Legal systems and auditor independence

This paper examines whether an appropriate legal system, which is a combination of a legal regime and a damage apportionment rule, effectively enhances auditor independence. Economic and psychological hypotheses derived from a one-period game model in which the auditor may commit either a technical audit failure (resulting from the auditor’s inability to detect true output given a lack of audit effort) or an independence audit failure (resulting from the auditor’s intentional misreporting on false output) are tested. Three major findings are documented. First, auditor independence affects firm investment, which in turn affects audit effort. Under this strategic dependence, no single legal system can provoke audit effort, improve auditor independence, and encourage firm investment simultaneously. To enhance auditor independence and motivate investment, a legal system consisting of both a strict regime and a proportionate rule is preferred. Second, the strict regime induces more auditor independence than the negligence regime, while the proportionate rule induces higher audit effort than the joint-and-several rule. Finally, auditors’ moral reasoning and penalty for misreporting are both positively associated with their independence. In addition, the effect of moral reasoning on auditor independence diminishes as the level of penalty increases. These two results hold only when the legal systems that auditors face are considered.     

What do we know about audit quality?

This paper reviews empirical research over the past 25 years, mainly from the United States, in order to assess what we currently know about audit quality with respect to publicly listed companies. The evidence indicates that outright audit failure rates are infrequent, far less than 1% annually, and audit fees are quite small, less than 0.1% of aggregate client sales. This suggests there may be an acceptable level of audit quality at a relatively low cost. There is also evidence of voluntary differential audit quality (above the legal minimum) along a number of dimensions such as firm size, industry specialization, office characteristics, and cross-country differences in legal systems and auditor liability exposure. The evidence is very positive although there is some indication that audit quality may have declined in the 1990s, in which case there could be merit in recent reforms such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the US. However, we do not know from research the optimal level of audit quality and therefore whether we currently have ‘too little’ or ‘too much’ auditing? Despite this lacuna we are entering an era of more mandated auditing in response to high-profile corporate governance failures including the Enron–Andersen affair. Finally, while recent reforms have scaled back the scope of non-audit services due to independence concerns, a case can be made that audit quality will always be somewhat suspect if other services are provided that are perceived to potentially compromise the auditor's objectivity and skepticism. For this reason public confidence in audit quality may be increased by proscribing all non-audit services for audit clients. Recommendations are also proposed with respect to legal liability reform and changes in partner compensation arrangements.     

Audit Standards and Auditor Liability: A Theoretical Model

The business of auditing is heavily regulated. Auditor regulation exists through licensing, professional standards and liability. The auditor's liability for losses to financial statement users from audit failure is subject to a test of negligence. What constitutes due audit care is, however, not generally well-specified. Furthermore, reviews of litigation against auditors conclude that compliance with professional audit standards does not always act as a complete defence to allegations of negligence. The current situation can be described as one where (ex ante)—from the point of view of the auditor—uncertainty exists about the ‘legal’ standard of due audit quality (as seen by the courts in the event of litigation). This uncertainty about legal standards fundamentally affects audit behaviour in ways that are not immediately intuitive. This paper draws on insights from the economics and law literature (e.g., Kolstad et al., 1990; Shavell, 1984a, 1984b and 1987; Calfee and Craswell, 1984 and 1986) and provides an analysis of the effects of uncertainty about auditor negligence on the produced level of audit quality and on audit fees. The auditor subject to a negligence rule will produce too low or too high an audit quality level, as compared to the socially optimal level. It is shown that uncertainty about the legal standard of ‘due audit quality’ is fundamental to understanding audit quality supplied. This uncertainty is the explicator of an insurance component in audit fees. A surprising insight is that a large uncertainty about the legal standard of care can reduce rather than increase the quality of audit work supplied and increase the insurance component. Relying on insurance premiums can be more effective than direct expenditure in reducing risk. The effect of the imposition of ex ante precise audit quality standards, in combination with an uncertain negligence rule, is discussed. Since the influence of ex ante standards is indirect through its effect on ex post liability, auditing standards cannot be analysed independently of ‘legal’ standards. If the legal standard of care were clear, there would be no role for audit standards. Audit standards only affect audit behaviour if legal standards of care are unclear, and they help to clarify the legal standard. An effective combination is for ex ante standards to be set below the ex post standards of care so that they provide a lower bound on acceptable work. Under a lowest common denominator approach set too far below legal standards, audit standards would be irrelevant as far as operational decisions were concerned. As the level of standards are raised, so costs are first imposed on the lowest quality providers.     

审计失败中的审计责任认定与监管倾向:经验分析

监管者对审计责任的认定倾向是审计执业环境的重要构成。本文选取1999—2006年间中国证券市场发生的72例财务报表审计失败进行观测,发现:(1)在监管实践较早期间(1999—2002年间)的审计失败样本观测中,88.2%的审计师遭到处罚;而2003—2006年间的审计失败观测中仅有23.6%的审计师遭到处罚;(2)在控制了审计失败观测的公司受处罚严厉度、舞弊期跨度、舞弊期间审计意见类型以及审计师规模后,仍能检测到近年来审计责任认定的显著缓和趋势;(3)即使对于审计师受到处罚的审计失败观测,在1999—2002年间平均82.7%的虚假陈述事项需要由审计师承担审计责任,而在2003—2006年间仅有平均41.2%的虚假陈述事项须由审计师承担责任。综上,监管机构在近年来对会计师事务所或签字注册会计师的审计责任认定显著趋于缓和与稳健;审计执业环境的这种变化趋势亦可为未来监管和司法实践中的审计责任界定提供有益的借鉴。     

Auditor liability and excess cash holdings: Evidence from audit fees of foreign incorporated firms

Auditors of foreign cross-listed firms face liability arising from the nature of the institutional monitoring framework of legal claims that can potentially be brought against the auditor in both the home country and the US. This paper is the first to document the relationship between auditor liability and auditor pricing of excess cash holdings for foreign firms cross-listed in the US. Our findings indicate that auditors demand a fee premium for foreign incorporated clients with greater excess cash holdings, consistent with auditors recognizing the potential for legal exposure to agency conflict arising from foreign listed US traded clients. Furthermore, we examine aspects of foreign capital market protections, such as disclosure requirements, the strength of legal enforcement, and the strength of shareholder rights to better understand auditor perception of the liability they incur due to the agency costs associated with excess cash holdings. We find that there is a significant positive association between audit fees and excess cash holdings for firms where the country of incorporation permits greater liability of auditors in criminal and civil litigation. In addition, auditors assign higher audit fees to firms holding greater excess cash incorporated in countries with greater required accounting disclosure, stronger legal enforcement and stronger shareholder rights.     

Intersections of law and accountancy: Unlimited auditor liability in the United Kingdom

In recent years, considerable pressure has grown within the British auditing industry for limitation of liability arising from negligent mis-statements in audit reports. Under British company law, auditors are forbidden from contracting with companies for their liability to be restricted. This legal provision was introduced in the Companies Act 1929 as a byproduct of legislation relating to directors' liability. The paper explores the background to this legal provision, observing that auditor liability cannot be viewed as a self-contained matter of interest only to a limited community. Attitudes to auditor liability have been shaped against a background of changes in the law of negligence, some, but by no means all, arising from cases involving auditors. Moreover, changing concepts of the position of the auditor within corporate governance structures have at different times encouraged and discouraged the assimilation of the legal treatments of auditors and directors. These concepts themselves reflect differing notions of what actually constitutes the “company”: a collectivity of shareholders or a separate entity controlled by directors. These notions emerged against a background of corporate failure and the need to allocate losses among various parties with different degrees of culpability for failure. However, legal developments do not account by themselves for changing attitudes within the auditing industry towards unlimited liability; acceptance of full responsibility for one's statements, adopted as a badge of professional status, has more recently been seen as inhibiting the commercial development of British auditing.     

Auditors’ Liability,Investments, and Capital Markets: A Potential Unintended Consequence of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act

To restore investors’ confidence in the reliability of corporate financial disclosures, the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 mandated stricter regulations and arguably increased auditors’ liability. In this paper, we analyze the effects of increased auditor liability on the audit failure rate, the cost of capital, and the level of new investment. We focus on a setting in which, with imperfect auditing, a firm has better information than investors about its prospects and seeks to raise capital for new investments in a lemons market. The equilibrium analysis derives corporate reporting and investing choices by the firm, attestation opinions by the auditor, and valuation by rational investors. Three empirically testable predictions emerge: although increasing auditor liability decreases the audit failure rate and the cost of capital for new projects, it also decreases the level of new profitable investments.     

The influence of judges' attitudes on liability assessments related to failed audits exhibiting significant audit team over-time or significant use of off-shore auditors

This study provides evidence on how audit firms' decisions to use offshore (outsourced) auditors or to assign on-site (local) auditors extensive overtime affect judges' evaluation of auditor legal liability I conduct a behavioral experiment in which actual judges responded to a hypothetical audit lawsuit. The results suggest auditors may be penalized during the litigation process depending on the extent of overtime or off-shoring and judges' attitude toward the public accounting profession. Judges with a positive attitude toward public accounting assessed more liability for an audit firm that used offshore (outsourced) auditors than for the use of extensive overtime for on-site auditors or a control condition. However, judges with a negative attitude toward the auditing profession assessed higher liability for auditors except when on-site auditors bore significant overtime in the final weeks of the audit.     

Evidence of Fraud,Audit Risk and Audit Liability Regimes

We investigate the effectiveness of proportionate liability in reducing the probability of fraud and audit risk relative to joint and several liability in two strategic audit settings: one that provides conclusive evidence of fraud and one that provides inconclusive evidence of fraud. In both settings the auditor makes an audit effort choice, but in the second setting the auditor also evaluates the audit evidence. Our results show that when the auditor chooses only effort, a proportionate liability rule with large marginal liability relief decreases audit risk. However, when the auditor also evaluates the audit evidence this result no longer holds.     

AUDITOR PREFERENCES FOR LIABILITY LIMITATION

Debate over statutorily limiting auditor civil liability has implicitly assumed auditors are homogeneous in their preferences for capping liability. This study examines the preferences of auditors for limiting auditor liability and investigates reasons for the preferences. The study uses an Australian setting in which there has been a persistent debate for a decade or more over regulatory intervention in this area. The study provides a background to the debate over this issue and addresses the effects of two factors suggested by the extant literature, namely auditor size and the business risk of an auditor's client portfolio. These factors are argued to affect the expected costs of litigation facing auditors and therefore their preferences on capping liability. Using the submissions by audit firms on an Australian Companies and Securities Law Review Committee Discussion Paper on limiting auditor liability, the study finds larger audit firms that have greater capacities to lobby and greater expected costs of litigation from unlimited liability than smaller firms, dominate the respondents on the Paper and tend to be more supportive of liability limitation than smaller audit firms. Within the array of possible methods of capping liability canvassed by the Discussion Paper, the study documents evidence of diversity in preferences among audit firms. Larger audit firm size is associated with a preference for a group of methods that provides such firms with opportunities to benefit from the capping at the expense of the smaller audit firms. The method most preferred by the larger audit firms is the multiple of fee with a prescribed minimum. Perhaps not surprisingly, this is also the preferred method of the professional accounting bodies in Australia. As to the effect of the riskiness of the client portfolio on preferences for methods of limiting liability, the study finds that higher business risk in an auditor's portfolio is associated with a preference for methods that give greater control over their liability exposure. The study has implications for the impact of regulation of capping liability on competition in the audit services market.     

Consulting revenue sharing,auditor effort and independence,and the regulation of auditor compensation

The joint provision of audit and non-audit services by audit firms to their audit clients has posed a threat to auditor independence. To mitigate the independence problem, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a regulation (SEC, 2003) that prohibits audit partners from receiving compensation for the sale of non-audit services to their audit clients. This study examines the effects of this regulatory change on the effort and reporting decisions of audit partners. We show that partners in an audit firm strategically change the firm’s liability-sharing rule. As a consequence, the regulation restores truthful reporting but has an undesirable negative effect on audit effort. The effect of the regulation on the welfare of the economy (defined as the total payoff to both audit firms and their clients) hinges on the tradeoff between the benefit of the regulation, which is derived from the inducement of truthful reporting, and the cost of the regulation, which results from less diligent audit work. We show that the regulation is more likely to increase the welfare in a strong legal regime (where the legal liability cost of auditor litigation is high) than in a weak legal regime.     

Auditors' Responsibilities for Events Arising After Balance Date

This paper critically evaluates relevant Australian and international professional documents applicable to the auditor's duties to audit and report on listed companies'annual accounts in the open-ended period subsequent to balance date. This examination suggests certain defects within these documents of potentially serious legal consequence. Particular attention is focused on matters relating to the tenure of the statutory audit appointment, the derivative contractual arrangement and the notion of auditor reliance upon management. The extent to which compliance with professional documents, adopted throughout the profession, is a necessary and sufficient defence in lawsuits grounded in negligence claims is analysed. This analysis is sustained in terms of the legal standard of care that may be judicially applied in the determination of auditor liability in the open-ended post balance date period.     

Auditor Reputation Under Different Negligence Regimes

Do auditor reputation effects evolve the same way under precise negligence as under vague negligence? Or are there differences? We assume that investors update their beliefs on unobservable auditor quality when an auditor discloses an inaccurate report. We call this a reputation effect. A necessary condition for reputation effects to occur is that, ex ante, investors expect ‘good’ auditors to take more care than ‘bad’ auditors such that ‘good’ auditors are less likely to issue an inaccurate report. Consistent with empirical evidence, we assume that wealthier (‘good’) auditors tend to take more care than less wealthy (‘bad’) auditors. We find that under vague negligence, reputation effects will occur, inducing both types of auditor to increase the level of care taken. A ‘good’ auditor is likely to exert excessive care. Then, even in the absence of auditor risk aversion, a (properly defined) liability cap is necessary to induce efficient incentives. A contractual liability cap is preferable to a legally fixed liability cap. Under precise negligence, a ‘good’ auditor will exert the standard of due care. However, a ‘bad’ auditor will also do so if sufficiently wealthy. Consequently, ex ante, investors do not expect different levels of care to be taken or reputation effects to occur. A liability cap is not desirable. This paper highlights the importance of non‐legal sanctions in auditor liability. Finally, it links the ‘reputation’ and ‘deep pocket’ hypotheses, both of which have attempted separately in the past to explain the positive correlation between auditor size and auditor quality.     

The effect of auditor litigation risk on clients' access to bank debt: Evidence from a quasi-experiment

We exploit staggered state-level shocks to third-party auditor legal liability in the U.S. to test whether auditor litigation risk affects client companies' access to private debt markets. We find that an exogenous increase in auditor litigation risk leads to an increase in both clients' likelihood of receiving bank loans and the average amount of the bank loans that clients receive. In support of our proposed mechanism that auditor litigation risk leads to improvements in clients' audit and financial reporting quality, we find that these same shocks lead to a reduction in accruals, an increase in going-concern opinions, a decrease in restatements, and an improvement in accruals' ability to predict future cash flows. We also find that increased auditor litigation risk leads to an increase in the contractibility of clients’ accounting numbers, as proxied by the use of debt covenants, and a decrease in the cost of borrowing.     

Machine‐independent audit trail analysis—a tool for continuous audit assurance

This paper reports the results of a research project which examines the feasibility of developing a machine‐independent audit trail analyser (MIATA). MIATA is a knowledge‐based system which performs intelligent analysis of operating system audit trails. Such a system is proposed as a decision support tool for auditors when assessing the risk of unauthorized user activity in multi‐user computer systems. It is also relevant to the provision of a continuous assurance service to clients by internal and external auditors. Monitoring user activity in system audit trails manually is impractical because of the vast quantity of events recorded in those audit trails. However, if done manually, an expert security auditor would be needed to look for two main types of events—user activity rejected by the system's security settings (failed actions) and users behaving abnormally (e.g. unexpected changes in activity such as the purchasing clerk attempting to modify payroll data). A knowledge‐based system is suited to applications that require expertise to perform well‐de?ned, yet complex, monitoring activities (e.g. controlling nuclear reactors and detecting intrusions in computer systems). To permit machine‐independent intelligent audit trail analysis, an anomaly‐detection approach is adopted. Time series forecasting methods are used to develop and maintain the user pro?le database (knowledge base) that allows identi?cation of users with rejected behaviour as well as abnormal behaviour. The knowledge‐based system maintains this knowledge base and permits reporting on the potential intruder threats (summarized in Table I). The intelligence of the MIATA system is its ability to handle audit trails from any system, its knowledge base capturing rejected user activity and detecting anomalous activity, and its reporting capabilities focusing on known methods of intrusion. MIATA also updates user pro?les and forecasts of behaviour on a daily basis. As such, it also ‘learns’ from changes in user behaviour. The feasibility of generating machine‐independent audit trail records, and the applicability of the anomaly‐detection approach and time series forecasting methods, are demonstrated using three case studies. These results support the proposal that developing a machine‐independent audit trail analyser is feasible. Such a system will be an invaluable aid to an auditor in detecting potential computer intrusions and monitoring user activity. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How individual auditor characteristics impact the likelihood of audit failure: Evidence from China

Audit failure imposes a severe loss on investors and damages market participants' confidence in financial reporting quality. This study investigates the impacts of individual auditor characteristics on the likelihood of audit failure. Chinese regulators mandate listed firms to disclose the engagement auditors' identity. Furthermore, the information regarding individual auditor characteristics in China is also publicly available. Utilizing this unique setting, we examine the relationship between individual auditor characteristics and the likelihood of audit failure in China during the period from 2000 to 2009. We document that individual auditors with more auditing experience are less likely associated with audit failure. We also find a weaker negative relationship between auditor education level and audit failure. Our study has important implications for both auditors and regulators by shedding lights on the determinants of audit failure and by providing guidance to the human resource management in audit firms.     

Shared auditors,social trust,and relationship-specific investment in the supply chain

An auditor common to a supplier and customer may serve an information role, reduce information asymmetry, or mitigate a potential hold-up problem in the supply chain. The information role of shared auditors could be more important in a lax institutional environment where a lack of trust exists between the supplier and customer. Using a sample of listed firms in China from 2009 to 2015, we find that (1) a shared auditor enhances the supplier’s relationship-specific investment (RSI), and (2) this positive association is stronger when the customer is located in a region with lower trust. We also document an incremental effect of a shared audit partner on enhancing the supplier’s RSI in addition to the effect of a shared auditor at the audit firm level. Additional analyses suggest that a shared auditor alleviates information asymmetry between the supplier and customer and hence improves the supplier’s RSI. A shared auditor particularly improves the supplier’s RSI when the customer is limited in its legal protection, which validates the usefulness of this unique research setting (China) for studying the information role of shared auditors. By extending the research on shared auditors and social trust, this paper provides a reference for companies that wish to explore the role of auditors in enhancing RSI in the supply chain.     

Auditors' Liability, Vague Due Care, and Auditing Standards

This paper expands the set of previously considered liability rules to include a negligence liability rule with a vague specification of due care. Auditors who are negligent in conducting their audit are liable for losses that result from reliance on misstated financial statements. However, what constitutes negligence for auditors is not clearly specified in the law. Consequently, courts often resort to Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) and Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) as benchmarks for determining due care. A liability regime that consists of a vague negligence rule supports and amplifies the credibility of auditing standards. While auditing standards alleviate some of the vagueness that is inherent in the legal standard, they also form a lower bound on due care, since an audit of a quality that is lower than the quality that auditing standards require would be considered negligent. Thus, the vague specification of due care enables auditors to commit to audit quality as pronounced in auditing standards. This paper explores this link between professional standards and auditors' legal liability. It establishes that the commitment to auditing standards could not have been as credible as it is, if auditors' liability was determined based on the strict liability rule, or based on a negligence rule with a clearly specified due care, since under these two liability rules courts would not need to refer to auditing standards to establish fault. The paper also demonstrates that a legal regime where audit standards are used as a benchmark to evaluate negligence is not the same as a legal regime where due care is defined clearly. Therefore, previous studies that assumed a negligence regime with clear due care may have overstated the effort level that is induced by legal liability.     

Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG

We study the stock and audit market effects associated with a widely publicized accounting scandal involving a public company (ComROAD AG) and a large, reputable audit firm (KPMG) in a country (Germany) that has long provided auditors with substantial protection from shareholder legal liability. We use this event to study whether an auditor's reputation helps to ensure audit quality, a rationale for which recent literature and events provide scant support. Given the absence of a strong insurance rationale for audit quality, Germany permits a relatively clean test of whether auditor reputation matters. We find that KPMG's clients sustain negative abnormal returns of 3% at events pertaining to ComROAD, and that these returns are more negative for companies that are likely to have higher demands for audit quality. We also find an increase in the number of clients that drop KPMG in the year of the ComROAD scandal (mostly smaller, recently public companies that are similar to ComROAD). Overall, our results provide support for the reputation rationale for audit quality.     

Regulating the Market for Audit Services: A Game Theoretic Approach

We apply game theory to model how alternative mandatory audit firm rotation regimes can affect the strategic interaction between auditee and auditor firms, and analyze potential consequences on detection risk and impairment of auditor scepticism. The major results suggest that: (1) relative to an initial state with no rotation requirement but high probability for impaired auditor scepticism, imposing either short-term or long-term mandatory audit firm rotation will remove the threat to auditor scepticism and lead to higher audit fees and lower detection risk; (2) relative to long-term mandatory audit firm rotation, imposing a short-term rotation will lead to lower audit fees and higher detection risk, resulting from greater informational frictions. We further find that imposing supplementary regulatory instruments, such as increased regulatory scrutiny of the auditee and/or auditor, can be used to lower the detection risk and increase audit quality. We discuss implications of these findings for empirical research.