ChatGPT, a language-learning model chatbot, has garnered considerable attention for its ability to respond to users' questions. Using data from 14 countries and 186 institutions, we compare ChatGPT and student performance for 28,085 questions from accounting assessments and textbook test banks. As of January 2023, ChatGPT provides correct answers for 56.5 percent of questions and partially correct answers for an additional 9.4 percent of questions. When considering point values for questions, students significantly outperform ChatGPT with a 76.7 percent average on assessments compared to 47.5 percent for ChatGPT if no partial credit is awarded and 56.5 percent if partial credit is awarded. Still, ChatGPT performs better than the student average for 15.8 percent of assessments when we include partial credit. We provide evidence of how ChatGPT performs on different question types, accounting topics, class levels, open/closed assessments, and test bank questions. We also discuss implications for accounting education and research.

AbstractWe show that political contributions are associated with reduced civil and criminal sanctions for fraudulent executives. These managers benefit more from contributions if their firm also gained from the fraud, if they occupy top positions in firms with weak boards, or if they contribute to powerful politicians. Political contributions reduce budgetary resources for government enforcers and lengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission’s case time-to-resolution. They also facilitate penalty transfer from fraudulent managers to the firm, resulting in their entrenchment and long-term destruction of shareholder value. Our findings highlight an agency cost of political contributions and a mechanism undermining the disciplining effect of regulations.

ABSTRACT The ability to communicate effectively is critical in the accounting profession, yet research shows there is a gap between employer expectations and student abilities to adapt communication to various contexts. In this paper we introduce “Communication Roulette,” a novel learning intervention that encourages students to practice their written communication skills by sensitizing them to the need to tailor their message to different audiences using various communication formats while simultaneously reinforcing their knowledge in important content areas. Survey results indicate Communication Roulette increases student confidence and perceived ability to communicate effectively with different audiences and formats. These improvements can largely be achieved through peer feedback alone, although we document incremental improvements with instructor feedback. Finally, we document an improvement in student content knowledge following Communication Roulette.

This case study focuses on how divergent cultural norms can impact ethical decisionmaking between a superior and subordinate in a high-pressure workplace. In order to ensure that today’s business students (and tomorrow’s business leaders) adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct in an international and multicultural environment, it is imperative they recognize and respond appropriately to different cultural views of ethics. In the accompanying case, Jane, a Chinese national living and working in the United States, encounters multiple ethical dilemmas during her employment at TrustUS. Readers are introduced to important cultural factors that differ between Eastern and Western societies (such as Power Distance and Collectivism) and are asked to apply these concepts to gain insight into how cultural background might influence the ethical decision making of a professional in a managerial accounting context.

We show that political contributions are associated with reduced civil and criminal sanctions for fraudulent executives. These managers benefit more from contributions if their firm also gained from the fraud, if they occupy top positions in firms with weak boards, or if they contribute to powerful politicians. Political contributions reduce budgetary resources for government enforcers and lengthen the SEC’s case time-to-resolution. They also facilitate penalty transfer from fraudulent managers to the firm, resulting in their entrenchment and long-term destruction of shareholder value. Our findings highlight an agency cost of political contributions and a mechanism undermining the disciplining effect of regulations.

We explore whether clawback provisions (i.e. Dodd-Frank and SOX) can mitigate agency problems by deterring the executives from manipulating earnings in an effort to boost their incentive compensation. We estimate the direct and indirect gains executives receive as a result of manipulating earnings and compare the amount potentially recoverable under each clawback provision. We show that the Dodd-Frank Clawback can potentially recover a large portion of the direct gains from misreporting (i.e., "excess incentive compensation" as defined by Dodd-Frank); however, significantly larger indirect gains (e.g. profits from the sale of stock and option exercise, gains from delayed termination) are not subject to clawback under Dodd-Frank. Neither the Dodd Frank nor the SOX clawback provision captures the benefits CEOs obtain from delayed termination. Our results suggest existing clawback legislation may not be sufficient to reduce agency problems and curb earnings manipulations.