@article{beasley_branson_pagach_2023, title={An Evolving Risk Landscape: Insights from a Decade of Surveys of Executives and Risk Professionals}, volume={16}, ISSN={["1911-8074"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16010029}, DOI={10.3390/jrfm16010029}, abstractNote={We report on the results obtained from ten annual surveys of global business executives on their perceptions of the most significant risks facing their organizations in the ensuing calendar year. These surveys of C-suite executives, directors and other risk professionals elicit their concerns about risks that may affect their organization’s success over the near-term horizon (i.e., the next calendar year). After a decade, we believe these results provide an opportunity to examine how the global risk landscape has evolved. In addition, two additional survey questions allow us to examine how these executives view the overall risk context and how enterprise risk management (ERM) is deployed and augmented in the face of an escalating risk environment. On average, we find that executives view the risk landscape they face as persistently risky over the ten-year period, even during the relatively robust economic environments for much of that time frame. Two industries report much more volatility in their risk environments, with respondents from the Healthcare sector and in Technology, Media and Telecommunications acknowledging the largest volatility. We also observe an increase in entities’ decisions to devote more time and resources to risk management over the ten-year period, suggesting that ERM has become an essential mechanism for organizational success. Our goal is to highlight the realities of constantly changing risk conditions and how context (e.g., industry and time) is an important distinguishing factor that affects an organization’s given risk profile, which is relevant to both executives and academics. Collectively, our findings emphasize the importance of understanding the ever-changing context of an organization’s environment, that risk identification must be an ongoing process, and that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to risk governance. We believe all this signals the importance of future research to help organizations respond with robust risk governance.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF RISK AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT}, author={Beasley, Mark and Branson, Bruce and Pagach, Don}, year={2023}, month={Jan} }
 @article{beasley_branson_braumann_pagach_2023, title={Understanding the Ecosystem of Enterprise Risk Governance}, volume={98}, ISSN={["1558-7967"]}, DOI={10.2308/TAR-2020-0488}, abstractNote={ABSTRACTApproaches to risk governance are not homogeneous across organizations. Some organizations invest heavily in building formal and strategically focused enterprise-wide risk governance processes whereas others exhibit reduced formality and focus, allowing risk governance to be less structured. We argue that risk governance may best be described as a service dependent upon a network (or ecosystem) of participants who include users of risk information and providers who design and implement risk governance processes. Using a survey sample of 2,380 observations from 2011 to 2016, we find that external calls for enhanced risk governance are positively associated with risk governance processes having greater formality and strategic focus. We find this relationship is partially mediated by internal demands for enhanced risk governance. Further, we find that the positive association between internal demands and enhanced risk governance is reduced by resource constraints and that a risk-seeking attitude is negatively associated with enhanced risk governance.Data Availability: Contact the authors.JEL Classifications: G30; M10; M14; M40.}, number={5}, journal={ACCOUNTING REVIEW}, author={Beasley, Mark S. and Branson, Bruce C. and Braumann, Evelyn C. and Pagach, Donald P.}, year={2023}, month={Sep}, pages={99–128} }
 @article{beasley_branson_pagach_panfilo_2021, title={Are required SEC proxy disclosures about the board's role in risk oversight substantive?}, volume={40}, ISSN={["1873-2070"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2020.106816}, DOI={10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2020.106816}, abstractNote={The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires companies it regulates to include disclosures about the board's role in risk oversight in the annual proxy statement to shareholders. The SEC does not mandate specific content or actions that boards should perform as part of their risk oversight responsibilities, leaving the nature of activities and extent of those disclosures to the discretion of the reporting entity. This study examines whether these disclosures contain substantive information reflective of the effectiveness of the organization's risk oversight. We find that organizations disclosing more specific information (but not simply more information) about board risk oversight practices are associated with firms independently assessed as having the strongest management and governance processes. These findings suggest that these firms use the discretion provided by the SEC's disclosure rule to provide substantive and potentially value-relevant information for stakeholders about the entity's risk management processes and board risk oversight activities.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND PUBLIC POLICY}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Beasley, Mark and Branson, Bruce and Pagach, Don and Panfilo, Silvia}, year={2021} }
 @article{hsu_jin_ma_zhou_beasley_branson_pagach_panfilo_kim_kim_et al._2021, title={Bios Vol. 40, #1}, volume={40}, ISSN={["1873-2070"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2021.106835}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND PUBLIC POLICY}, author={Hsu, Charles and Jin, Qinglu and Ma, Zhiming and Zhou, Jing and Beasley, Mark S. and Branson, Bruce and Pagach, Don and Panfilo, Silvia and Kim, Jae B. and Kim, Yongtae and et al.}, year={2021} }
 @article{beasley_branson_pagach_2015, title={An analysis of the maturity and strategic impact of investments in ERM}, volume={34}, ISSN={["1873-2070"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84931564939&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2015.01.001}, abstractNote={Over the past decade, expectations for more effective oversight of risks by boards of directors have significantly increased. These expectations emanate from stock exchanges, regulators, credit rating agencies and other key stakeholders. Proponents of enhanced risk oversight argue that an increased understanding of enterprise-wide risks provides strategic benefit by helping the board and management identify and manage risks that may impact the achievement of strategic objectives while at the same time helping the board monitor the extent of risk-taking on the part of management in their desire to meet these objectives. In response to these growing expectations, some boards have asked management to explore implementation of a more holistic, top-down approach to risk oversight widely known as enterprise risk management (ERM) while others have not. Institutional theory would suggest that a number of organizations implement minimal elements of ERM for symbolic reasons, lacking substance in risk oversight. In contrast, agency theory would suggest that boards embrace explicit and robust risk oversight activities to monitor management's risk-taking actions, and resource dependence theory would suggest that they also do so to help the organization achieve strategic objectives. Little is known about the way in which boards and management organize their processes and the impact of those processes on the level of ERM adoption. More importantly, little is known about the extent to which ERM is perceived to provide strategic benefit to those organizations that have invested in developing a robust ERM process. Based on data gathered from 645 survey responses from executives of organizations spanning a number of industries and sizes, we find that organizations with greater ERM maturity are significantly more likely to have taken steps to formally engage the board and senior management in specific risk oversight tasks (consistent with agency theory), and certain board and management risk practices are associated with perceptions that ERM provides strategic advantage (consistent with resource dependence theory).}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND PUBLIC POLICY}, author={Beasley, Mark and Branson, Bruce and Pagach, Don}, year={2015}, pages={219–243} }
 @article{peace_branson_2004, title={New income tax regulations may affect bank tax accounting}, journal={Banking Law Journal}, author={Peace, R. L. and Branson, B.}, year={2004} }
 @misc{branson_2002, title={E-business: Principles and strategies for accountants}, volume={77}, number={2}, journal={Accounting Review}, author={Branson, B. C.}, year={2002}, pages={476–477} }
 @article{allen_beasley_branson_1999, title={Improving analytical procedures: A case of using disaggregate multilocation data}, volume={18}, ISSN={["1558-7991"]}, DOI={10.2308/aud.1999.18.2.128}, abstractNote={According to SAS No. 56, Analytical Procedures, the use of disaggregate, individual location data can improve the effectiveness of analytical procedures used in multilocation audits. Using a case-study approach, we investigate whether improvements in the accuracy and precision of account balance expectations can be obtained by using disaggregate, individual location data in a large, multilocation company. Specifically, we examine two issues: (1) whether the summation of individual location expectations generates more accurate and precise expectations of company-wide account balances than expectations based on company-wide data only and (2) whether the accuracy and precision of analytical procedures is enhanced by including peer location observations of the account balance in individual location expectation models.
               We find that for the multilocation company examined in this case study the summation of individual location account balance expectations is not more accurate or precise than an expectation derived from aggregate models unless the individual location models include peer location observations of the account balance. When the individual location models include the same account observations from other peer locations within the company, the company-wide account balance expectations developed from disaggregate models are more accurate and precise (less variable) than expectations developed using aggregate, company-wide data only. The results from this case study indicate that when auditors are generating expectations of company-wide balances, disaggregate models incorporating peer location account observations provide account balance expectations that are both more accurate and more precise than company-wide, aggregate models. Given the limitations of a case-study approach, future research should be directed at establishing the generalizability of these findings.}, number={2}, journal={AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY}, author={Allen, RD and Beasley, MS and Branson, BC}, year={1999}, pages={128–142} }
 @article{baginski_lorek_willinger_branson_1999, title={The relationship between economic characteristics and alternative annual earnings persistence measures}, volume={74}, ISSN={["0001-4826"]}, DOI={10.2308/accr.1999.74.1.105}, abstractNote={Accounting researchers (and potentially others) generally select rather simple, lower-order, time-series models to develop proxies for earnings persistence. However, measures of persistence produced by such models are not related to characteristics of the firm's economic environment that are expected to influence earnings persistence. Using a sample of 162 calendar year-end New York Stock Exchange firms, we document the cross-sectional relations between a set of relatively constant, firm-specific, economic characteristics that are theoretical determinants of persistence and measures of earnings persistence derived from both lower-order and higher-order Autoregressive, Integrated, Moving-Average (ARIMA) models. When lower-order ARIMA models are used to generate measures of earnings persistence, the cross-sectional regression models measuring the association between persistence and economic determinants of persistence yield very low adjusted R2s. In sharp contrast, when differenced, higher-order ARIMA models are used to measure earnings persistence, adjusted R2s are in the 10–12 percent range. Moreover, independent variables such as capital intensity, barriers-to-entry, and product-type are all significant in the directions suggested by economic theory. Our results are consistent with Lipe and Kormendi (1994) who argue that higher-order ARIMA models do a better job of capturing the valuerelevance of current period earnings than lower-order models.}, number={1}, journal={ACCOUNTING REVIEW}, author={Baginski, SP and Lorek, KS and Willinger, GL and Branson, BC}, year={1999}, month={Jan}, pages={105–120} }
 @article{branson_guffey_pagach_1998, title={Information conveyed in announcements of analyst coverage}, volume={15}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0000590643&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1911-3846.1998.tb00552.x}, abstractNote={AbstractThis paper examines the security market response to the announcement of sell‐side analysts' decisions to initiate coverage of a firm. We examine the market reaction to the initiation announcement and the accompanying investment recommendation, by disaggregating our sample based on existing analyst coverage at the announcement date. We find, on average, a significantly larger, positive stock price reaction to buy recommendations conveyed in announcements of coverage initiation for firms with a small existing analyst following compared to such announcements for firms receiving no prior analyst coverage.Tests show that the relation between the extent of preexisting analyst coverage and market response is nonlinear and concave down in shape. Specifically we find that lightly followed firms, on average, experience larger price reactions to announcements of coverage initiations than either previously uncovered firms or more heavily followed firms. We test for and find that this result holds over a range of definitions of light coverage and is not attributable to the presence of an underwriting relationship existing between the analyst's employer and the firm receiving coverage.We do find that initiations by analysts named to Institutional Investor magazine's “All‐American Research Team” produce a significantly larger market reaction than do initiations by non‐All‐American security analysts. In addition, similar to the market response associated with other types of information events, we observe that proxies for the richness of the initiated firms' preannouncement information environment are associated with event‐day average abnormal returns.}, number={2}, journal={Contemporary Accounting Research}, author={Branson, B.C. and Guffey, D.M. and Pagach, Donald}, year={1998}, pages={119–143} }
 @article{branson_pagach_1998, title={Instructional case: understanding innovative financial instruments}, volume={13}, number={1}, journal={Issues in Accounting Education}, author={Branson, B. and Pagach, D.}, year={1998}, pages={203–210} }
 @inbook{allen_beasley_branson_1997, title={Improving the accuracy and precision of analytical procedures using multilocation data}, booktitle={Symposium papers of the International Symposium on Audit Research}, publisher={Center for Accounting and Auditing Research}, author={Allen, R. and Beasley, M and Branson, B.}, year={1997}, pages={1–40} }