The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality around the World*
Open accessAbstract
The association of a country's investor protection regime with the quality of reported earnings is examined for a large sample of firms from 42 countries. Three attributes of earnings are evaluated: the magnitude of abnormal accruals, the likelihood of reporting losses, and earnings conservatism (timely loss recognition). We find that earnings quality increases for firms with Big 4 auditors when a country's investor protection regime gives stronger protection to investors; specifically, abnormal accruals are smaller, there is a greater likelihood of reporting losses, and earnings conservatism is greater. In contrast, earnings of firms with non-Big 4 auditors are largely unaffected by different investor protection regimes. The study adds to a growing body of research showing that accounting practices are influenced by a country's institutions. However, our results differ from prior studies by demonstrating that country-level effects are mediated by audit enforcement, and in particular the incentives of Big 4 auditors to perform higher quality audits in countries with stricter investor protection regimes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/250042 · Cited by 18,025
Investor protection and corporate governance
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2000) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(00)00065-9 · Cited by 6,848 · cited 1×
“La Porta et al. (1998) develop what they term an antidirector rights’ index based on the presence/absence of six specific elements of investor protection in a country’s corporate law practices.”
Cited by
A review of archival auditing research
DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002 · Cited by 3,188
LEUZ, C., & WYSOCKI, P. D. (2016) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12115 · Cited by 1,760
The digital transformation of external audit and its impact on corporate governance
Manita, R., Elommal, N., Baudier, P., & Hikkerova, L. (2020) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119751 · Cited by 533
Francis, J. R., Michas, P. N., & Seavey, S. E. (2013) · Contemporary Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/j.1911-3846.2012.01156.x · Cited by 322
Self-citationGlaum, M., Schmidt, P., Street, D. L., & Vogel, S. (2013) · Accounting and Business Research · doi:10.1080/00014788.2012.711131 · Cited by 241
Metadata
- Authors
- Francis, J. R., & Wang, D.
- Venue
- Contemporary Accounting Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 157-191
- ISSN
- 0823-9150 (ISSN-L)
- 1911-3846
- OpenAlex
- W3121241110
- Cited by
- 1,125
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 129.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality around the World*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1506/car.25.1.6
- The paper
- Francis, J. R., & Wang, D. (2008). The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality around the World*. Contemporary Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1506/car.25.1.6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.