A Response to "Are a Few Huge Outcomes Distorting Financial Misconduct Research?"

Andrew C. Call, Nathan Y. Sharp and Jaron H. Wilde

Econ Journal Watch, 2019, vol. 16, issue 1, 35–36

Abstract: Kuvvet’s paper discusses extreme observations in research on financial misconduct and also examines the robustness of the findings in Call, Martin, Sharp, and Wilde (2018, Journal of Accounting Research) (hereafter CMSW) to the removal of these observations. The collective evidence in CMSW does not support Kuvvet’s claims that the findings in CMSW are driven solely by extreme outcomes of enforcement actions. Other claims offered by Kuvvet reflect a misunderstanding of both the enforcement action setting and the whistleblower designations in CMSW.

Keywords: whistleblower; tipster; outlier (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C18 G30 G38 K22 K42 M48 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1107/CallSharpWildeMar2019.pdf?mimetype=pdf (application/pdf)
https://econjwatch.org/1158 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ejw:journl:v:16:y:2019:i:1:p:35-36

Access Statistics for this article

Econ Journal Watch is currently edited by Daniel Klein

More articles in Econ Journal Watch from Econ Journal Watch Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Jason Briggeman ().