Auditor independence judgments: A cognitive-developmental model and experimental evidence*

Abstract. This paper describes a psychological framework that examines auditors' conceptions of independence in the context of ethical cognition. An experimental study of independence judgments of 119 partners and managers in two national public accounting firms is reported. Using a well-known measure of ethical cognition, this study examines auditors' implicit reasoning in the resolution of an independence paradigm. The most significant are that (1) a systematic relationship between auditors' measured ethical cognition and their resolution of an independence conflict exists, (2) the penalty attribute is a much stronger influence than the affiliation attribute on the auditors' ethical resolve, and (3) the cognitive measure used in this study can be used efficiently to explain priority rankings of a majority of independence attributes developed in earlier research. Résumé. Les auteurs décrivent ici une grille psychologique permettant d'analyser la façon dont les vérificateurs conçoivent l'impartialité dans le contexte de la conscience éthique. Ils font état des résultats d'une étude expérimentale des jugements d'impartialité de 119 associés et chefs de groupe attachés à deux cabinets d'experts-comptables nationaux. Utilisant une mesure bien connue de la conscience éthique, les auteurs ana-lysent le raisonnement implicite des vérificateurs dans la résolution d'un paradigme d'impartialité. Les principaux résultats de l'étude sont les suivants: 1) il existe une relation systématique entre la conscience éthique mesurée chez les vérificateurs et la façon dont ils résolvent un problème d'impartialité, 2) l'attribut « sanction » a sur la décision éthique des vérificateurs une influence beaucoup plus grande que l'attribut « affiliation » et 3) la mesure cognitive utilisée dans cette étude est efficace dans l'explication des classements de la plupart des attributs d'impartialité définis dans le travaux de recherche antérieurs.     

Auditor Liability and Business Investment*

We model a firm's investment decision, an auditor's effort‐rendering behavior, audit fees, and prices of the firms under two auditor liability rules: strict liability and negligence liability. We show that an auditor's effort level is socially optimal under strict liability, while it is not generally so under negligence liability. Furthermore, both the firm owner's expected benefit and the audit fee are higher under strict liability than under negligence liability. We define the legal error under negligence liability as the difference between the assessed audit effort (that is, the estimate of audit effort made by the court) and the actual audit effort and prove that the greater the variance of the legal error, the more incentive an auditor has to exert effort under negligence liability compared with strict liability. Finally, the number of investments being undertaken could be higher under strict liability because more firm owners are willing to hire auditors to go public.     

Legal Damages and Auditor Efforts*

Abstract. Conventional wisdom holds that an auditor's optimal response to an increase in legal exposure is to double his efforts in finding errors in his client's financial reports. This paper's main result is that in a market setting where clients shop for opinions and auditors must compete for clients, the conventional wisdom may fail. Increased damages: affect all auditors reducing the competition among auditors for clients. Thus, an auditor can reduce his legal exposure by reporting more conservatively, instead of working harder. The main result is mitigated if client firms also face legal damages and if clients themselves are more conservative in preparing their unaudited financial statements. If it is more likely that a client claiming “good news” is truly good, the auditor has an incentive to work harder to confirm this good report and satisfy his client. This incentive to work harder to please his client may prevent the auditor from retreating into conservatism when damages are increased. Finally, if the auditors' report space were continuous, as with a continuum of client types, the main result would be reversed: additional damages would (weakly) increase the auditor's efforts. With a continuum of possible reports, the competition is not eliminated as damages increase; only the range of reports that the auditors offer is reduced. Because the competition cannot be eliminated and the incumbent cannot resort to conservatism to reduce his legal exposure, the auditor works hard. Résumé. Par tradition, la sagesse veut que la réaction la plus appropriée d'un vérificateur à une augmentation des risques juridiques soit un redoublement d'efforts pour déceler les erreurs dans les rapports financiers de ses clients. L'auteur en arrive pourtant à la principale conclusion que, dans le contexte d'un marché où les clients font du «magasinage» d'opinion et où les vérificateurs doivent se disputer les clients, la sagesse nous amène à faire fausse route. L'augmentation des dommages touche tous les vérificateurs et atténue la rivalité qui les oppose dans la recherche de clients. Ainsi, un vérificateur peut diminuer le risque juridique auquel il est exposé en usant d'une plus grande prudence dans ses rapports plutôt qu'en travaillant avec plus d'acharnement. L'auteur est cependant moins catégorique à ce sujet lorsque l'entreprise cliente fait aussi l'objet de poursuites en dommages et qu'elle est donc plus prudente dans la préparation de ses états financiers non vérifiés. Il est davantage probable que les nouvelles positives qu'une telle entreprise publie le soient véritablement, de sorte que le vérificateur est, lui, davantage enclin à déployer les efforts nécessaires pour confirmer ces nouvelles positives et satisfaire son client. Cette incitation à travailler avec plus d'énergie pour satisfaire le client peut faire en sorte que le vérificateur ne se replie pas derrière la prudence lorsque les dommages augmentent. Enfin, s'il existe un large éventail de rapports de vérification, comme dans le cas d'une multiplicité de types d'entreprises, la conclusion principale se trouve inversée; l'augmentation des montants de dommages entraîne une (faible) hausse de l'intensité du travail du vérificateur. Dans le cas d'un large éventail de rapports possibles, la concurrence ne s'atténue pas avec l'augmentation des montants de dommages; seul l'éventail des rapports qu'offrent les vérificateurs est réduit. Étant donné que la concurrence ne peut être éliminée, et que le vérificateur attitré ne peut recourir à la prudence pour réduire le risque juridique auquel il est exposé, il redouble d'effort.     

Auditor evaluation of loss contingencies*

Abstract. This paper examines the probability judgments made by auditors for their financial statement footnote disclosure decisions and their audit report additional paragraph decisions in the presence of material loss contingencies. In the United States these judgments are governed by SFAS No. 5 and SAS No. 58. Two prior studies have reported inconsistent results pertaining to the degree of compliance of auditors with the judgment and decision-making process implied by SFAS No. 5. In contrast, SAS No. 58 has not previously been examined with respect to auditor compliance. Results from an experiment with 64 audit partners from six firms were consistent with the hypothesis that audit partners employ the same (compensatory) judgment process when making footnote disclosure decisions as when making additional paragraph decisions. This process led the partners to make judgments for the additional paragraph decision that were in accordance with SAS No. 58. In contrast, their judgments for the footnote disclosure decision were consistent with a decision theory model of auditor behavior rather than the noncompensatory process implied by SFAS No. 5. Additional aspects of the study pertain to the additional paragraph decision of auditors. Observed judgments for these decisions are consistent with the hypothesis that additional information is conveyed beyond that provided by only a footnote disclosure. This is contrary to some recent discussions of the standards. Résumé. Les auteurs étudient les jugements relatifs aux probabilités portés par les vérificateurs dans le cadre de leurs décisions relatives à la présentation des pertes éventuelles importantes sous forme de notes infrapaginales dans les états financiers ou de paragraphes supplémentaires dans le rapport des vérificateurs. Aux États-Unis, ces jugements sont régis par le SFAS n^o 5 et le SAS n^o 58. Deux études antérieures ont donné des résultats dissemblables en ce qui a trait à la mesure dans laquelle les vérificateurs se conforment au processus de jugement et de prise de décisions que suppose le SFAS n^o 5. Le respect par les vérificateurs des normes du SAS n^o 58 n'a fait, quant à lui, l'objet d'aucune analyse. Les résultats d'une expérience menée auprès de 64 associés reponsables de la vérification dans six cabinets ont confirmé l'hypothèse selon laquelle les associés responsables de la vérification utilisent le même processus de jugement (compensatoire) lorsqu'ils décident de présenter les pertes éventuelles sous forme de notes infrapaginales que lorsqu'ils optent pour les paragraphes supplémentaires. Ce processus a amené les associés à porter des jugements pour l'ajout de paragraphes supplémentaires conformes au SAS n^o 58. Par opposition, leurs jugements relatifs à la présentation sous forme de notes infrapaginales étaient conformes à un modèle de comportement du vérificateur inspiré de la théorie de la décision plutôt qu'au processus non compensatoire que suppose le SFAS n^o 5. D'autres aspects de l'étude portent sur la décision des vérificateurs relative à l'ajout de paragraphes supplémentaires. Les jugements observés relativement à cette décision sont conformes à l'hypothèse selon laquelle d'autres renseignements sont transmis, outre ceux qui sont fournis par voie de simples notes infrapaginales. Ces résultats viennent contredire certaines analyses récentes portant sur les normes.     

Accounting Accruals and Auditor Reporting Conservatism*

Accounting accruals are managers' subjective estimates of future outcomes and cannot, by definition, be objectively verified by auditors prior to occurrence. This causes audits of high-accrual firms to pose more uncertainty than audits of low-accrual firms because of potential estimation error and a greater chance that high-accrual firms have undetected asset realization and/or going concern problems that are related to the high level of accruals. One way that auditors can compensate for this risk exposure is to lower their threshold for issuing modified audit reports, an action that will increase modified reports and, therefore, lessen the likelihood of failing to issue a modified report when appropriate. We call this auditor reporting conservatism and test if high-accrual firms in the United States, are more likely to receive modified audit reports for asset realization uncertainties and going concern problems. Empirical results for a large sample of U.S. publicly listed companies support the hypothesis that auditors are more conservative, that is, more likely to issue both types of modified audit reports for high-accrual firms. Further analyses show that income-increasing accruals are somewhat more likely to result in reporting conservatism than income-decreasing accruals, and that only the Big Six group of auditors show evidence of reporting conservatism. These findings add to our understanding of the audit report formation process and the potentially important role played by accounting accruals in that process.     

A Bargaining Model of Auditor Reporting*

In this paper, I demonstrate that the quasi-rents earned in audits undermine an auditor's independence By considering the incentives of the auditor and the client and the interaction between them, I conclude that auditor will maintain his or her independence if the firm-specific quasi-rents are zero, but compromise his or her independence if the quasi-rents are positive. The extent of the compromise is an increasing function of the quasi-rents, since the auditor will propose that a higher value be reported in the financial statements when the quasi-rents increase. I also show that disputes between the auditor and the client increase as the scope for errors for an auditor's test increases. When the error scope is large, the client becomes more aggressive in preparing a proposal while the auditor becomes more cautious.     

The Association Between Auditor Changes and Reporting Lags*

Abstract. This paper examines audit report lags and earnings announcement lags for a sample of firms that switched auditors. We investigate whether audit report and earnings announcement lags are associated with the timing of auditor changes in relation to firms' fiscal year-ends. It is hypothesized that firms which replace their auditor early (late) in the fiscal year do so for positive (negative) reasons and experience shorter (longer) reporting lags. Conflicts over reporting issues can be difficult to resolve and consequently lead to reporting delays. In other cases, clients may be more concerned about adhering to customary reporting practices or improving reporting timeliness. These are likely to be considerations in auditor realignment decisions and are predictably reflected in the timing of the auditor change. Résumé. Les auteurs s'intéressent aux décalages dans la production des rapports des vérificateurs et dans la publication des bénéfices, pour un échantillon d'entreprises ayant changé de vérificateurs. Ils se demandent si ces décalages sont reliés au choix du moment du changement de vérificateurs par rapport à la date de clôture de l'exercice. Selon leur hypothèse, les entreprises qui remplacent leurs vérificateurs tôt (tard) dans l'exercice le font pour des raisons positives (négatives), et les décalages enregistrés dans la production de l'information sont plus courts (plus longs). Les conflits touchant les questions relatives à l'information à fournir peuvent être difficiles à résoudre et, en conséquence, conduire à des retards dans la publication de l'information. Dans d'autres cas, les entreprises clientes peuvent être davantage préoccupées par le respect des méthodes coutumières de présentation de l'information ou par l'accélération de la publication de l'information. Ces facteurs sont susceptibles d'entrer en ligne de compte dans les décisions de réorientation des vérificateurs, et il est à prévoir qu'ils se refléteront dans le choix du moment du changement de vérificateurs.     

Auditor Quality and the Accuracy of Management Earnings Forecasts*

In this study, we appeal to insights and results from Davidson and Neu 1993 and McConomy 1998 to motivate empirical analyses designed to gain a better understanding of the relationship between auditor quality and forecast accuracy. We extend and refine Davidson and Neu's analysis of this relationship by introducing additional controls for business risk and by considering data from two distinct time periods: one in which the audit firm's responsibility respecting the earnings forecast was to provide review‐level assurance, and one in which its responsibility was to provide audit‐level assurance. Our sample data consist of Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) initial public offerings (IPOs). The earnings forecast we consider is the one‐year‐ahead management earnings forecast included in the IPO offering prospectus. The results suggest that after the additional controls for business risk are introduced, the relationship between forecast accuracy and auditor quality for the review‐level assurance period is no longer significant. The results also indicate that the shift in regimes alters the fundamental nature of the relationship. Using data from the audit‐level assurance regime, we find a negative and significant relationship between forecast accuracy and auditor quality (i.e., we find Big 6 auditors to be associated with smaller absolute forecast errors than non‐Big 6 auditors), and further, that the difference in the relationship between the two regimes is statistically significant.     

Auditor Conservatism,Asymmetric Monitoring,and Earnings Management*

In this paper, we investigate whether, and how, audit effectiveness differentiation between Big 6 and non‐Big 6 auditors is influenced by a conflict or convergence of reporting incentives faced by corporate managers and external auditors. In so doing, we incorporate into our analysis the possibility that managers self‐select both external auditors and discretionary accruals, using the two stage “treatment effects” model. Our results show that only when managers have incentives to prefer income‐increasing accrual choices are Big 6 auditors more effective than non‐Big 6 auditors in deterring/monitoring opportunistic earnings management. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find Big 6 auditors are less effective than non‐Big 6 auditors when both managers and auditors have incentives to prefer income‐decreasing accrual choices and thus no conflict of reporting incentives exists between the two parties. The above findings are robust to different proxies for opportunistic earnings management and different proxies for the direction of earnings management incentives.     

Auditor Experience and the Timeliness of Litigation Loss Contingency Disclosures*

This paper hypothesizes and finds that firms audited by city‐industry specialists have more timely disclosures of contingent losses from litigation when there is no news coverage relating to the legal case prior to management disclosures. A closer examination reveals that this result is explained by the specialist auditors’ prior experience auditing clients in the same office and industry who are involved with litigation. In our setting, disclosures of litigation‐related contingent losses, we identify two kinds of knowledge generated from experience: industry knowledge and litigation knowledge. Industry knowledge helps auditors detect and correct poor implementation of guidance for litigation loss contingency disclosures. Auditors gain litigation knowledge from auditing clients in a given office and industry with previous involvement as defendants. Thus, the two types of knowledge interact in their effects on reporting outcomes.     

Auditor Reputation,Auditor Independence,and the Stock‐Market Impact of Andersen's Indictment on Its Client Firms*

In this paper, we study a broad sample of Arthur Andersen clients and investigate whether the decline in Andersen's reputation, due to its criminal indictment on March 14, 2002, adversely affected the stock market's perception of its audit quality. Because these reputa‐tional concerns are more of an issue if an auditor's independence is impaired, we investigate the relationship between the abnormal market returns for Andersen clients around the time of the indictment announcement and several fee‐based measures of auditor independence. Our results suggest that when news about Andersen's indictment was released, the market reacted negatively to Andersen clients. More importantly, we find that the indictment period abnormal return is significantly more negative when the market perceived the auditor's independence to be threatened. We also examine the abnormal returns when firms announced the dismissal of Andersen as an auditor. Consistent with the audit quality explanation, we document that when firms quickly dismissed Andersen, the announcement returns are significantly higher when firms switched to a Big 4 auditor than when they either switched to non‐Big 4 auditors or did not announce the identity of the replacement auditor. Our empirical results support the notion that auditor reputation and independence have a material impact on perceived audit quality and the credibility of audited financial statements, and that the market prices this.     

Two Models of the Auditor - Client Interaction: Tests with United Kingdom Data*

Abstract. Accounting research contains two distinct approaches to the interaction between accounting management and the independent auditor. Game theory suggests that the auditor's testing strategy will affect the manager's reporting strategy and that the two strategies form an equilibrium. The game-theoretic approach views the auditor as active, in that the auditor acknowledges the effect that his or her testing strategy has on the manager's reporting. In contrast, in the decision-theoretic approach, the auditor tests reports, but ignores the effect that such testing might have on the manager's reporting behavior. Essentially, the decision-theoretic approach views the auditor as passive, taking the reporting strategy as given when designing tests. We use United Kingdom data to estimate both models and test their validity using nested hypothesis tests. Our results demonstrate that the active, game-theoretic model better describes the auditor-manager interaction. This is the first empirical validation of the game-theoretic model using archival accounting data.     

The Impact of R&D Intensity on Demand for Specialist Auditor Services*

The audit fee research literature argues that auditors' costs of developing brand name reputations, including top‐tier designation and recognition for industry specialization, are compensated through audit fee premiums. Audited firms reduce agency costs by engaging high‐quality auditors who monitor the levels and reporting of discretionary expenditures and accruals. In this study we examine whether specialist auditor choice is associated with a particular discretionary expenditure ‐ research and development (R&D). For a large sample of U.S. companies from a range of industries, we find strong evidence that R&D intensity is positively associated with firms' choices of auditors who specialize in auditing R&D contracts. Additionally, we find that R&D intensive firms tend to appoint top‐tier auditors. We use simultaneous equations to control for interrelationships between dependent variables in addition to single‐equation ordinary least squares (OLS) and logistic regression models. Our results are particularly strong in tests using samples of small firms whose auditor choice is not constrained by the need to appoint a top‐tier auditor to ensure the auditor's financial independence from the client.