主题:【求助】还是一段翻译,请有空的各位帮我看看~

浏览 回复4 电梯直达
dulice
结帖率:
100%
关注:0 |粉丝:0
新手级: 新兵
On average, fraud companies in this sample had larger boards, a higher percentage of inside directors on the board, and a higher percentage of gray directors. No-fraud matching companies had a higher percentage of outside directors that were independent.The pairwise differences in audit committees show that no-fraud companies, on average, had a significantly higher percentage of outside directors and a higher percentage of independent outside directors. The fraud companies, however,had a higher percentage of gray directors on the audit committee.No-fraud companies in the sample also had a significantly higher percentage of outside directors on both the compensation committee and the nominating committee.平均来说,诈骗公司在这样有较大的板,较高比率的内部董事组成董事会,将较高比率的灰色董事。无欺诈匹配公司进行了高百分比的外部董事被independent.the成对分歧,在审计委员会表明,没有一个诈骗公司,平均来说,有一个显着较高比率的外部董事和较高比率的外部独立董事。该诈骗公司,不过,有较高比率的灰色董事对审计committee.no诈骗公司,在样品也进行了显着较高比率的外部董事,对双方赔偿委员会和提名委员会。诈骗公司进行了董事,这两个委员会。

为您推荐
闲鹤野云
结帖率:
100%
关注:0 |粉丝:0
新手级: 新兵
平均来讲,样本中欺诈性公司的董事会较大、较高的内部董事比例和较高的灰色董事比例。相比,非欺诈性公司独立的外部董事比例较高。
On average, fraud companies in this sample had larger boards, a higher percentage of inside directors on the board, and a higher percentage of gray directors. No-fraud matching companies had a higher percentage of outside directors that were independent.
该帖子作者被版主 redanqi5积分, 2经验,加分理由:应助
闲鹤野云
结帖率:
100%
关注:0 |粉丝:0
新手级: 新兵
审计委员会的对比差异表明,非欺诈性公司外部董事以及独立的外部董事比例显著较高。相比,欺诈性公司审计委员会中灰色董事的比例显著较高。样本中非欺诈性公司补偿(薪酬)委员会和提名委员会中外部董事比例显著较高。
The pairwise differences in audit committees show that no-fraud companies, on average, had a significantly higher percentage of outside directors and a higher percentage of independent outside directors. The fraud companies, however,had a higher percentage of gray directors on the audit committee.No-fraud companies in the sample also had a significantly higher percentage of outside directors on both the compensation committee and the nominating committee.

这是你的计算机软件翻译的,真有意思呀:

平均来说,诈骗公司在这样有较大的板,较高比率的内部董事组成董事会,将较高比率的灰色董事。无欺诈匹配公司进行了高百分比的外部董事被independent.the成对分歧,在审计委员会表明,没有一个诈骗公司,平均来说,有一个显着较高比率的外部董事和较高比率的外部独立董事。该诈骗公司,不过,有较高比率的灰色董事对审计committee.no诈骗公司,在样品也进行了显着较高比率的外部董事,对双方赔偿委员会和提名委员会。诈骗公司进行了董事,这两个委员会。
何当奇
结帖率:
100%
关注:0 |粉丝:0
新手级: 新兵
Fraud companies had a directors on both committees. Pairwise differences show no significant difference in the frequency of board meetings or meetings of audit, compensation,and nominating committees.Overall, the pairwise comparisons suggest that systematic differences between fraud companies and no-fraud matching companies are apparent in certain characteristics of the boards of directors.These univariate comparisons should be viewed with caution, however, when making inferences about the connection between governance attributes and corporate fraud. The pairwise tests implicitly assume that other potentially relevant company characteristics are fixed, which may not be the case.For this reason, we used a logit regression to test our hypotheses in a multivariate

原作者求助内容
dulice
结帖率:
100%
关注:0 |粉丝:0
新手级: 新兵