Are Auditors' Analytical Procedures Judgments Affected by Receiving Management Explanations?

This paper reports the results of a computerised experiment focusing on the impact of management representations, and the timing of those representations, on auditors' performance in completing all stages of an analytical procedures (AP) task. While timing of the management explanation had an initial impact on the AP process, there was no difference in the number of correct auditor responses due to this factor. However, receiving the management explanation did affect the cause selected, with auditors receiving that explanation selecting it significantly more often than those who did not receive that explanation. The findings suggest several areas for potential improvement of the auditors' AP proces.     

Accountability Demands and the Auditor's Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)

This study examines differences in auditors' search behaviors associated with the preferences of audit management (reviewer preferences) and the nature of the required response (belief versus action) in the context of an accounts receivable collectibility review. I find that auditors facing reviewers who expressed concern about auditors spending time specifically looking for evidence inconsistent with explanations provided by the client (credence preference) examined fewer evidence items and followed a more client-prompted search (i.e., a search for evidence that follows directly from the client's explanation) than those facing reviewers who expressed concern about auditors' ready acceptance of client explanations without adequate justification (skepticism preference) and those facing reviewers who expressed no specific concern (unknown preference). Further, auditors in the action conditions examined fewer evidence items and spent less time per evidence item than those in the judgment conditions. Additional analyses also indicate that auditors who were held accountable to a reviewer with an unknown preference generally responded as if the reviewer maintained a skepticism preference.     

Can short selling improve internal control? An empirical study based on the difference‐in‐differences model

Based on pilot margin trading in China, this study examines how short selling affects internal control quality in listed firms. Using the difference‐in‐differences approach, we find that compared with control firms, firms that are eligible for short selling significantly improve their internal control after they are designated as underlying securities. We consider the effects of state ownership and external auditors. The improvement in internal control is only significant for non‐state‐owned firms and firms audited by non‐Big 4 auditors. These findings indicate that short selling can improve firms’ internal control and play a role in their corporate governance.     

The Effects of Fraud Risk and Management Representation on Auditors' Hypothesis Generation

Hypothesis generation is considered to be critical to the effectiveness and efficiency of diagnostic processes in auditing. Using a between-subjects experimental design, this work examines the impact of fraud risk and the availability of a non-misstatement management explanation on auditors' hypothesis generation performance. The context is when managers undertake analytical procedures at the planning stage of the audit. The results indicate that auditors are sensitive to increased fraud risk by generating more fraud hypotheses, while the number of misstatement hypotheses generated is not affected by fraud risk. The availability of a non-misstatement management explanation was found not to interfere with auditors' hypothesis generation performance, but facilitated the generation of proportionately more misstatement and fraud hypotheses from the same transaction cycle as that indicated by the management explanation. Together, these findings provide some insights on the sensitivity of auditors' hypothesis generation to fraud risk and whether this sensitivity could be undermined by the availability of management representations.     

Preparers’ control‐risk assessments under alternative audit‐review processes

This study investigates the impact of a decomposed audit‐review process on audit preparers’ control‐risk assessments, taking audit experience into consideration. Using an experiment, it manipulates the audit‐review type (decomposed review versus non‐decomposed review) and preparers’ audit experience level (more experienced versus less experienced). Analysis of data collected from two mid‐tier audit firms supported the author’s predictions. First, working‐paper preparers assessed control risk more accurately in a decomposed than in a non‐decomposed review. Second, less‐experienced auditors benefitted more from a decomposed review than more‐experienced auditors.     

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.     

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.     

The Impact of Consulting Services on Audit Quality: An Experimental Approach

We use experimental markets to examine whether providing consulting services to a non‐audit client impacts audit quality. Our paper directly addresses concerns raised by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board that the largest public accounting firms’ growth in their consulting practices threatens audit quality. We conduct an experiment proposed using a registration‐based editorial process. We compare a baseline where the auditor does not provide consulting services to conditions where auditors provide consulting to audit clients or where auditors only provide consulting services to non‐audit clients. Our unique design provides evidence on whether providing consulting to non‐audit clients strengthens the salience of a client‐cooperative social norm that reduces audit quality. We do not find differences in audit quality by condition in our planned analysis, however we find greater variation in audit quality in the conditions where auditors provide consulting services compared to the baseline. In unplanned analyses, our results suggest providing consulting services increases auditor cooperation with managers, increasing audit quality when managers prefer high audit quality and decreasing audit quality when managers prefer low audit quality.     

Note on Self‐Selection of Auditors in the Municipal Sector*

The objective of this article is to revisit the literature on Big‐N audit fee premiums in the municipal setting using a methodology that controls for self‐selection bias. Because auditor choices can be predicted based on certain client characteristics, using standard one‐stage ordinary least squares regressions to draw inferences about the presence or absence of such a premium in the extant public‐sector audit fee studies may not be appropriate. Results indicate that, after controlling for a self‐selection bias, Big‐6 (non‐Big‐6) municipal clients on average pay a fee premium, compared to the case if they were to retain a non‐Big‐6 (Big‐6) auditor. Results continue to hold when we conduct further analyses on a subset of municipalities with access to both Big‐6 and non‐Big‐6 auditors in a local market defined by a 60‐km radius, rather than over a province‐wide audit market. The existence of non‐Big‐6 audit fee premiums has not been documented previously in the private‐ or public‐sector audit fee literature. We surmise that it may be caused by the dominance (79.4 percent) of non‐Big‐6 auditors in the Ontario municipal market, compared to most private‐sector audit markets where their market share generally does not exceed 20 percent. The strong market position of non‐Big‐6 firms in turn may have allowed these auditors to command a fee premium for the subset of municipalities that self‐selects to be audited by them. An implication from our study is that Ontario municipalities often choose to be audited by more costly auditors, even though they could have paid lower audit fees by switching to an alternative auditor type. These results do not support those reported by Chaney et al. (2004) , who find that U.K. private firms are audited by the least costly auditor type. The conflicting findings may be attributable to the fact that the Ontario municipal audit market is subject to regulation by not just the audit profession but also the Ontario government and that, unlike business corporations, municipalities receive funding from provincial governments to fulfil much of their financial requirements. Thus, municipal clients may be relatively more willing to accept higher audit fees provided their chosen auditor (or auditor type) matches their needs.     

AUDITOR OBJECTIVITY: THE EFFECT OF PRIOR INVOLVEMENT IN AUDIT PROGRAMME DESIGN

This study tests whether the involvement of independent auditors in the design of an audit programme affects their subsequent audit work relating to that audit area. Two groups of subjects played roles in designing partial audit programmes for a particular account. They also evaluated partial audit programmes for another account designed by someone else. A third group merely evaluated partial audit programmes for both accounts. All subjects were informed that both audit programmes were implemented and of potential problems that could be attributed to either of the two accounts. Subjects were asked to allocate 15 hours to investigate either or both of the accounts in question. Our hypothesis was that auditors who had a role in designing a partial audit programme would allocate less audit effort to that account than auditors who had no role in the programme design. Comparisons of the hours allocated provided some support for this hypothesis.     

Configural Information Processing in Auditing: Further Evidence

An important issue in audit judgment research has been how auditors combine information in order to make judgments and, in particular, whether auditors ‘judgments involve configural cue usage. Some recent research (Brown and Solomon, 1990; 1991) has found that under certain conditions, many auditors were able to configurally process information. This paper extends this research by examining some conditions that may facilitate the development of auditors’ ability to configurally process available information. The study found that: (a) the proportion of auditors processing the information configurally was greater than chance; (b) for those that processed the information configurally, the form of the interaction was as predicted, that is, ordinal with a compensatory form; (c) increasing depth of processing by requiring subjects to provide explanations for their judgments did not have a significant effect on the number of auditors processing configurally; (d) the level of consensus was higher for auditors who processed configurally than for those who did not; and (e) the analysis of the explanations provided by configurai cue processors indicated that they saw the relevant cues as being substitutable.     

Quis Auditoret Ipsos Auditores? Can Auditors Be Trusted?

This article explores the extent to which the audit profession and its practices promote public trust in audits. Differences between auditors and non‐auditors as to beliefs about the role of a financial report audit have long been discussed under the term ‘expectations gap’. However, this prior debate has tended to focus on non‐auditors’ alleged misunderstanding of audit processes without a corresponding understanding on the part of the profession as to why the public might place its trust in auditors. The study explores the nature of trust in an auditing context and notes that like any profession, auditing faces practical limitations but the inability to directly observe the conduct of audits combined with professional status create an ‘over trust’ expectation in the public. Changes in audit practices and culture have also exposed the profession to criticism. The article seeks to offer one approach by which the auditing profession can restore public confidence; namely, evidence‐based practice, which has proven effective in improving the quality of practice in medicine. Adoption of a reflective evidence‐based approach to audit practice offers the promise of greater audit quality and an improvement in the profession's accountability and public confidence.     

International evidence on economic policy uncertainty and asymmetric adjustment of audit pricing: Big 4 versus non‐big 4 auditors

By investigating the association between economic policy uncertainty and audit fees using data from eight countries, this study examines whether and how Big 4 auditors reinforce their advantages over non‐Big 4 auditors through audit pricing. We find that both Big 4 and non‐Big 4 auditors reduce their audit fees when economic policy uncertainty increases. However, while non‐Big 4 auditors adjust audit pricing asymmetrically as economic policy uncertainty changes, i.e., the magnitude of decline in audit fees when economic policy uncertainty increases exceeds the magnitude of rise when economic policy uncertainty decreases, Big 4 auditors regulate their audit pricing in a symmetric manner. Further analyses reveal that: (1) the asymmetric pricing of non‐Big 4 auditors mainly exists in countries where Big 4 auditors have dominant market share, (2) Big 4 auditors provide higher‐quality audits when economic policy uncertainty increases and (3) many firms in better financial condition turn to Big 4 auditors during uncertain years. Our findings suggest that the symmetric audit pricing helps Big 4 auditors maintain a favorable position in the audit market.     

Auditor selection and corporate social responsibility

This study examines the association between the selection of an industry‐specialist auditor and corporate social responsibility (CSR). We find that firms with higher CSR ratings are more likely to hire industry‐specialist auditors (national‐level industry leaders, city‐level industry leaders or joint city‐national industry leaders). Moreover, firms with better CSR performance related to product quality and the environment in controversial industries are found to select non‐specialized auditors. The results suggest that such firms may overinvest in CSR activities associated with the environment and product issues to disguise the sin nature of their manufactured goods, and simultaneously engage low quality auditors perhaps to avoid full disclosure of potential environmental and legal liabilities. Overall, we conclude that CSR is associated with the non‐controversial firms ensuring high quality financial reporting in response to societal expectations, and thus CSR firms in such industries have strong incentives to engage industry‐specialist auditors.     

Auditor reporting and earnings management: some additional evidence

This paper investigates the reasons that lead to modification of auditors’ opinions. We revisit the conclusions of prior US‐based research on whether a modification highlights likely earnings management activities. Extending this research, we consider an alternate explanation that managers adjust accruals to report earnings that better predict future firm performance, which has the side‐effect of placing them in conflict with their auditors. Our study sample comprises all firms listed on the Australian Stock Exchange over the period 1999–2003. Consistent with prior research, there is no evidence of earnings management leading to an audit opinion modification. However, we do show that firms receiving inherent uncertainty modifications (other than going concern) have greater persistence of earnings (accruals) relative to other firms. This is consistent with the proposition that managers have made policy choices in reporting current earnings, with which their auditors disagree, that will likely result in a greater ability to forecast the firm's future earnings.     

Effects of winsorization: The cases of forecasting non‐GAAP and GAAP earnings

This study examines how the winsorization procedure affects the performance of regression‐based earnings forecasting models. I find that the impact is multifaceted and depends principally on three factors: the level of data errors in the tails, the characteristics of firms affected by the process, and the use of scaling. For a non‐GAAP earnings yield specification, where data input errors exist, winsorization changes the information set in a non‐systematic way and helps to improve the performance of regression‐based forecasts, especially when the least squares estimator is employed. However, for a non‐GAAP earnings per share specification, with fewer data input errors found in the tails of the distribution, winsorization has a particularly strong effect on very large companies, lowering the economic value of earnings predictions. I observe similar results for corresponding GAAP earnings specifications. Robust estimators, such as least absolute deviation, high breakdown‐point and Theil‐Sen, appear to be a more effective solution than winsorization. Their earnings forecasts consistently yield significant positive abnormal returns across non‐GAAP and GAAP earnings specifications.     

Do Expert Informational Intermediaries Add Value? Evidence from Auditors in Microcap Initial Public Offerings

Do expert informational intermediaries add value? We address this question by examining the informativeness of the audit report contained in the prospectus associated with a firm's initial public offering (IPO). At the time of the IPO, there is a relative lack of information to facilitate the establishment of equity values, suggesting that the information provided by outside “experts” (e.g., auditors, underwriters) is particularly important. In this article we study small, non‐venture‐backed IPOs, a segment of the market with the poorest long‐run performance and where the prestigious audit firm is often the sole (if any) expert present. We find that the pre‐IPO opinions of larger auditors are more predictive of post‐IPO negative stock delistings. Of particular note, the opinions of the national‐tiered firms are comparably predictive to those of the Big 6, though this finding emerges only after we consider the selectivity‐based differences in the clients that hire these national firms. Our findings also indicate that, for larger auditors the presence of a pre‐IPO going‐concern opinion is more strongly associated with first‐year stock returns and that larger auditors are more likely to give such opinions to their distressed clients. Overall, we address a deficiency in the literature relating to “the paucity of evidence on the value of auditor opinions to investors” (Healy and Palepu [ 2001 p. 415]).     

Non-audit Service Fees and Audit Quality: The Impact of Auditor Specialization

We posit that the effect of non‐audit fees on audit quality is conditional on auditor industry specialization. Industry specialist auditors are more likely than nonspecialists to be concerned about reputation losses and litigation exposure, and to benefit from knowledge spillovers from the provision of non‐audit services. We find evidence that audit quality measured by increased propensity to issue going‐concern opinion, increased propensity to miss analysts' forecasts, as well as higher earnings‐response coefficients increases with the level of non‐audit services acquired from industry specialist auditors compared to nonspecialist auditors.     

Has SOX Enhanced Non–Big 4 Auditors' Ability to Deal with Client Pressure?

We investigate whether non–Big 4 auditors have enhanced their ability to resist client pressure over accrual reporting following the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX). Regressing abnormal accruals on proxies for economic bonding, we find that changes in the association, defined as (Post–Pre), are significantly negative, implying an improvement in auditor independence after SOX. Among non–Big 4 auditors, only Tier 3 auditors compromised reporting objectivity before SOX, but neither Tier 2 nor Tier 3 auditors yielded to client pressure after SOX. Evidence that these two groups of non–Big 4 auditors differ in the way they cope with client pressure in a loose regulatory regime highlights the importance of assessing the efficacy of SOX separately for subsets of auditors and contributes to an understanding of the underresearched, but inherently important, segment of the audit market served by non–Big 4 auditors. Further analysis indicates that the low pre‐SOX audit quality observed in the full sample is driven by non–PCAOB registrants.