Institutional investor inattention and audit quality

We hypothesize and provide empirical evidence that higher institutional investor inattention is associated with lower audit quality. We employ an inattention measure that captures the extent to which institutional investors are distracted by attention-grabbing events irrelevant to the focal firm. Results suggest that a higher degree of institutional investor inattention is associated with a lower propensity of a going-concern opinion, a lower probability of the auditor reporting a material internal control weakness, and a higher likelihood of the audit client misstating the financial statements. Further analyses show that these associations vary by auditor litigation risk, their workload pressure, auditor industry expertise, and analyst coverage. Overall, our findings reveal that while institutional investors play an important monitoring role, the distractions they face undermine the quality of monitoring they provide.     

制度环境、审计供求与审计治理——基于我国证券市场中审计师变更问题的实证分析

本文基于我国证券市场中审计师变更问题这一动态视角考察了制度环境对外部审计治理的影响。通过研究,我们发现:首先,在制度环境发展相对落后的地区,上市公司频繁更换审计师的现象更严重;其次,在制度环境发展相对较好的地区,上市公司更可能发生审计师升级变更,表明其对高质量审计服务的需求;第三,在制度环境发展较差的地区,由于诉讼风险和诉讼成本较低,继任审计师为了获得审计客户更容易发生变通审计意见的行为,说明审计师难以发挥其外部治理的功能进而弥补制度环境的缺陷。本文的研究发现说明制度环境同时影响审计需求和审计供给两方面的行为表现,并支持了制度环境与外部审计治理是相互促进的关系。     

事务所规模、审计行业专长与知情交易概率

外部审计的作用在于提高公司的信息披露透明度,减少信息不对称,以保护投资者利益。本文从知情交易概率视角出发,研究了外部审计在减少信息不对称方面所发挥的作用。研究结果发现,国内"十大"审计的公司,以及由具有审计行业专长的事务所审计的公司,知情交易概率更低,而且行业专长的国内十大(非十大)审计的公司的知情交易概率也低于不具有行业专长的国内十大(非十大)。进一步检验还表明,在机构投资者持股的公司中,事务所规模和审计行业专长能够更有效减少知情交易概率。     

Disclosure of fair value measurement in goodwill impairment test and audit fees

Recent increases in the occurrence and magnitude of goodwill impairment charges highlight the increasing importance of the role of the auditor in goodwill accounting. This study examines the association between disclosures about the fair value measurement of goodwill and audit fees. We find that goodwill-related disclosures are positively related to audit fees, consistent with the idea that auditors increase their audit efforts to mitigate potential reputational and litigation losses (“audit risk effect”). Additionally, our results indicate that the information asymmetry and investor scrutiny moderate the association between goodwill-related disclosures and audit fees. One possible explanation is that auditors take goodwill-related disclosures as a signal of truthful goodwill accounting and this “signaling effect” partially offsets the “audit risk effect” of goodwill-related disclosures when information asymmetry or investor scrutiny is perceived as high.     

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.     

制度变迁、集团客户重要性与非标准审计意见

客户重要性是否影响审计师独立性,是审计理论界和实务界都非常关注的话题。本文以企业集团作为一个整体来研究集团客户重要性对审计师独立性的影响,发现集团客户经济依赖性会损害审计师的独立性,这种现象对于小规模事务所而言尤为严重。此外,本文还进一步考察了2007年新会计准则、审计准则及事务所民事诉讼风险加强等制度环境变化对审计师行为的影响。研究发现,在制度环境改善之后,审计师执业总体上变得更加谨慎,大规模事务所尤其如此。     

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.     

机构投资者股权对银行公司治理与绩效的影响

在机构投资者对银行进行投资时,不同类型的机构投资者具有不同的表现.其中,QFII、证券公司、社保和保险基金都能影响银行的公司治理,促进其综合业绩的提高;证券投资基金和企业不能对这两个方面产生显著影响.在选择银行股时,证券投资基金注重银行过去综合业绩的表现,企业、社保基金和保险基金注重银行过去市场价值的增长,QFII和证券公司同时考虑了这两个方面.实行银行股权全流通,放松时机构投资者的管制,改革证券交易方面的税收制度,培养机构投资者的投资理念,有利于发挥机构投资者对银行公司治理的积极作用.     

Institutional Ownership and the Selection of Industry Specialist Auditors

This study provides evidence linking corporate governance mechanisms to the choice of auditor, namely industry specialists. Given that institutional investors are likely to prefer higher quality financial reports to lower quality reports, we theorize that institutional investors will influence managers of companies in which they invest to improve reporting quality by using higher quality, industry specialist auditors. Our findings indicate that firms having relatively greater levels of institutional ownership tend to employ industry specialist audit firms. The results of this study contribute to an understanding of an important facet of corporate governance, the selection of a high quality audit firm.     

Auditor Selection: What Influences Decisions by Listed Companies?

Major business failures, including Enron and World Com in the United States and Harris Scarfe and HIH in Australia, and related alleged audit failures, have put the choice of auditor on the agenda. The choice of the "right" auditor has economic consequences for an auditee and implications for corporate governance. This paper discusses factors important to explaining auditor choice, including institutional factors (pertaining to the auditee and auditor) and newer emerging criteria as well as networking between directors and auditors. The paper discusses the relevant research and the policy implications for good corporate governance of auditor choice in publicly listed companies.     

Litigation risk,financial reporting and auditing: A survey of the literature

This paper surveys the literature on the determinants and consequences of securities class action lawsuits against firms and auditors from a financial reporting quality perspective. The survey is motivated by the important role that law plays in protecting stakeholders' interests against managerial misdeed. Litigation is, thus, an important topic and numerous studies investigate the determinants and consequences of firm and auditor lawsuits. The underlying premise of these studies is built on the notion that large financial and reputational penalties associated with successful securities class actions can discipline management and deter them from future wrongdoing. The survey documents that poor quality financial reporting as evidenced in earnings restatements has been the primary antecedent for class action lawsuits against the firm and auditors. Lawsuits against auditors affect audit fees, audit planning decisions and client portfolio adjustment decisions. Although significant progress has been made in terms of further understanding the causes and consequences of litigation against auditors, major challenges remain in the area of proper measurement of litigation risk.     

Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States

To what degree are audit fees for U.S. firms with publicly traded equity higher than fees for otherwise similar firms with private equity? The answer is potentially important for evaluating regulatory regime design efficiency and for understanding audit demand and production economics. For U.S. firms with publicly traded debt, we hold constant the regulatory regime, including mandated issuer reporting and auditor responsibilities. We vary equity ownership and thus public securities market contextual factors, including any related public firm audit fees from increased audit effort to reduce audit litigation risk and/or pure litigation risk premium (litigation channel effects). In cross‐section, we find that audit fees for public equity firms are 20–22% higher than fees for otherwise similar private equity firms. Time‐series comparisons for firms that change ownership status yield larger percentage fee increases (decreases) for those going public (private). Results are consistent with litigation channel effects giving rise to substantial incremental audit fees for U.S. firms with public equity ownership.     

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.     

How Do Various Forms of Auditor Rotation Affect Audit Quality? Evidence from China

The Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal has raised concerns internationally about auditor independence, audit quality, and the need for regulatory action such as mandatory auditor rotation. China's unique institutional features provide a setting in which we can compare comprehensively the various forms of auditor rotation at different levels (partner vs. firm) and in different settings (voluntary vs. mandatory). In addition, institutional conditions vary dramatically across China, which provides us with an opportunity to test whether the development of market and legal institutions affects the impact of rotation on audit quality. We expect that auditors are less (more) constrained by market forces and less (more) self-disciplined to maintain audit quality in regions with less (more) developed market and legal institutions. Therefore, mandatory rotation may play a more (less) important role in less (more) developed regions. Using auditors' propensity to issue a modified audit opinion (MAO) as a proxy for audit quality, we find that firms with mandatory audit partner rotations are associated with a significantly higher likelihood of an MAO than are no-rotation firms. However, this effect is restricted to firms located in less developed regions. We find similar evidence for voluntary audit firm rotation although the significance level is much weaker than for mandatory partner rotation. Other forms of auditor rotations (i.e., mandatory audit firm rotation and voluntary audit partner rotation), have no effect on MAOs.     

Corporate governance and incidences of listing suspension by the JSE Securities Exchange of South Africa: An empirical analysis

We examine the association between corporate governance structures and incidences of listing suspension from the JSE Securities Exchange of South Africa. Using a matched-pairs research design, we compare 81 firms suspended between 1999 and 2005 to an equal number of control firms matched in terms of time, size and industry. Employing a conditional logistic model, we find that the likelihood of suspension is higher in firms with a smaller proportion of non-executive directors, without an audit committee, and with greater block-share ownership and higher gearing (i.e. leverage). Further analysis splitting block-share ownership into institutional and non-institutional investors provides mixed results. While we find a positive association between suspension and non-institutional investors, we observe no association with institutional investors. No association is detected for board size, role duality, directors' share ownership, auditor quality and return on assets. Given the paucity of studies examining listing suspension from stock exchanges and corporate governance mechanisms, these findings contribute to the literature. Additionally, the dearth of research on corporate governance in developing countries suggests that our findings have important implications for policy makers in these countries as they endeavor to improve corporate governance.     

Do the Big 4 and the Second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality?

In this paper, we examine audit quality for Big 4 and Second-tier auditors during 2003–2006. We utilize the auditor’s propensity to issue a going concern audit report for distressed clients as a measure of audit quality. In addition, since the purpose of an audit is to improve financial reporting quality, we utilize abnormal accruals as an observable proxy for audit quality. Further, we utilize the client- and year-specific ex ante equity risk premium as a proxy for audit quality as perceived by investors. We control for auditor self-selection bias using the matched-pairs sample approach discussed by Francis and Lennox (2008). We find weak evidence that the Big 4 have a higher propensity to issue going concern audit opinions for distressed companies. However, the level of performance-adjusted abnormal accruals for Big 4 and Second-tier audit firm clients appears to be similar. With respect to investor perceptions, we find the client-specific ex ante equity risk premium to be lower for Big 4 clients than for Second-tier audit firm clients. Overall, our findings suggest little difference in actual audit quality but a more pronounced difference in perceived audit quality. Collectively, the evidence we provide informs the current discourse on audit quality, auditor choice, and the viability of Second-tier auditors as an alternative to the Big 4.     

Non-audit fees, institutional monitoring, and audit quality

We posit that the effect of non-audit fees on audit quality is conditional on the extent of institutional monitoring. We suggest that institutional investors have incentives and the ability to monitor financial reporting quality. Because of the reputation concerns and potential litigation exposure, auditors are likely to provide high audit quality, when they also provide non-audit services to clients, particularly when clients are subject to high institutional monitoring. We find evidence that, as non-audit fees increase, audit quality (measured by performance-adjusted discretionary current accruals and earnings-response coefficients) reduces only for clients with low institutional ownership but not for clients with high institutional ownership. Our results are robust after controlling for auditor industry specialization, firms’ operating volatility, size effect, and potential endogeneity between institutional ownership and audit quality.     

Audit quality,accruals quality and the cost of equity in an emerging market: Evidence from Vietnam

This study explores the relationship between audit quality, accruals quality, and the cost of equity in the context of Vietnam. Particularly, we examine the impact of auditor size and accruals quality on the industry-adjusted earnings – price ratio. Using a sample of Vietnamese listed companies, the study shows that firms audited by a Big Four auditor are associated with a lower cost of equity than firms with a non-Big Four auditor. The results indicate that the auditors' information role is more relevant than the insurance role in a civil law context with a relatively low auditor litigation risk. In addition, the findings show that companies with better accruals quality are associated with a lower cost of equity. The study has implications for managers and regulators. The findings highlight the importance of ensuring sound auditing practices and maintaining high-quality financial reporting for corporations.     

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.     

Audit committee diligence around initial audit engagement

Studies focusing on governance mechanisms argue that auditor monitoring is one of several governance mechanisms that exist in the firm, and these mechanisms supplement each other. Extending this argument, I examine whether firms support auditor monitoring with audit committee monitoring when auditor oversight is deemed to be weak. Prior auditing literature argues that audit quality is affected by auditors' lack of familiarity with their clients' activities. Since lack of auditor–client familiarity exists in the first year of auditor–client tenure, I examine whether firms increase their audit committee monitoring during the year of auditor change. For a sample of firms that changed auditors between 2006 and 2012, the findings show that audit committees meet more frequently in the first year of audit engagement. Further tests show that firms' past reporting behavior play a significant role in the demand for more audit committee meetings and the increase in the audit committee meetings in the initial year of auditor engagement positively affects reporting quality.