
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1954783
Financial statement fraud (FSF) is costly for investors and can damage the credibility of the audit profession. To prevent and detect fraud, it is helpful to know its causes. The binary choice models (e.g. logit and probit) commonly used in the extant literature, however, fail to account for undetected cases of fraud and thus present unreliable hypotheses tests. Using a sample of 118 companies accused of fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), we estimated a logit model that corrects the problems arising from undetected frauds in U.S. companies. To avoid multicollinearity problems, we extracted seven factors from 28 variables using the principal factors method. Our results indicate that only 1.43 percent of the instances of FSF were publicized by the SEC. Of the six significant variables included in the traditional, uncorrected logit model, three were found to be actually non-significant in the corrected model. The likelihood of FSF is 5.12 times higher when the firm’s auditor issues an adverse or qualified report.
HF5001-6182, Fraude contable. AAER. Errores de clasificación. Logit. Análisis factorial., Commerce, Account ing fraud1, Factor analysis1, HF1-6182, Fraude contábil. AAER. Erros de classificação. Logit. Análise fatorial., Account ing fraud. AAER. Misclassification. Logit. Factor analysis., Misclassification1, Business, AAER1, Logit1
HF5001-6182, Fraude contable. AAER. Errores de clasificación. Logit. Análisis factorial., Commerce, Account ing fraud1, Factor analysis1, HF1-6182, Fraude contábil. AAER. Erros de classificação. Logit. Análise fatorial., Account ing fraud. AAER. Misclassification. Logit. Factor analysis., Misclassification1, Business, AAER1, Logit1
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
