2016
DOI: 10.17576/pengurusan-2016-46-03
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detecting Financial Statement Fraud by Malaysian Public Listed Companies: The Reliability of the Beneish M-Score Model

Abstract: Various fraud prediction tools have been developed to detect financial statement fraud triggered by earnings manipulation. Among them is the Beneish M-Score model as a financial forensic tool to gauge potential earnings manipulation in firms' financial statements. The model was found to be effective in detecting 76% of earnings manipulating firms subjected to accounting enforcement actions by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S. SEC). Furthermore, the earnings manipulation model was also … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0
2

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
20
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…M -score model requires two years of organisations' financial data to calculate the organisations' tendency to engage in earnings manipulation (Beneish, 1999; Aris et al , 2013; Shanmugam et al , 2003). This model is also used to identify the manipulators and non-likely manipulator organisations with the threshold limit of −2.22 (Ahmed and Naima, 2016; Beneish, 1999; Kamal et al , 2016; Özcan, 2018; Petrík, 2016). The organisation is classified as a manipulator when the score is above −2.22 and a non-likely manipulator when the score value is below the threshold limit.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…M -score model requires two years of organisations' financial data to calculate the organisations' tendency to engage in earnings manipulation (Beneish, 1999; Aris et al , 2013; Shanmugam et al , 2003). This model is also used to identify the manipulators and non-likely manipulator organisations with the threshold limit of −2.22 (Ahmed and Naima, 2016; Beneish, 1999; Kamal et al , 2016; Özcan, 2018; Petrík, 2016). The organisation is classified as a manipulator when the score is above −2.22 and a non-likely manipulator when the score value is below the threshold limit.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Early on, some scholars used the M-Score [17][18][19], F-Score [20], and Z-Score [21] models to evaluate the possibility of financial fraud. Some scholars have also applied Benford's law to the identification of financial fraud in the accounting field based on the distribution law of the first digit in the dataset and verified its applicability [22].…”
Section: Research On Financial Fraud Identification Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As reported by (Liew, 2008), several factors influence corporate fraud factors, such as political nepotism, cronyism and corruption; low regulatory structure to protect shareholders and investors; lack of accountability and inadequate disclosure of information, and inadequate audits and risk management. Yet, fraud cases frequently taking place in Malaysia, but the study is not well reported and well-undocumented (Jaffar, Ismail, & Hway Boon, 2011;Kamal, Salleh, & Ahmad, 2016), due to retaliatory effect by employers as suggested by (Aisyah Basri, Daud Marsam, Majid, Abu, & Mohamed, 2017;Alford, 2016;Guthrie & Taylor, 2017;Kanojia, Sachdeva, & Sharma, 2020). From the given evidence, research on corporate fraud is essential to fill in Malaysia's loopholes since there is a lack of research studies in this area and to mitigate the upward fraud trend.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%