Are Auditors Professionally Skeptical? Evidence from Auditors’ Going‐Concern Opinions and Management Earnings Forecasts

We examine whether auditors exercise professional skepticism about management earnings forecasts when making going‐concern decisions. Using publicly issued management earnings forecasts as a proxy for earnings forecasts provided by managers to auditors, we find that management earnings forecasts are negatively associated with both auditors’ going‐concern opinions and subsequent bankruptcy. The weight auditors put on management forecasts in the going‐concern decision is not significantly different from the weight implied in the bankruptcy prediction model. Moreover, compared with the bankruptcy model, auditors assign a lower weight to management forecasts they perceive as being less credible, including those (1) issued by managers who issued optimistic forecasts in the previous two years, and (2) predicting high earnings increases or high earnings. Taken together, our evidence is consistent with auditors being professionally skeptical about management earnings forecasts when making going‐concern decisions.     

Balance sheet conservatism and audit reporting conservatism

Financial reports are prepared on a going‐concern (GC) basis rather than a liquidation basis even when companies are highly distressed. This allows distressed companies to report book values of assets that greatly exceed their liquidation values, implying a lack of conservatism in the balance sheet. We argue that auditors issue going‐concern opinions in order to warn investors about this lack of balance sheet conservatism. This argument leads to two testable hypotheses. First, for companies that are at risk of bankruptcy, auditors are more likely to issue GC opinions when the book values of assets under the GC assumption are high relative to the expected liquidation values of assets (i.e., when the GC assumption causes the balance sheet to lack conservatism). Second, for companies that enter bankruptcy, the issuance of a prior GC opinion has predictive information content with respect to the wedge between the book values of assets and the future liquidation values of those same assets. Our results strongly support both hypotheses. The findings are important because they indicate that conservative audit reporting helps to compensate for a lack of conservatism in the balance sheet, which arises because the GC assumption permits the book values of assets to exceed their liquidation values.     

The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment

This study provides evidence on the relationship between audit-report type and subsequent business termination for private companies in a non-litigious environment. The results show that an endogenous relationship exists between bankruptcy and audit-report type, and between voluntary liquidation and audit-report type. A non-clean opinion is typically issued when firms face financial difficulties, which in turn become more severe after the receipt of a non-clean audit opinion. We find evidence that, even without a litigation deterrent in Belgium, financial performance has a similar impact on audit-report type as in litigious environments. We find that the self-fulfilling prophecy hypothesis holds for bankruptcy but not for voluntary liquidation. Our study also provides some evidence on audit reporting differences between Big 6 and non-Big 6 auditors in the Belgian audit market. When financial difficulties are obvious, as is the case when a company is about to go bankrupt, both Big 6 and non- Big 6 auditors are as competent and/or independent to assess and report going-concern problems. However, when financial difficulties are less apparent, as is the case for firms that voluntarily decide to liquidate, our results indicate that Big 6 auditors are more likely to issue a non-clean audit opinion than non-Big 6 auditors.     

The effect of client management bargaining power, moral reasoning development, and belief in a just world on auditor independence

In two studies, practising auditors' responses to hypothetical audit conflict scenarios were used to test hypotheses that moral reasoning development and belief in a just world influence resistance to client management power. Based on a mixed factorial ANOVA design, results confirmed that auditor independence is interactively determined. Three styles of auditor decision-making emerged: “autonomous”, “accommodating” and “pragmatic”. Autonomous auditors were responsive to personal beliefs, such that those with strong just world beliefs were more likely to resist client management power. Pragmatic auditors were responsive to client management power, irrespective of beliefs. Accommodating auditors responded both to personal beliefs and client management power; they comprised the least resistant group, especially when they believed in an unjust world.     

Auditor quality,audit fees,organizational structure,and risk taking in the US life insurance industry

Using a system of simultaneous equations, this study examines the relation among external audit monitoring, in the US life insurance industry. We find insurers with higher leverage risk and surplus risk are more likely to use Big‐4 auditors and to pay higher fees. In return, insurers hiring Big‐4 auditors and paying higher audit fees have lower leverage risk and surplus risk. Second, the results suggest that mutual life insurers have a higher leverage risk and surplus risk than stock life insurers. This evidence is in contrast to that for property–liability insurance companies. Third, we find insurers are less likely to hire Big‐4 auditors and to pay higher audit fees after implementation of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX). Finally, life insurers with Big‐4 auditors or paying higher audit fees are more likely to take lower risks after the implementation of SOX.     

Does audit quality matter more for firms with high investment opportunities?

This paper examines the association of firms with high investment opportunities with high quality audits (proxied by Big 5 auditors) and whether that association results in a lower likelihood of earnings management. Firms with high investment opportunities may demand high quality audits for curbing earnings management. This is because they have more flexibility in the provision of discretionary accruals that arises from the attendant operating uncertainty which creates particular monitoring problems. Big 5 auditors will provide high quality audits that will constrain earnings management for firms with high investment opportunities because the risk of losing (and hence the likelihood of maintaining) auditor independence is higher. Results show the following. First, firms with high investment opportunities are more likely to hire Big 5 auditors than firms with low investment opportunities. Second, firms with high investment opportunities are more likely to have more discretionary accruals but this relationship is weaker when they have Big 5 auditors. These results are robust to various sensitivity tests.     

Employee firing costs and auditors’ going-concern opinions: Evidence from wrongful discharge laws

This paper examines the impact of employee firing costs on auditors’ going-concern (GC) reporting decisions by exploiting the wrongful discharge laws (WDLs) adopted by U.S. states. We find that auditors are more likely to issue GC opinions to financially-distressed clients headquartered in states that have adopted the laws, in particular the good faith exception, than to clients in states that have not. This finding is robust to controlling for the state-level economics, the strictness of legal liability rules, audit office fixed effects, as well as alternative definitions of financial distress and estimation methods. The impact is concentrated in labor-intensive clients and clients in industries with a higher proportion of nonunionized or permanent employees. We further find that the increased propensity to issue GC opinions is attenuated when the auditor is economically dependent on the client, and is driven by auditors who possess labor-specific expertise. Overall, these findings are consistent with higher firing costs increasing auditors’ propensity to issue GC opinions.     

How do mentoring rewards influence experienced auditors?

The benefits of mentoring are well documented, and include lower employee turnover, heightened employee success, and higher employee satisfaction. In an effort to acquire these benefits, audit firms are structuring rewards for mentoring. However, we predict that rewarding mentors can prove problematic, leaving needy young auditors without a mentor or perhaps receiving advice that might prove detrimental. We test our expectations in an experiment with 111 Big 4 auditor participants. As expected, we find that in the presence of mentoring rewards, experienced auditors are less willing to mentor the young auditors who likely would benefit the most. We also find that in the presence of mentoring rewards, experienced auditors are more likely to provide advice that might be counterproductive. Yet interestingly, in our study, when rewards are absent, experienced auditors are more willing to mentor and more likely to provide beneficial advice. Our results inform the audit mentoring literature though our focus on mentor behavior, as opposed to protégé behavior. Our results also have implications for audit firms as they consider the structure of mentoring rewards, training on mentoring advice, and the effects of this advice.     

Regulatory risk and auditors’ reporting conservatism: Evidence from Chinese comment letters

We study how auditors respond to regulatory risk that arises when their clients receive comment letters from Chinese stock exchanges. Our results show that auditors are more likely to issue modified or conservative—but not excessively conservative—audit opinions to the recipients of comment letters. This reporting conservatism is especially pronounced when the regulatory risk perceived by auditors rises, such as when comment letters contain more questions, when more comment letters are issued, when the auditors must give opinions on specific issues, or when comment letters involve more auditor issues. Comment letters have been issued in China since 2013, but did not have to be disclosed until 2015. We find no significant difference in the impact of comment letters on auditor conservatism between pre- and post-disclosure periods. Further, the size of auditor firms has no significant effect on the impact of comment letters in post-disclosure periods. We interpret our results as supporting the regulation risk hypothesis.     

Do corporate payouts signal going-concern risk for auditors? Evidence from audit reports for companies in financial distress

We examine the association between payout policy changes and going-concern decisions for financially distressed clients. Extant auditing standards indicate that payout reductions, which offer a prospect of short-term cash relief, can potentially mitigate going-concern uncertainty, whereas economic theory suggests payout decreases (increases) convey mixed but mostly negative (positive) signals about a company’s future financial status. We find that, compared with a bankruptcy prediction model over short (not to exceed 1 year) and long (2–3 years) horizons, auditors seem to significantly underreact to payout decreases (i.e., negative signals) but react appropriately to payout increases (i.e., positive signals) in their going-concern decisions. Moreover, auditors are three times more likely to make Type II misclassification errors in payout-decreasing firms than in payout-increasing and no-change firms. We also find that auditors take longer to determine the appropriate opinion for clients with payout changes, especially for those who cut their payouts. Overall, our findings suggest that auditors respond differently to positive and negative signals about companies’ future prospects, reflecting the mixed nature of payout decreases relative to payout increases and the professional standards’ emphasis on the prospect of short-term cash relief from payout reductions.     

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.     

Why Press Coverage of a Client Influences the Audit Opinion

In this study I use an experiment to examine why auditors are more likely to issue going–concern opinions when the client has been the subject of negative press coverage prior to the date of the audit opinion. I find no evidence that negative press coverage increases auditors' perceptions of legal liability, as was suggested in the prior literature. I do find, however, that negative press coverage increases auditors' perception of a client's bankruptcy probability and this, in turn, leads auditors to modify the audit opinion. Because the press coverage presented in this study provides no new information, the results suggest that auditors react too strongly to redundant information. This over–reaction can result in inefficient allocation of audit resources and can have deleterious affects on clients. Accordingly, policy makers, auditors and their clients might be interested in how auditors' reliance on redundant information can be reduced.     

Prompting the Benefit of the Doubt: The Joint Effect of Auditor‐Client Social Bonds and Measurement Uncertainty on Audit Adjustments

We design an incentivized experiment to test whether measurement uncertainty elevates the risk that social bonds between auditors and reporters compromise audit adjustments. Results indicate that, when audit evidence is characterized by some residual uncertainty, the adjustments our auditor‐participants require are sensitive to whether auditors have an opportunity to form a modest but friendly social bond with reporters. In contrast, although auditors do not adjust fully even when misstatements are known with certainty, social bonding has no effect in this scenario. Accordingly, our experiment contributes beyond the main effects of social bonding and measurement uncertainty demonstrated in prior research by showing that these forces interact. A practical implication is that regulators and practitioners should consider both the technical and the social challenges facing audits of complex estimates.     

Corporate Fraud and Business Conditions: Evidence from IPOs

We examine how a firm's incentive to commit fraud when going public varies with investor beliefs about industry business conditions. Fraud propensity increases with the level of investor beliefs about industry prospects but decreases when beliefs are extremely high. We find that two mechanisms are at work: monitoring by investors and short‐term executive compensation, both of which vary with investor beliefs about industry prospects. We also find that monitoring incentives of investors and underwriters differ. Our results are consistent with models of investor beliefs and corporate fraud, and suggest that regulators and auditors should be vigilant for fraud during booms.     

The influence of earnings management conducted through the use of accretive stock repurchases on audit fees

This study investigates whether auditor perceptions of risk are affected by accretive stock repurchases, which prior research has suggested is a form of earnings management. We argue that auditors are likely to view earnings management conducted through the use of accretive stock repurchases as a signal of increased risk, leading to higher audit fees. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find evidence of a positive and significant association between the use of accretive stock repurchases as an earnings management technique and audit fees. The results suggest that audit fees are 6.0% higher when accretive stock repurchases are used to manage earnings, which corresponds to an audit fee that is approximately $107,000 higher for the average firm-year observation in our sample.     

Do climate risk beliefs shape corporate social responsibility?

Global climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time, potentially affecting everyone, both individuals and businesses. This paper examines whether differences in beliefs about climate change affect firms' decision-making in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) commitment. Using county-level climate change beliefs data from Yale Climate Opinion Maps, we find that firms' Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores are higher if they are located in counties where more people believe in global climate change. We then use natural disasters as exogenous shocks to the beliefs about climate risk and continue to find a positive association between CSR and perceptions of climate risks. Furthermore, we discover a stronger correlation between CSR and climate risk beliefs when firms have more local investors.     

Does corporate social responsibility affect auditor-client contracting? Evidence from auditor selection and audit fees

We find that firms with higher CSR performance are more likely to choose Big N auditors and less likely to switch to non-Big N auditors, consistent with socially responsible firms demanding higher audit quality. Furthermore, we provide robust evidence that firms with higher CSR performance pay lower audit fees using both levels and changes models, suggesting that higher CSR performance reduces auditor engagement risk. Our analysis based on the difference-in-differences approach indicates that it is higher CSR performance that leads to lower audit fees, not vice versa. Overall, the results highlight the important role of CSR performance in auditor-client contracting.     

Audit Reporting of Big 4 Versus Non-Big 4 Auditors: The Case of Ex-Andersen Clients

This paper examines audit reporting of Big 4 auditors versus non-Big 4 auditors for ex-Andersen clients and other clients. It suggests that ex-Andersen clients are more risky than other clients and are able to exert more influence than other clients on non-Big 4 auditors because they are larger in size than other non-Big 4 auditees. In addition, Big 4 auditors are more risk-averse and able to withstand clients' pressure than non-Big 4 auditors. The results show that Big 4 auditors are more likely than non-Big 4 auditors to issue going-concern opinions to ex-Andersen clients or restrict the level of discretionary accruals of those clients compared with other clients. Further, ex-Andersen clients of Big 4 auditors would have had a lower likelihood of receiving going-concern opinions or higher levels of discretionary accruals had reporting practices for other clients been applied. Ex-Andersen clients of non-Big 4 auditors would have had a higher likelihood of going-concern opinions or lower levels of discretionary accruals. Hence, the suggestion to reduce the Big 4 concentration in the audit market by allowing non-Big 4 firms a larger market share should be viewed prudently. Overall, these results are consistent with the suggestion that litigation risk and client pressure are important factors in audit reporting.     

Is the objectivity of internal audit compromised when the internal audit function is a management training ground?

We conduct an experiment with 74 internal auditors to examine the effects of using the internal audit function as a training ground for future senior managers. Specifically, we investigate internal auditors' willingness to resist current management's aggressive revenue recognition policies, assuming that internal auditors expect to move into senior management positions in the future. We also examine whether increasing the power of the board of directors can reduce threats to internal auditors' objectivity. This is the first study to empirically examine whether training grounds influence internal auditors objectivity. Results of our study indicate that internal auditors are less objective (i.e. they are more likely to side with management's aggressive revenue recognition policies) when they expect to move into senior management positions, relative to when internal auditing is not used as a training ground. We also find that empowering the audit committee further decreases the objectivity of internal auditors. These results suggest that board power can have unintended consequences on the behaviour of internal auditors and that board empowerment does not guarantee improved governance or improved oversight of financial reporting.