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.     

Determinants and consequences of voluntary switches to Chinese auditors in Hong Kong

Hong Kong market regulators have permitted 12 large Chinese accounting firms to audit the financial statements of Chinese firms that cross list in Hong Kong (i.e., H-share firms) since 2010. This paper examines the characteristics of H-share firms that voluntarily replaced their Hong Kong (HK) auditors with Chinese auditors, and the market reaction to auditor switches following this policy. We find that 38 out of 147 H-share firms voluntarily switched to Chinese auditors during 2011–2013. Switching firms are larger in size and are less likely to use Big4; they also have less need for external financing, a longer cross listing history, and a lower percentage of foreign revenue. We also find that investors negatively react to the auditor switches from HK non-Big4 to China non-Big4, but do not react to the auditor switches from HK Big4 to China Big4. This suggests that investors perceived lower audit quality for China non-Big4.     

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.     

Using machine learning to predict auditor switches: How the likelihood of switching affects audit quality among non-switching clients

In this paper, we utilize machine learning techniques to identify the likelihood that a company switches auditors and examine whether increased likelihood of switching is associated with audit quality. Building on research that finds a deterioration in audit quality associated with clients that engage in audit opinion shopping, we predict and find lower audit quality among companies that are more likely to switch auditors but remain with their incumbent auditor. Specifically, we find that companies more likely to switch auditors have a higher likelihood of misstatement and larger abnormal accruals. These results are consistent with auditors sacrificing audit quality to retain clients that might otherwise switch. Our findings are especially concerning because there is no public signal of this behavior, such as an auditor switch. Our methodology is designed such that it could be implemented by investors, audit firms and regulators to identify companies with a higher probability of switching auditors and preemptively address the deterioration in audit quality.     

On Litigation Risk and Disclosure Complexity: Evidence from Canadian Firms Cross-Listed in the US

We find that D&O insurance premiums for Canadian firms cross-listed in the US are more than twice those of Canadian-only listed firms, and audit fees are approximately 50% higher. While this supports the view that both service-providers view the US as a more litigious environment, our findings also suggest that these differentials for cross-listed firms reflect premia for both litigation risk and the complexity of firms' financial disclosures. In particular, we show that D&O liability insurers charge differently for cross-listed firms that have different levels of disclosure; while D&O premiums are significantly higher for all cross-listed firms, they increase and then decrease with increased disclosure complexity. In contrast, audit fees increase monotonically as the filing complexity increases. We also find that auditors appear to price abnormal premiums charged by D&O insurers. Thus, audit fee premia for cross-listed firms appear to capture aspects of both litigation risk and increased disclosure complexity.     

Top executive gender diversity and financial reporting quality

We examine whether gender diversity of chief executive and chief financial officers (CEOs and CFOs) is associated with financial reporting quality. The CEOs and CFOs of publicly traded companies are both required to certify the appropriateness of their financial statements and annual disclosures. We argue that gender diverse dyads (groups) of executives can bring different perspectives and professional skepticism to financial reporting. Using a sample of different CEO/CFO gender dyads during 2006–2019, we postulate and find evidence of higher accruals quality among firms led by gender-diverse dyads compared to accruals quality reported by firms led by all-male CEO/CFO pairs. Additional analyses reveal that the auditors of firms with gender-diverse executive dyads issue audit reports later, charge higher audit fees, and are more likely to be one of the Big 4 firms. These findings support the view that top executive gender diversity enhances financial reporting quality, which has important implications for corporate governance mechanisms.     

The Informational Role of Short Sellers: The Evidence from Short Sellers’ Reports on US‐Listed Chinese Firms

Using US‐listed Chinese firms as the setting, this paper studies a novel channel through which investors can acquire information about firms’ financial reporting quality, that is, the reports published voluntarily by short sellers. I find that short sellers tend to target firms that have financial reporting red flags and that exhibit ‘good’ operating performance and stock valuations. Targeted firms experience an average three‐day cumulative abnormal return (CAR) of ?6.4%, and ?13.6% for initial coverage of the firm, and the CARs are more negative when the reports allege more severe misconduct of the firms. Non‐targeted firms also experience losses in value following short seller reports, especially when they hire the same non‐Big 4 auditors as targeted firms and when their earnings quality is poor. In comparison, analysts fail to perform proper due diligence and are much less effective than short sellers in exposing misreporting risk in Chinese firms.     

The adoption of international accounting standards by small and closely held companies: evidence from Bahrain

This study examines the accounting practices and the degree of adoption of international accounting standards (IASs) by small and closely held companies in Bahrain. It finds that 86% (31) of the 36 companies responding to the questionnaire applied IASs and they considered IASs to be very relevant for them. All firms prepare balance sheets, and the majority prepares income statements and cash flow statements. They also duly audit these statements. The data collected also revealed that the quotient influence on whether or not a firm adopted IAS was exerted by their external auditors. External auditors exerted the greatest influence on getting firms to adopt IASs. Banks and company partners were the primary users of company financial statements; inventories, depreciation, disclosure on financial statements, and the presentation of current assets and liabilities. The main IASs followed by a majority of firms are those pertaining so. Some of the standards were considered totally irrelevant, contrary to the prevailing idea that adoption of IASs creates an information overload for small and closely held companies. The results of this study indicate that a majority of our respondents did not find that it was costly to adopt or interpret IASs. Those few firms that experienced some difficulties sought clarification from their external auditors. About 84% of those who adopted IASs strongly agreed that using IASs improves their organization's ability to financial assistance from the banking sector. Also, about 90% of the respondents fully agreed that IASs help to achieve the objectives and improve the effectiveness of financial reporting.     

财务报表重述公司审计质量研究

以财务报表重述公司为研究对象,考察财务报表重述公司年报审计质量。结果表明:财务报表重述的幅度对非标审计意见的出具有显著的影响力;初始差错年和报表重述年,注册会计师都能在一定程度上识别上市公司的盈余管理动机,并在审计意见中有所反映;审计师任期和对财务报表重述公司出具非标审计意见之间没有显著的相关性;事务所规模和非标审计意见的相关性并不显著,结论没有支持大事务所更有可能对重述公司出具非标审计意见。     

Are non‐audit services associated with firm value? Evidence from financial information system‐related services

The purchase of non‐audit services from incumbent auditors has generated considerable attention. Surprisingly, limited empirical evidence exists on the association of non‐audit services with firm value. Focusing on services related to financial information system (FIS), we find that the market value of equity is greater for firms that purchase FIS‐related services from their incumbent auditors relative to firms that do not. The levels of FIS fees are also positively related to firm value after controlling for total other fees, or total other non‐audit fees. Hence, despite the negative perception associated with non‐audit services, investors regard FIS‐related services as value‐adding activities.     

Auditor Independence: A Nonparametric Test of Differences Across the Big‐5 Public Accounting Firms

This small sample study provides additional evidence on the unsettled question of auditor independence: Does the provision of non‐audit services by an auditor compromise independence resulting in a poor quality audit? We also examine whether these findings vary across the “Big‐5” public accounting firms. Most prior studies addressing this question, using parametric approaches and various measures of audit quality, have reported conflicting results. Contrary to these studies, we use a non‐parametric approach and the probability of GAAP violation as a new measure of audit quality to address this question. Using data from a sample of Fortune 500 companies for the year 2000, we find that firms whose auditors provide substantial non‐audit services tend to have a higher propensity to violate GAAP. At the firm‐level analysis, we find that these results are more likely driven by few of the Big‐5 public accounting firms. For the remaining firms, the association between non‐audit services and quality of audit could not be established, primarily because of small sample size and lack of power in the test. Our main finding is consistent with other recent studies that provide evidence that the rendering of significant non‐audit services by auditors creates conflict of interest resulting in poor quality audits. Furthermore, our result of differences in these levels of association among the Big‐5 accounting firms represents a new finding, and suggests that there is a need for controlling them separately in research studies examining auditor independence.     

The Effect of IPO Risks on Auditors’ Decisions: Auditor Designation Case

This study examines the effect of audit risks in the Korean initial public offering (IPO) market on the designated auditors’ decisions. The Korean External Audit Act requires firms to switch from incumbent to new auditors designated by the Securities and Futures Commission after the firm announces a future IPO. This study shows the effects of audit risks by examining if the quality of reported earnings and audit fees significantly differs between IPO‐eligible and IPO‐ineligible firms. Empirical tests first show that discretionary accruals are significantly lower for IPO‐ineligible firms than for IPO‐eligible firms in both the IPO designation period and the following review period. We interpret this result to mean that designated auditors evaluate the IPO‐ineligible (and eventually failed) firms’ listing possibility as low. Second, audit fees are higher for IPO‐ineligible firms in the auditor designation period. This reflects the fact that designated auditors are exposed to future audit risks associated with firms’ post‐IPO financial market troubles if IPO‐ineligible firms attempt to go public. Our study contributes to IPO‐related research by showing the effects of auditors’ risk evaluation on discretionary accruals and audit fees. This study also contributes to accounting policymaking regarding auditor independence.     

Alternative perspectives to deal with auditors’ agency problem

Auditors’ agency problem stems from the mechanism according to which auditors (the agents) are being appointed to companies and paid for their services by the managements they audit (the principals). This mechanism creates an inherent conflict of interests for auditors. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was enacted as part of the efforts to strengthen auditors’ independence and mitigate the effect managements have on their auditors. However, the Act has been, and still is criticized for deficiencies embedded in its provisions. This paper presents an alternative regulatory framework for auditors based on analysis of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provisions related to auditors and of other perspectives to deal with auditors’ agency problem from previous studies. The proposed framework aims to decrease the ability and incentives of both managements and auditors to collaborate in financial statement fraud. Under the premise that auditors need to function in a framework that discourages immoral behavior, the main provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act related to auditors’ independence are addressed, requiring audit-firm rotation instead of audit-partner rotation, and expending the time-window between provision of audit and non-audit services. In addition, it is proposed that retiring audit firms accompany “entering” audit firms until completion of the first annual financial statement audit and that audit fees will be scrutinized by the SEC.     

The value of Big 4 audits in Australia

Research suggests that equity markets value Big N audits over non‐Big N audits. Explanations include the information quality hypothesis, whereby Big N auditors increase information quality, and the insurance hypothesis, whereby investors value the deeper pockets of Big N auditors. Using client firms’ex ante cost of capital as the dependent variable, we investigate whether capital market participants differentially value Big 4 versus non‐Big 4 audits in Australia and whether the value of Big 4 audits in Australia changed as a result of the audit failures of 2001–2002. We find that Big 4 audits reduce the ex ante cost of equity capital until 2001, but not after 2001. We cannot dismiss the insurance hypothesis for the persistence of the loss beyond 2003 because of the establishment of liability caps, but the demise of the Big 4 audit value for 2001–2003 is consistent with the information quality hypothesis and does not support the insurance hypothesis.     

Code of ethics quality and audit fees

Using a sample of U.S. firms from 2003 to 2018, we examine the effect of an audit client’s code of ethics quality on audit fees. We find that clients with a lower code of ethics quality pay significantly higher audit fees, suggesting that auditors perceive such clients as riskier and charge greater risk premiums. We also find that such clients have higher litigation risk and auditors spend greater effort when auditing such clients. Our study is among the first to demonstrate the role of a client’s code of ethics quality in audit pricing. Overall, our findings are consistent with codes of ethics being useful to auditors in assessing managers’ financial representations and providing value to firms.     

Non-audit services, auditor quality and the value relevance of earnings

This paper tests the hypothesis that there is an inverse relation between non‐audit services (NAS) provided by a firm auditor and the value relevance of earnings (measured as the earnings response coefficient) and that this relation is weaker for firms with Big 6 auditors. The hypothesis is based on anecdotal evidence and previous research that suggests that the provision of NAS by the external auditor is likely to adversely affect investors’ perceptions of the credibility of financial reports, and that Big 6 auditors, because of reputational capital and litigation costs, are likely to mitigate the adverse effects of NAS. Results using 840 firm‐year observations of Australian companies document a statistically significant inverse relationship between NAS and the value relevance of earnings, and this inverse relationship is weaker for Big 6 auditors, therefore supporting the hypothesis.     

Japanese stock market reaction to announcements of news affecting auditors’ reputation: The case of the Olympus fraud

The revelation of accounting fraud by the Olympus Corporation gave rise to shareholder allegations of audit failure against Olympus’ auditors—Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC and KPMG AZSA LLC—in 2011. In this study, we investigate whether the auditors’ affiliation with Olympus contributes to divergent perceptions of audit quality in the event of news announcements affecting the reputation of Olympus’ auditors. First, we use a nonparametric generalized rank event study methodology on 918 sample firms from the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) to observe Japanese investors’ perceptions of auditor reputation as proxied by abnormal returns. Second, we perform a multivariate linear regression on firms’ abnormal returns after controlling for firm-specific variables. We find that Japanese investors do not respond to negative or neutral reputational information arising from news announcements concerning Olympus’ auditors for firms affiliated and not affiliated with those auditors. In the absence of legal penalties imposed on Olympus’ auditors, we argue that Japanese investors consider the Olympus fraud case as an expected occurrence of audit failure due to a lack of evidence suggesting systematic audit failure on the part of Olympus’ auditors and an expectation of lower audit quality in the Japanese capital market. As a result, Japanese investors do not consider news announcements affecting the Olympus auditors’ reputation as sufficient evidence to change their prior expectation regarding the reputations of the audit firms affiliated with the Olympus fraud case.     

Does Opinion Shopping Impair Auditor Independence and Audit Quality?

This study investigates how companies' threats to dismiss auditors and their engagement in opinion shopping influence auditor independence and audit quality, which in turn affect misstatements in financial statements. It also examines how outsiders' reactions to auditor switching influence opinion shopping. The results indicate that neither the predecessor auditor's nor the successor auditor's independence is compromised by dismissal threats and opinion shopping. Further, the successor auditor's audit quality exceeds the predecessor auditor's audit quality. In addition, auditor switching decreases potential understatements and increases potential overstatements in financial statements, and the capital market's and the successor auditor's reactions to auditor switching reduce the benefits of opinion shopping to companies. Additionally, the study sheds some light on the potential effects of both the Sarbanes‐Oxley's restriction on non‐audit services and mandatory auditor rotation or retention. The paper also derives a rich set of empirical implications.     

Economic consequences of SFAS 142 goodwill write‐offs

This paper examines the economic consequences of goodwill write‐offs under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 (SFAS 142). Although write‐off firms have performed poorly, it is evident that deteriorating economic performance explains only a small proportion of write‐offs. After controlling for endogeneity of write‐off choice, I fail to find evidence that investors and analysts fixate on SFAS 142 goodwill write‐offs. I also provide evidence that write‐off firms pay higher audit fees, suggesting that auditors charge higher fees in response to extra audit effort. These results are consistent with the principles of market efficiency, analyst‐forecast rationality and efficient audit pricing.     

Audit Adjustments and Public Sector Audit Quality

In the context of austerity-inspired reforms to public audit in England we investigate the extent to which audit firms mitigate management bias in public sector financial reports. A substantial body of literature finds that both public and not-for-profit managers manage ‘earnings’ to report small surpluses close to zero by managing deficits upwards and surpluses downwards. Under agency theory, auditors acting in the interests of their principal(s) would tend to reverse this bias. We exploit privileged access to pre-audit financial statements in the setting of the English National Health Service (NHS) to investigate the impact of audit adjustments on the pre-audit financial statements of English NHS Foundation Trusts over the period 2010–2011 to 2014–2015. We find evidence that auditors act to reverse management bias in the case of Trusts with a pre-audit deficit, but find no evidence that this is the case for Trusts with a pre-audit surplus. In the case of Trusts in surplus, these findings are consistent with auditors’ interests being aligned with management, rather than principals.