The influence of litigation risk and internal audit source on reliance decisions

External auditor reliance on the work of internal auditors in an integrated audit of the financial statements and internal control is an important audit planning procedure that can impact audit efficiency and effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to examine how perceived auditor litigation risk and internal audit source affect external auditors' reliance decisions in an integrated audit environment under varying levels of risk of material misstatement. In an experimental study using 89 practicing Big 4 auditors, this study finds that auditors who perceive low litigation risk from placing reliance on the work of internal auditors will rely more on outsourced internal auditors than in-house internal auditors. The results also show that auditors' reliance decisions are sensitive to the level of account risk consistent with the risk-based approach to the integrated audit encouraged by the PCAOB.     

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.     

External auditors' willingness to rely on the work of internal auditors: The influence of work style and barriers to cooperation

The extent to which external auditors rely on the work of internal auditors is an important judgment. Recently, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has recommended that external auditors “rely (more) on the work of others” to reduce the greater-than-expected costs associated with compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. Reliance decisions, however, are complex decision tasks that require professional judgment and may be influenced by a number of factors, both external (environmental) and internal (cognitive and affective), including the auditors' working style and pervious experiences related to barriers to external/internal auditor cooperation (e.g., previously experienced low versus high internal auditor objectivity and/or competence). We experimentally examine these influences in our research reported herein. Consistent with expectations, external auditors' work styles significantly influenced the extent of planned audit testing, internal auditor reliance judgments, and interpretation of analytical procedures results. Auditors' perceptions about internal auditors' competence and objectivity, developed over years of interaction, also influenced these judgments, and interacted with work styles. Inconsistent with expectations, auditor rank (senior versus manager) did not influence judgments.     

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.     

Internal auditors’ use of interpersonal likability,arguments, and accounting information in a corporate governance setting

Internal auditors play an important role in influencing managers’ judgments. Yet, the practitioner literature indicates that, because internal audit lacks the client services incentives of external audit, internal auditors often adopt a “policeman approach” that can lead to negative interpersonal relationships with managers. We investigate three variables fundamental to internal auditors’ ability to influence managers: (1) internal auditors’ interpersonal likability, (2) the information used to support their positions, and (3) whether they present that information in a thematically organized argument. We find that managers agree more with an internal auditor who is both likable and uses a thematically organized argument. We find further that this joint effect occurs regardless of whether the internal auditor’s information is relatively supportive or unsupportive of his position. Overall, our theory and findings suggest that an internal auditor can achieve agreement from managers on important corporate governance issues with this fairly straightforward presentation tactic, even when the underlying information is relatively unsupportive and managers otherwise tend not to agree with the internal auditor’s position. Our study contributes to accounting, psychology, and writing and discourse theories with new evidence of the effects of an argument structure (holding the underlying information constant) on users’ judgments, and how those effects depend on the likability of the source of information. Our findings have important implications for internal auditors, managers, external auditors, and others interested in corporate governance.     

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.     

Auditors and the post-2002 litigation environment

In the wake of the disclosure of Enron and WorldCom and other dramatic financial reporting frauds, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act was passed on July 30, 2002. Thus, 2002 was a watershed year for auditors. Audits performed after the passage of Sarbanes–Oxley began to be reflected in litigation filed in 2003. Analysis of 1169 lawsuits filed between 2001 and 2008 finds that auditor litigation severity decreased in the lawsuits filed after 2002. Analysis of a reduced sample of 1017 lawsuits – where dollar resolution amounts are available – shows that the magnitude of auditor dollar resolution amounts decreased in the lawsuits filed after 2002. Thus, auditor liability risk decreased after 2002.     

The influence of auditor narcissism and moral disengagement on risk assessments of a narcissistic client CFO

Global capital markets rely heavily on independent and skeptical auditors as gatekeepers to provide assurance that corporate financial reports are free of material fraud. The rise of narcissism among the ranks of both client and audit professionals challenge this gatekeeper function. In addition, auditor moral disengagement may undermine auditor skepticism, further eroding public confidence in the integrity of financial reporting and the audit process. We conduct a quasi-experiment with 118 auditors from three international audit firms. In a simulated interview with a client CFO, we examine whether auditors underestimate risks of fraudulent financial statements due to the interactive effects of (1) client narcissism (manipulated verbally and nonverbally) and (2) auditor narcissism. We also examine the influence of auditor moral disengagement on client risk assessments. Results indicate that CFO verbal and nonverbal narcissism significantly influenced auditors’ assessment of management-related client risk. Moreover, auditor narcissism was found to interactively influence client risk inferences such that auditors higher in narcissism exhibited narcissistic tolerance (lower risk assessments) when the hypothetical CFO displayed high verbal narcissism. Auditor moral disengagement was negatively associated with client risk assessments. We discuss the implication of these findings on future audit judgment research, audit firm policy and training on maintaining auditor skepticism, and the audit oversight role of standard-setters.     

Auditor litigation: Evidence that revenue restatements are determinative

This study extends the Palmrose and Scholz (2004) general litigation and general restatements study by focusing on auditor litigation and revenue restatements. We investigate all potential accounting issues, individually, instead of by their group method, with regard to auditor litigation. The impact of the individual accounting issues implicated in restatements is of concern to auditors and audit standard setters in gauging auditor litigation risk and audit risk. It also is important for financial analysis and securities valuation because investors' losses are greater, and recovery of losses on a percentage basis is lower, when the auditor is a defendant, and especially when the auditor has a more severe, negative litigation experience (Commolli et al., 2012). We examine financial reporting lawsuits filed from 2001 to 2008 and find that revenue restatements—far more than any other kind of restatements—are associated with auditors being named defendants and also auditors experiencing a more severe, negative outcome in the litigation.     

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.     

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.     

An Empirical Investigation of the Interface Between Internal and External Auditors

Professional standards place specific responsibilities on auditors for the discovery of material mis-statements in reports of corporate financial performance. Certain factors have been shown to increase the likelihood of fraudulent financial reporting. One warning sign is the potentially pervasive effect of a weak internal control environment consistent with a weak internal audit group. This study investigates the impact of internal audit department quality differences on auditors ‘willingness to place reliance on the work performed by internal auditors. The study also gives consideration to auditors’ recent experiences with material errors and irregularities and examines the influence of two previously untested individual auditor differences on audit judgment decisions: (1) conflict management style and (2) perception of internal/external auditor communication barriers. The results indicate that auditors attend to internal audit department quality differences and that individual auditor differences exhibit significant influence over auditor judgments. Implications for audit practice are considered and directions for future research are suggested.     

External auditors’ reliance on internal audit: the impact of sourcing arrangements and consulting activities

This study examines the impact of internal audit outsourcing and involvement in consulting on external auditors’ reliance on the work of internal audit. We test whether these factors influence reliance on internal audit work already undertaken and the use of internal auditors as assistants, distinguishing between control evaluation and substantive testing. Involvement in consulting impacts reliance on work undertaken and the use of internal auditors as assistants for control evaluation. External auditors make greater use of internal auditors as assistants for substantive testing when internal audit is provided in‐house. Overall, external auditors use internal audit more for control evaluation tasks.     

Implications Of the AWA Decision For External Auditors, Internal Auditors And Management

The decision in AWA Ltd v Daniels has important implications for auditors, directors and other professionals providing accounting services to clients. Previously, where the external auditor had been negligent, Australian courts awarded full damages against the auditor in favour of the plaintiff In AWA, a defence of contributory negligence succeeded and damages were apportioned between the company and the external auditor. Also, the auditor succeeded in a claim for contribution against the chief executive officer. This paper analyses the implications of the AWA decision for internal and external auditors and management. It examines issues related to contributory negligence and contribution. These issues are important in the light of recent discussion about reform of the law concerning "proportional" liability.     

The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors’ risk assessments and mental models

As the audit environment becomes more demanding and complex, so does the set of analytical tools available to an auditor. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of two complex audit technologies commonly used by auditors, benchmarking of performance measures and strategic analysis, on the risk judgments of auditors carrying out the initial planning of an audit. We conduct an experiment that utilizes a Balanced Scorecard for organizing and evaluating analytical evidence about the performance of business units within a large client. Our first principal finding is that external benchmarking can cause an auditor to focus on performance measures that are unique to a business unit and disregard performance measures that are common to multiple business units but not benchmarked. However, our second finding is that an in-depth strategic analysis completed prior to assessing a client’s business risk or risk of material misstatement allows an auditor to incorporate more information from performance measures in risk assessments regardless of whether the performance measures are benchmarked. Strategic analysis facilitates a more balanced and accurate assessment of the risks across the business units being evaluated. We also provide evidence that the latter result occurs because in-depth strategic analysis allows auditors to develop a more complete mental model of a client, which has been a long time belief of advocates of business risk audit methodologies and consistent with current and emerging auditing standards on risk assessment.     

The effect of mandatory auditor assignment and non-audit service on audit fees: Evidence from Korea

In Korea, regulators could assign auditors to firms. We investigate the relationship among audit fees, mandatory auditor assignment, and the joint provision of non-audit and auditor services in Korea. We find that assigned auditors charge significantly higher audit fees than freely selected auditors. We also find that the joint provision of non-audit and audit services does intensify the relation between auditor assignment and audit fees. Combined with the results of other studies that have shown that firms audited by assigned auditors report smaller amounts of discretionary accruals than firms audited by freely selected auditors, our results suggest the possibility that mandatory auditor assignment may improve auditor independence.     

Effect of audit report disclosure on auditor litigation risk

Internationally, the escalating number of cases levelled against auditors and the costs of defending such actions has led to the auditing profession calling for measures to reduce their liability burden. Relatively few measures have been taken by the auditing profession by way of adapting the disclosure contained in the audit report to mitigate their litigation risk. This study examines whether the issuance of an audit opinion with a going concern related ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph or work practices disclosure has any effect on potential litigants' likelihood of pursuing litigation against the auditor. An analysis of 69 responses from advanced law students and 18 practitioners working in corporate liquidation demonstrate that a modified (but not qualified) audit report effectively acts as a ‘red flag’ and reduces potential litigants' propensity to initiate litigation. However, work practices disclosure did not significantly alter potential litigants' inclination to recommend litigation. Despite this finding, respondents (particularly liquidators) indicated that work practices disclosure was an important factor in their litigation decision. These results suggest that further investigation into how to effectively disclose the work done on audit and assurance engagements is needed. This has implications for standard setters and the auditing profession, especially considering recent changes in the disclosure contained in audit and assurance reports.     

Optimism and auditor liability

There is strong evidence that individuals are optimistic in the sense that they underrate the probability of a negative event occurring. This paper provides a positive theoretical analysis of how auditor optimism affects their incentives to take care under two liability rules: strict liability and a negligence rule. Under strict liability, auditors are held liable when they cause damages to investors. Under a negligence rule, auditors are held liable when they cause damages and in addition, act negligently, that is, fail to meet the standard of due care specified in legal and professional rules. I find the following results. (1) If due care is sufficiently close to the efficient level, a negligence rule distorts auditors’ incentives less than strict liability. Under strict liability, optimism makes the auditor overestimate the chances of finding material mistakes and thus induces suboptimal care. (2) If due care is too strict, the auditor will not exert due care but the same level of suboptimal care under either liability rule. (3) With increasing optimism and in the absence of punitive damages, strict liability becomes less preferable to a precise negligence rule. This statement also holds for vaguely defined standards of due care if due care is sufficiently strict or if auditor optimism is sufficiently high. (4) Punitive damages counteract suboptimal incentives generated by auditor optimism, especially under strict liability.     

Ownership Concentration in Privatized Firms: The Role of Disclosure Standards, Auditor Choice, and Auditing Infrastructure

We rely on a unique data set to estimate the impact of disclosure standards and auditor‐related characteristics on ownership concentration in 190 privatized firms from 31 countries. Accounting transparency can help alleviate the agency conflict between minority investors and controlling shareholders, which is evident in the extent of ownership concentration, since the expropriation of corporate resources hinges on these private benefits remaining hidden. After controlling for other country‐level and firm‐level determinants, we find weak (no) evidence that extensive disclosure standards (auditor choice) reduce ownership concentration. In contrast, we report strong, robust evidence that ownership concentration is lower in countries with securities laws that specify a lower burden of proof in civil and criminal litigation against auditors, consistent with Ball's [2001] predictions. Collectively, our research implies that minority investors worldwide value legal institutions that discipline auditors in the event of financial reporting failure over both the presence of a Big 5 auditor and better disclosure standards. Re‐estimating our regressions on a broad sample of western European public firms provides similar evidence on all of our predictions.     

Audit Quality and Auditor Size: An Evaluation of Reputation and Deep Pockets Hypotheses

Empirical studies have shown that large auditors are more accurate than small auditors. The reputation hypothesis states that large auditors have more incentive to be accurate because an inaccurate report may lead to a loss of client-specific rents (DeAngelo, 1981). The deep pockets hypothesis states that large auditors should be more accurate because they have greater wealth at risk from litigation (Dye, 1993). This paper presents evidence on the relationship between auditor size and litigation and on the market shares of criticised and uncriticised auditors – the findings give greater support to the deep pockets hypothesis than the reputation hypothesis.