Accounting misstatements following lawsuits against auditors

This study investigates whether an auditor's experience of litigation in the recent past affects subsequent financial reporting quality. At the audit firm level, we find accounting misstatements occur significantly less (more) often after audit firms are sued (not sued). At the audit office level, the negative association between past litigation and future misstatements is stronger for offices who were directly implicated in the litigation than for the non-accused offices of sued audit firms. Therefore, the litigation experiences of both audit firms and audit offices are incrementally significant predictors of future financial reporting quality.     

会计师事务所的地区竞争优势与审计质量

本文研究会计师事务所的地区竞争优势与审计质量之间的关系。文章以2002—2009年为样本区间,以会计师事务所在某一地区的市场份额来衡量其地区竞争优势,以操纵性应计的绝对值和正向、负向水平衡量审计质量。研究发现,会计师事务所的地区竞争优势越大,操纵性应计的绝对值以及正向应计的水平越低,而会计师事务所的地区竞争优势对于负向应计的影响程度较弱。本文的研究表明,会计师的地区竞争优势越大,审计质量越高。     

Auditor health and audit outcomes before COVID-19

This study examines whether influenza-like illnesses (ILIs), a potential threat to the conduct of public company audits, are associated with audit outcomes. Because the peak months of flu season overlap with audit busy season, audit offices most at risk of ILIs may be adversely affected. The demanding nature of audit busy season and the culture of audit firms may compel employees to go to work sick, a phenomenon known as presenteeism. When auditors go to work with flu-like symptoms, cognitive functioning is impaired, resulting in brain fog. This impairment may influence auditors’ ability to exercise judgment and professional skepticism, leading to adverse outcomes. Using data collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) we find that the filing of audit reports is delayed and audit quality suffers in audit offices most at risk of influenza-like-illnesses. The observed effects of health impairments on company outputs have broad implications for both the audit profession and workplaces as a whole.     

会计师事务所人力资本特征与审计质量——来自中国资本市场的经验证据

人力资本在会计师事务所中具有十分重要的意义。本文利用2009年我国会计师事务所及其非金融类上市公司客户的数据,以操控性应计额度量审计质量,检验会计师事务所中注册会计师所占比重以及注册会计师的学历、年龄、参加行业领军人才培训情况等人力资本特征对审计质量的影响,结果发现,在我国本土事务所中,注册会计师的年龄以及入选行业领军人才培训计划的人数与正向的操控性应计额之间存在显著的负向关系,这表明,会计师事务所中注册会计师的经验丰富程度和对培训的重视程度对于抑制客户的正向盈余管理行为、提高审计质量具有积极作用。文章没有发现会计师事务所中注册会计师的比重以及注册会计师中高学历者所占比重与审计质量之间存在显著关系的证据。     

From joint to single audits – audit quality differences and auditor pairings

This study analyses audit quality differences between audits by a single big audit firm and joint audits with either one or two big audit firms. We exploit the unique situation in Denmark beginning on 1 January 2005, at which time a long-standing mandatory joint audit system for listed companies was replaced by a voluntary joint audit system. First, we report the results of a survey of Danish CFOs’ views on and their experiences with the choice of single or joint audits and their perceptions of audit quality. Second, based on data from the mandatory joint audit abolition year and the following two years, we test the audit quality differences using abnormal accruals. Most CFOs perceive that audit quality by a single big four audit firm is the same as it is in joint audits with either one or two big four audit firms. The results of our empirical analysis are in line with the perceptions. We find no evidence of audit quality differences between audits made by a single big four firm and those conducted by either of the two combinations of joint audits.     

Audit office size,audit quality and audit pricing: evidence from small- and medium-sized enterprises

Using Swedish data, we investigate how audit quality and audit pricing vary with audit firm and office size. In contrast to prior studies, we use disciplinary sanctions issued against auditors not meeting the quality requirement as the measure of audit quality. We find no significant differences in the likelihood of sanctions between Big 4 audit firms and the fifth and sixth largest audit firms in Sweden (Grant Thornton and BDO). We refer to these collectively as ‘Top 6’. However, we find that the probabilities of warnings or exclusions from the profession are much higher for non-Top 6 auditors in Sweden than for Top 6 auditors. Furthermore, we find a strong negative association between the likelihood of sanctions and audit office size for non-Top 6 auditors. This association is insignificant for Top 6 audit firms. Audit fees follow a similar pattern and indicate that larger audit firms and offices put in more effort or have greater expertise. These results suggest that audit quality is differentiated in the private segment market. However, contrary to prior studies, our results suggest that the important dimensions are Top 6 versus non-Top 6 and the office size of non-Top 6 audit firms.     

高管会计师事务所关联、审计任期与审计质量

本文研究了高管会计师事务所关联对审计任期(事务所任期)和审计质量的影响,以及事务所关联存在和不存在的条件下审计任期与审计质量的关系。实证结果表明,有事务所关联的公司更可能收到标准审计意见,从而说明事务所关联降低了审计质量;同时,事务所关联关系延长了审计任期,即存在事务所关联的公司比没有事务所关联的公司与事务所合作的时间更长。在有事务所关联的公司和没有事务所关联的公司中,审计任期与审计质量之间的关系不同,进而说明有事务所关联公司的审计质量并不取决于审计任期,而是事务所关联本身的影响所造成的。     

事务所规模、审计行业专长与事务所审计质量传染效应

发生审计失败事务所的审计质量系统性低于未发生审计失败事务所的审计质量,即会计师事务所的审计质量存在传染效应,但该传染效应受到事务所自选择问题的影响;大规模事务所在审计质量传染效应中占据主导地位;事务所行业专长未能抑制审计质量传染效应。     

To switch or not to switch? The effect of audit firms’ economies of scale on audit firm switches after audit price deregulation in China

We exploit the unique setting of China’s 2014 audit price deregulation policy to examine whether audit firms use their economies of scale (EOS) to compete for clients. We find a significant increase in client firms switching from a non-EOS auditor to an EOS auditor after the audit price deregulation policy was implemented. The additional analyses show that EOS audit firms are more likely to offer audit fee discounts than non-EOS audit firms while retaining audit quality. We also find that the auditors’ EOS effect is more pronounced for highly homogeneous industries and firms paying high abnormal audit fees, firms in financial distress, and firms receiving less capital market attention than for less homogeneous industries and firms paying low abnormal audit fees, financially stable firms, and firms receiving more capital market attention. Finally, we find that the presence of state-owned enterprises and political connections both separately and jointly moderate the effect of audit firm–client realignments from a non-EOS auditor to an EOS auditor after the audit price deregulation. Overall, our study provides important insights for policymakers and regulators reviewing and developing new policies on audit services.     

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.     

Fiscal-audit separation and government disclosure quality

We show that the separation of the fiscal and audit offices of China’s province-level governments leads to high fiscal disclosure quality, an effect that is more pronounced when the political rank of the official in charge of auditing is higher than that of the official in charge of fiscal matters. Dynamically, disclosure quality decreases when fiscal office and audit office go from being separated to being integrated and improves when they go from being integrated to being separated. Finally, fiscal disclosure quality reduces the cost of debt and improves credit ratings of municipal investment and development bonds. We demonstrate an aspect of China’s governance that, even without adequate monitoring from the oppositions or the media, local governments can improve efficiency via horizontal separations of fiscal and audit offices.     

Audit Quality in New Zealand – Early Evidence from the Regulator

This study examines the impact of audit regulation in New Zealand, using audit quality reviews undertaken by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) between 2013 and 2017. Regulation has more than halved the number of registered audit firms indicating that it imposes costs on audit firms. The results show that audit quality is improving, but a high proportion of audits do not meet the FMA's requirements. A key area for improvement is the consistency of quality across audits performed by the same audit firm. The FMA advises audit firms to investigate the underlying cause of audit deficiencies to ensure that internal quality control systems are effective in producing high‐quality audits on a regular basis. A comparison of audit file ratings with the United Kingdom shows that New Zealand's audit quality is much lower. The variation in audit quality across countries concerns the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR) as it has the potential to undermine stakeholder confidence in the audit industry. Thus monitoring progress in improving audit quality in New Zealand is important. This paper provides insights into audit quality at a country level, whereas most research focuses on the firm level.     

The effect of disclosing audit quality control deficiencies on non-audit tax services: Evidence from Deloitte’s 2007 PCAOB Part II inspection report

We examine whether public disclosure of Deloitte 2007 PCAOB Part II report, which identifies quality control deficiencies related to audits of income tax accounts, affects Deloitte’s auditor-provided tax services (APTS). Using a difference-in-differences model, we document a 17 percent lower likelihood of Deloitte’s audit clients employing APTS relative to clients of other annually inspected firms when the report is made public. We also find that the dampening effect of publicly disclosing the Part II report on Deloitte’s APTS is more evident among audit clients paying higher non-audit fees to auditors and those with more complex tax planning. These results suggest that revealing income tax-specific quality control deficiencies prompts audit clients to revise upward (downward) their expected costs (benefits) of perceived auditor independence impairment (knowledge spillover) stemming from APTS. Overall, our study suggests that public disclosure of audit firm-wide quality control deficiencies pertaining to audits of income tax accounts imposes a collateral damage to the inspected firm’s non-audit tax services, thereby providing a more complete understanding of the consequences of the PCAOB’s communications about quality control deficiencies in Part II reports.     

An examination of the influence of mutual CFO/audit firm tenure on audit quality

This study examines whether the extent of professional relationships between an audit firm and their client’s CFO influences audit quality. If regulators’ concerns that the relationship that develops over time between an audit firm and their client’s CFO impairs auditor judgment are justified, then we should observe a negative relationship between the length of audit firm’s tenure with their client’s CFO and audit quality. The results suggest that mutual audit firm-CFO tenure is associated with lower audit quality measured by the magnitude of discretionary accruals, the reduced incidence of issuance of going-concern audit opinions for distressed companies, and an increased likelihood of the receipt of an Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release (AAER) from the US. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These affects are concentrated in a subsample of firms with higher levels of corporate governance concerns. These findings have implications for policies related to audit firm rotation. Specifically, the results suggest that regulators need to consider other relationships underlying audit firm tenure, such as the relationships that form between audit firm and client personnel, when evaluating audit firm rotation policies.     

分所审计是否影响审计质量和审计收费?

随着注册会计师行业的扩大和分所的不断增加,分所的执业行为值得关注。我们采用2005—2008年会计师事务所分所数据,考察了会计师事务所总所和分所在审计质量和审计收费上的差异,以及分所规模大小对审计质量和审计收费的影响。结论总体上表明,会计师事务所分所的审计质量和审计收费更低,并且,规模越小的分所,其审计质量和审计收费越低。在此基础上,我们根据样本是否由十大会计师事务所审计,进行了分组检验,结果显示分所审计质量和审计收费更低主要体现在非十大会计师事务所上。     

Was audit quality of Laventhol and Horwath poor?

Laventhol and Horwath (L&H), the then seventh largest accounting firm in the US, declared bankruptcy in November 1990. The firm claimed that its bankruptcy was due to the perception of it being a deep pocket rather than inherent deficiencies in its performance. In this study, we examine whether the audit quality of L&H was lower than other auditors. Results do not show that L&H is associated with lower quality audits either in terms of lower likelihood of issuing modified audit opinion, higher levels of discretionary accruals for its clients, or lower predictability of discretionary accruals for future non-discretionary net income for its clients than for clients of other auditors. Results of additional tests also do not suggest that auditors that take up clients of L&H report differently from L&H. This evidence does not support the proposition that L&H’s audit quality was less than audit quality of other audit firms during the period leading up to the bankruptcy.     

Do Joint Audits Improve or Impair Audit Quality?

Conventional wisdom holds that joint audits would improve audit quality by enhancing audit evidence precision because “Two heads are better than one.” Our paper challenges this wisdom. We show that joint audits by one big firm and one small firm may impair audit quality, because, in that situation, joint audits induce a free‐riding problem between audit firms and reduce audit evidence precision. We further derive a set of empirically testable predictions comparing audit evidence precision and audit fees under joint and single audits. This paper, the first theoretical study of joint audits, contributes to a better understanding of the economic consequences of joint audits on audit quality.     

Internal control reporting differences among public and governmental auditors: The case of city and county Circular A-133 audits

We investigate potential differences in audit reporting outcomes between Circular A-133 audits performed by governmental auditors vs. those performed by certified public accounting (CPA) firms. Specifically, we investigate the association between auditor type and the likelihood of auditor-disclosed internal control concerns. We employ a cross-sectional sample of 13,386 single audit reports of US cities and counties during 2004–2006. In contrast to prior literature, the results indicate that in the post-Sarbanes–Oxley environment, CPA firms appear more likely to issue audit reports that identify internal control concerns than are governmental auditors in the context of Circular A-133 audits. The differences are more pronounced for larger CPA firms.     

The impact of PCAOB international registration on audit quality and audit fees: Evidence from China

Despite the importance of registration with the PCAOB, there is surprisingly little academic research on the registration process and its impact on audit outcomes (Abernathy et al., 2013). The PCAOB allows registration of audit firms from non-US countries. However, China and a few other countries do not allow the PCAOB to conduct inspections of audit firms. We take advantage of this setting to investigate whether PCAOB-registered audit firms improve audit quality in the absence of inspections and whether they charge an audit fee premium. Our findings indicate that audit quality increases following PCAOB registration and that clients pay higher audit fees for audits by PCAOB-registered firms.     

审计独立性的影响要素及措施分析

在资本市场迅猛发展的今天,审计独立性问题引起越来越多人的关注.审计的独立不仅会影响注册会计师的职业判断及审计质量,还会增加投资者对审计报告的期望度.而审计失败则将会损害审计的内在价值及执行审计任务的会计师事务所的声誉,甚至资本市场的稳定.本文主要从资本市场及公司治理结构分析审计独立性的影响要素,并结合西方国家先进的观点及普遍做法,提出几点提高审计独立性的改进意见