & XI, Chao, 2021. "Does securities enforcement improve disclosure quality? An examination of Chinese listed companies' restatement activities," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    17. Matthew McCarten & Ivan Diaz‐Rainey & Helen Roberts & Eric K. M. Tan, 2022. "Political connections, tacit power and corporate misconduct," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(9-10), pages 1530-1552, October.
    18. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    19. deHaan, Ed & Kedia, Simi & Koh, Kevin & Rajgopal, Shivaram, 2015. "The revolving door and the SEC’s enforcement outcomes: Initial evidence from civil litigation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 65-96.
    20. Asad Ali Rind & Aitzaz Ahsan Alias Sarang & Ameet Kumar & Muhammad Shahbaz, 2023. "Does financial fraud affect implied cost of equity?," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 4139-4155, October.

    Replication

    This item is a replication of:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    whistleblower; tipster; outlier;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C18 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Methodolical Issues: General
    • G30 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - General
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
    • M48 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Are a Few Huge Outcomes Distorting Financial Misconduct Research? (EJW 2019) in ReplicationWiki

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:16:y:2019:i:1:p:1-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jason Briggeman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edgmuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.