Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Fernanda Furuta
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade (FEA/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 2010-03-22 |
| Examining board members: |
Ariovaldo dos Santos;
Antonio Gledson de Carvalho;
Reinaldo Guerreiro;
Gerlando Augusto Sampaio Franco de Lima;
Vinicius Aversari Martins
|
| Advisor: | Ariovaldo dos Santos |
| Abstract | |
Various works are being developed regarding Audit Committees in the United States and other countries, though the issue has only recently been introduced in Brazil. This research differs from previous studies given that its focus is on analysis of the exception made by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Regulation 10A-3 regarding foreign companies possessing American Depositary Receipts (ADRs). In the case of Brazil, the SEC allowed the Fiscal Council to adapt its roles to those of the Audit Committee. However, there are controversies relative to the use of an adapted Fiscal Council. This study provides empirical evidence on Audit Committees and the adapted Fiscal Councils within companies operating in Brazil. Besides analyzing the characteristics of companies that opt to form an Audit Committee or an adapted Fiscal Council from the agency theory point of view, it also discusses the impact of building these agencies on the company\'s return on investment, along with the results obtained from questionnaires given to company executives and interviews with market analysts. The results of the statistical tests were significant, indicating that companies with sales under R$ 15,000 million have a lower probability of building an Audit Committee, while companies with a proportion of fixed assets over sales that is less than 60% are more likely to build an Audit Committee, as was expected. Also, companies where managers possess some stake in the company have a greater chance of building an Audit Committee. There are indications that a positive relationship exists between building an Audit Committee and a company\'s total assets, a company\'s classification within the new market or level 2 corporate governance, the number of directors and the return on investment, as expected and remembering that the model is not significant. No consensus was reached by market analysts regarding the influence of the level of corporate governance on building an Audit Committee. Contrary to expectations, there are no indications that a meaningful positive relationship exists between the company having greater leverage and the presence of an Audit Committee. Also contrary to expectations, was the fact that both the majority of companies that formed an Audit Committee or an adapted Fiscal Council were audited by one of the Big 4 and classified as large accelerated filers. On the other hand, market analysts could not explain if the presence of one of the Big 4 could influence the choice of one entity over the other. According to executives from companies that formed Audit Committees, the majority pointed out that the level of corporate governance was one of the factors that influenced the decision between a Committee or an Adapted Fiscal Council, while the majority of executives from companies that chose the adapted Fiscal Council indicated the level of corporate governance, the audit by one of the Big 4 and the company\'s classification according to the Aggregate Worldwide Market Value as the factors that influenced their decisions. Both the majority of company executives and the majority of market analysts agree that an Audit Committee can be viewed as a monitoring mechanism for the company, while disagreeing that Brazil lacks executives who match the Audit Committee profile defined by the SEC. There was no consensus of opinions among company executives and market analysts regarding a Fiscal Council being more adaptable to the Brazilian business environment than an Audit Committee, both in terms of the role of each entity being distinct and in terms of the costs associated with building an Audit Committee. Thus, in some cases, one notices that the point of view of analysts is different than that of company executives, with results based on the company\'s financial information. One can conclude that this issue needs to be closely monitored, given that no consensus has been reached in its regard. (AU) | |