IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/safewh/74.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What are the wider supervisory implications of the Wirecard case?

Author

Listed:
  • Langenbucher, Katja
  • Leuz, Christian
  • Krahnen, Jan Pieter
  • Pelizzon, Loriana

Abstract

The paper discusses the policy implications of the Wirecard scandal. The study finds that all lines of defense against corporate fraud, including internal control systems, external audits, the oversight bodies for financial reporting and auditing and the market supervisor, contributed to the scandal and are in need of reform. To ensure market integrity and investor protection in the future, the authors make eight suggestions for the market and institutional oversight architecture in Germany and in Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Langenbucher, Katja & Leuz, Christian & Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Pelizzon, Loriana, 2020. "What are the wider supervisory implications of the Wirecard case?," SAFE White Paper Series 74, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:safewh:74
    DOI: 10.2861/936827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/226215/1/1739053354.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2861/936827?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Weber & Michael Willenborg & Jieying Zhang, 2008. "Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 941-972, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2016. "Capital-Market Effects of Securities Regulation: Prior Conditions, Implementation, and Enforcement," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(11), pages 2885-2924.
    4. Brant E. Christensen & Steven M. Glover & Thomas C. Omer & Marjorie K. Shelley, 2016. "Understanding Audit Quality: Insights from Audit Professionals and Investors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(4), pages 1648-1684, December.
    5. Mariassunta Giannetti & Tracy Yue Wang, 2016. "Corporate Scandals and Household Stock Market Participation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(6), pages 2591-2636, December.
    6. Christian Leuz & Catherine Schrand, 2009. "Disclosure and the Cost of Capital: Evidence from Firms' Responses to the Enron Shock," NBER Working Papers 14897, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Alessandro Beber & Marco Pagano, 2013. "Short-Selling Bans Around the World: Evidence from the 2007–09 Crisis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(1), pages 343-381, February.
    8. Watts, Ross L & Zimmerman, Jerold L, 1983. "Agency Problems, Auditing, and the Theory of the Firm: Some Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(3), pages 613-633, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Hail, Luzi & Leuz, Christian, 2009. "Cost of capital effects and changes in growth expectations around U.S. cross-listings," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 428-454, September.
    11. Umit G Gurun & Noah Stoffman & Scott E Yonker, 2018. "Trust Busting: The Effect of Fraud on Investor Behavior," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 31(4), pages 1341-1376.
    12. Christian Leuz & Peter D. Wysocki, 2016. "The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 525-622, May.
    13. John C. Coates IV, 2007. "The Goals and Promise of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 91-116, Winter.
    14. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    15. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kaufhold, Ann-Katrin & Langenbucher, Katja & Blank, Patrick & Krahnen, Jan Pieter, 2021. "BaFin (in)dependence - a reform proposal," SAFE White Paper Series 82, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    2. Christian Haddad & Lars Hornuf, 2021. "The Impact of Fintech Startups on Financial Institutions' Performance and Default Risk," CESifo Working Paper Series 9050, CESifo.
    3. Spagnolo, Giancarlo & Nyreröd, Theo, 2021. "Surprised by Wirecard? Enablers of Corporate Wrongdoing in Europe," SITE Working Paper Series 54, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.

    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. Luzi Hail & Ahmed Tahoun & Clare Wang, 2018. "Corporate Scandals and Regulation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 617-671, May.
    3. Aobdia, Daniel & Shroff, Nemit, 2017. "Regulatory oversight and auditor market share," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 262-287.
    4. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    5. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2016. "Cross-country evidence on the importance of Big Four auditors to equity pricing: The mediating role of legal institutions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 60-81.
    6. Breuer, Matthias & Le, Anthony & Vetter, Felix, 2023. "Audit mandates, audit firms, and auditors," Working Papers 333, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    7. Licht, Amir N. & Poliquin, Christopher & Siegel, Jordan I. & Li, Xi, 2018. "What makes the bonding stick? A natural experiment testing the legal bonding hypothesis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(2), pages 329-356.
    8. Marc Badia & Miguel Duro & Bjorn N. Jorgensen & Gaizka Ormazabal & Hans B. Christensen, 2020. "The Informational Effects of Tightening Oil and Gas Disclosure Rules," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1720-1755, September.
    9. Brandon Gipper & Christian Leuz & Mark Maffett, 2015. "Public Audit Oversight and Reporting Credibility: Evidence from the PCAOB Inspection Regime," NBER Working Papers 21530, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Dasgupta, Sudipto & Banerjee, Shantanu & SHI, RUI & Yan, Jiali, 2021. "Information Complementarities and the Dynamics of Transparency Shock Spillovers," CEPR Discussion Papers 15658, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Christian Leuz & Peter D. Wysocki, 2016. "The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 525-622, May.
    12. Ormazabal, Gaizka & Duro, Miguel & Heese, Jonas, 2017. "Does the Public Disclosure of the SEC’s Oversight Actions Matter?," CEPR Discussion Papers 12145, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Stefan Arping & Zacharias Sautner, 2010. "Did the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 make Firms less Opaque? Evidence from Analyst Earnings Forecasts," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-129/2/DSF 5, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Luzi Hail & Ahmed Tahoun & Clare Wang, 2017. "Corporate Scandals and Regulation," Working Papers Series 71, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    15. Aghanya, Daniel & Agarwal, Vineet & Poshakwale, Sunil, 2020. "Market in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), stock price informativeness and liquidity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    16. 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.
    17. James P. Ryans, 2021. "Textual classification of SEC comment letters," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 37-80, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Omrane Guedhami & Jeffrey A. Pittman & Walid Saffar, 2014. "Auditor Choice in Politically Connected Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 107-162, March.
    20. Michael Minnis & Nemit Shroff, 2017. "Why regulate private firm disclosure and auditing?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 473-502, July.

    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:zbw:safewh:74. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csafede.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.