The effect of external audits of internal control over financial reporting on financial reporting for clients of Big 4, Second-tier,and small audit firms

The external audit of internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) is a very expensive and contentious aspect of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX). Larger public firms were first required to file a management report on and have an external audit of ICFR in 2004. Smaller public firms were first required to file a management report on ICFR in 2007 but are exempt from the audit requirement. Whereas most related prior research investigates the combined effect of management and auditor reports on financial reporting, this study examines the distinct effect of auditor reports on reporting quality. For companies audited by small auditors, we find evidence that financial reporting quality improves with an auditor report on ICFR. We find no evidence that auditor ICFR reports improve reporting quality for clients of Big 4 or Second-tier audit firms. Our study adds to the debate on the applicability of SOX Section 404 to smaller firms.     

The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting

As a result of gradual shifts in the market for audit services, we expect financially stressed public companies to be increasingly audited by regional firms, who, in turn, will be increasingly likely to issue going concern reports to their financially stressed public companies. Our expectations challenge the view that larger audit firms, in order to avoid exposure to litigation, report more conservatively. To address these issues, we examine the 22 years between 1989 and 2010, which we classify into four ERAs (e.g., 1989–1994, 1995–2001, 2002–2005, and 2006–2010). We initially document that over time, financially stressed public companies are shifting to regional audit firms, partly due to the actions of larger audit firms shedding these clients, which represent ex-ante conservatism. In contrast, audit firm reporting represents ex-post conservatism. We next show that over time, for their financially stressed public clients, regional audit firms are increasingly more likely to issue going concern reports, and BigN audit firms are increasingly less likely to issue going concern reports. We also show that in more recent ERAs, regional audit firms have been more likely than BigN and national audit firms to issue a going concern report to their financially stressed pubic clients. Overall, our evidence suggests that more recently, larger audit firms, relative to regional audit firms, acted more proactively to lessen their litigation risks through increasing centralization of client selection and acceptance processes. However, our evidence suggests that more recently, to lessen their litigation risks, regional audit firms, relative to BigN and national audit firms, acted more conservatively by issuing more going concern reports to their financially stressed public clients.     

The Unintended Consequences of the Frequency of PCAOB Inspection

After more than 50 years of self‐regulation of the US auditing profession, the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) as a quasi‐governmental entity with statutory authority to inspect accounting firms that audit public clients. The frequency of this inspection is annual or triennial, based upon the number of public clients the firm audits. We examine the effects of these two levels of inspection frequency on financial reporting quality and audit fees for clients of small and midsize public accounting firms. Our findings provide evidence of significantly higher audit quality and audit fees for clients of annually inspected firms relative to clients of triennially inspected firms. These findings are robust to auditor‐client alignment analyses, propensity score matching, time‐series analyses, examination of firms that have changed from triennial to annual inspection, and particular examination of firms with inspection deficiencies. Overall, our study suggests that the two‐tier frequency system of PCAOB inspection may have also resulted in two‐tier audit quality and audit fee systems for small and midsize public accounting firms, with more frequent inspection leading to more rigorous and informed auditor decisions. We discuss the implications of our results for the Board and the profession at large.     

Complexity of financial reporting standards and accounting expertise

This study tests whether firms seek to mitigate the adverse effects of Financial Reporting Complexity (FRC) by investing in accounting expertise. We develop a measure of FRC based on the complexity of accounting standards that govern annual disclosures. We find that FRC is positively related to the accounting expertise on a firm’s board of directors and audit committee. We also find that accounting expertise mitigates the relation between FRC and negative reporting outcomes. Collectively, this study increases our understanding of the actions firms take to mitigate the negative consequences of FRC, and the role of accounting expertise in this setting.     

Audit Pricing of Shared Leadership

This study explores audit implications of shared leadership in client firms. Analyzing data from 2002 to 2013 of Korean listed companies, we find that auditors spend fewer audit hours and charge lower audit fees for clients with multiple CEOs. Additional tests reveal that the lower audit fees for co-CEO clients are likely attributable to reduced audit effort rather than to reduced hourly rates. We also document that firms with co-CEOs exhibit better-reporting quality than do firms with a solitary CEO. In sum, this article presents evidence that mutual monitoring via co-CEO appointments assures high-quality financial reporting of audit clients, and thus leads to reduced audit fees.     

Consulting revenue sharing,auditor effort and independence,and the regulation of auditor compensation

The joint provision of audit and non-audit services by audit firms to their audit clients has posed a threat to auditor independence. To mitigate the independence problem, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a regulation (SEC, 2003) that prohibits audit partners from receiving compensation for the sale of non-audit services to their audit clients. This study examines the effects of this regulatory change on the effort and reporting decisions of audit partners. We show that partners in an audit firm strategically change the firm’s liability-sharing rule. As a consequence, the regulation restores truthful reporting but has an undesirable negative effect on audit effort. The effect of the regulation on the welfare of the economy (defined as the total payoff to both audit firms and their clients) hinges on the tradeoff between the benefit of the regulation, which is derived from the inducement of truthful reporting, and the cost of the regulation, which results from less diligent audit work. We show that the regulation is more likely to increase the welfare in a strong legal regime (where the legal liability cost of auditor litigation is high) than in a weak legal regime.     

Empirical Evidence on the Implicit Determinants of Compensation in Big 4 Audit Partnerships

This study investigates the implicit financial incentives of individual Big 4 audit partners by examining the association between a partner's compensation and characteristics of the audit firm, audit partner, and individual partner clientele for Big 4 firms in Sweden. Using tax and financial data for individual audit partners and clients, our empirical findings indicate that there is significant variation in the implicit determinants that are associated with compensation across the Big 4. We find that audit partners’ compensation is positively associated with the size of their clientele or the number of publicly traded clients, both of which represent revenue‐generating opportunities. Similarly, compensation and developing an industry specialization are positively related. In three firms, gaining clients is clearly related to an increase in compensation, while losing a client is associated with a reduction in partner income in only one firm. We find that audit partner income is more sensitive to performance‐related incentives, such as attracting new clients, as partners progress in their career. Finally, we find evidence that audit failures, proxied by reporting errors related to issuing a going concern opinion, are associated with lower compensation. These results should be of interest to the auditing profession, audit firms, and regulators when they consider the effects of implicit incentives of partner compensation on audit quality.     

Audit Reporting of Big 4 Versus Non-Big 4 Auditors: The Case of Ex-Andersen Clients

This paper examines audit reporting of Big 4 auditors versus non-Big 4 auditors for ex-Andersen clients and other clients. It suggests that ex-Andersen clients are more risky than other clients and are able to exert more influence than other clients on non-Big 4 auditors because they are larger in size than other non-Big 4 auditees. In addition, Big 4 auditors are more risk-averse and able to withstand clients' pressure than non-Big 4 auditors. The results show that Big 4 auditors are more likely than non-Big 4 auditors to issue going-concern opinions to ex-Andersen clients or restrict the level of discretionary accruals of those clients compared with other clients. Further, ex-Andersen clients of Big 4 auditors would have had a lower likelihood of receiving going-concern opinions or higher levels of discretionary accruals had reporting practices for other clients been applied. Ex-Andersen clients of non-Big 4 auditors would have had a higher likelihood of going-concern opinions or lower levels of discretionary accruals. Hence, the suggestion to reduce the Big 4 concentration in the audit market by allowing non-Big 4 firms a larger market share should be viewed prudently. Overall, these results are consistent with the suggestion that litigation risk and client pressure are important factors in audit reporting.     

The effect of small audit firms’ failure to remediate the PCAOB’s quality control criticisms on audit market segmentation

This paper examines the role of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) quality control inspection program on market segmentation of small firms’ audit services. Specifically, we investigate how non-remediation of quality control criticisms (QCCs) affects the supply and demand of low-quality audits. We find that remediation of QCCs improves audit quality for small accounting firms. However, some small accounting firms do not remediate QCCs (NR firms) and continue to provide low audit quality. We investigate how NR clients react to the disclosure of non-remediation of QCCs. We find that NR clients with low agency costs are more likely to retain NR firms after the disclosure of non-remediation. This finding is consistent with our expectation that voluntary QCC remediation creates a low-quality audit market segment for NR firms. Our findings suggest that the public disclosure of QCCs is not sufficient to remove low-quality auditors. Instead, NR clients use the disclosure of non-remediation of QCCs as a signal to sort themselves into segments based on their demand for audit quality. We are the first to study and find that PCAOB inspections, and specifically the voluntary nature of remediation and public disclosure of lack of remediation, create market segmentation.     

Audit Firm Tenure and Audit Quality in a Constrained Market

We examine the relation between audit quality and audit firm tenure in the Iranian audit market, which is constrained by government policies that create intense competition for clients among many small audit firms. We develop arguments that these circumstances create cost pressures that entrench low audit quality and render auditors' plans more predictable to managers wishing to misstate their accounts. Using publicly available data for the audits of listed companies in Iran prior to mandatory audit firm rotation and the incidence of misstated financial reports identified by the Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants Inspection Office, we find that the likelihood of a misstatement is lowest in the first two years of audit firm tenure. We also find that the likelihood of misstatement is not associated with the year preceding a mandatory audit firm rotation, suggesting outgoing auditor effort is not sensitive to the prospect of subsequent revelations of deficiencies. Although our results from a pre-mandatory rotation period show that frequent rotations appear to improve the financial reporting quality in our sample, we are wary of interpreting these results as support for the mandatory audit firm rotation policy in Iran. Rather, we suggest this is a peculiar consequence of deficiencies in audit quality inherent in the Iranian market.     

Costs Associated With Going-Concern-Modified Audit Opinions: An Analysis of the Australian Audit Market

This article examines the potential costs to Australian auditors and their clients from the issuance of first-time going-concern-modified audit opinions. We examine the population of Australian companies receiving a first-time going-concern-modified audit opinion during the period 1994–97 and a matched sample of financially distressed firms receiving a clean audit opinion. Results indicate that auditor switching is positively associated with receipt of a going-concern-modified opinion. However, we find no empirical evidence that there is a self-fulfilling prophecy of increased probability of company failure following the issuance of a going-concern-modified opinion for the Australian companies in our study. Our analyses of lost audit fees indicate that auditors issuing first-time going-concern-modified audit opinions lost proportionately more fees by losing clients (through switching or company failure) than firms not issuing a going-concern-modified opinion to financially stressed clients.     

The impact of financial reporting flexibility on auditor risk judgement: Evidence from the implementation of FIN 46R

This paper investigates how auditors respond, in terms of their pricing and audit work, to a reduction of clients’ financial reporting discretion upon the implementation of FIN 46R, which requires firms to consolidate the variable interest entities (VIE) under their control. Using a difference-in-differences research design, we find that auditors charge relatively fewer audit fees and have shorter audit report lags for firms that are significantly affected by FIN 46R, compared to a group of control firms. This result concurs with the view that auditors react favorably to the reduction of clients’ financial reporting discretion. Our finding is concentrated among clients with higher accrual earnings management constraints, auditors with less client-specific knowledge, and auditors who have no recent experience of audit failures (e.g., severe client restatements). Our results are robust to alternative identifications of treatment and control samples, and our conclusion remains valid after controlling for the contemporaneous adoption of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act. We also show that the relatively reduced audit fees and audit effort do not lead to the deterioration of 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.     

Busy auditors,financial reporting timeliness and quality

We investigate whether audit partners with multiple clients are able to complete their audits in a timely fashion, an important but largely unexplored area of academic research. One view is that having multiple clients increases the knowledge and experience of the audit partner resulting in a more efficient and therefore, quicker audit. On the other hand, having multiple clients may over-burden an audit partner resulting in a slower audit process and longer completion times. We find that audit partners with multiple clients take longer to complete their annual audit. More importantly, we also find that companies with busy auditors who take longer to complete their audits also have poorer levels of financial reporting quality. Additionally, in terms of consequences for busy auditors, firms with lengthy audit report lag switched their auditors the next year suggesting that busy audit partners may lose clients if their workload is excessive and they are not able to maintain audit quality. Our results are robust to alternative measures for both audit report lag and audit partner busyness and a range of endogeneity tests. We also undertake simultaneous quantile regression to assess changes in audit report lag depending on the number of audit clients per partner where we find preliminary evidence of a knowledge spill-over effect. Consequently, our results have implications for companies, audit firms, regulators and other key stakeholders.     

Timeliness of corporate and audit reports: Some empirical evidence in the French context

The issue of timeliness of financial reporting, an important qualitative characteristic of accounting information, has received much attention from regulatory and professional bodies in France in recent years. The increasing presence of international investors, particularly from the US, on the Paris Stock Exchange adds to the importance of this issue. The timeliness of corporate and audit reports in the French context is analyzed by examining the trend in reporting delay of companies, the effect that qualified reports have on the timeliness of corporate reporting, and the relationship between reporting behavior and types of audit reports over a 10-year period. The data are taken from more than 5000 annual reports of French publicly held companies for the years 1986-1995. These bear witness to an improvement in timeliness of corporate and audit reports. This improvement is greater for reports from consolidated accounts of groups than those from annual accounts of companies. There is also evidence that qualified audit opinions were released later than unqualified opinions and that, in general, the more serious the qualification, the greater the delay.     

Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees and Auditor Going-Concern Reporting Decisions in the United Kingdom

The accounting profession has come under increased scrutiny over recent years about the growing number of non-audit fees received from audit clients and the possible negative impact of such fees on auditor independence. The argument advanced is that providing substantial amounts of non-audit services to clients may make it more likely that auditors concede to the wishes of the client management when difficult judgments are made. Such concerns are particularly salient in the case of reporting decisions related to going-concern uncertainties for financially stressed clients.
 This study empirically examines audit reports provided to financially stressed companies in the United Kingdom and the magnitude of audit and non-audit service fees paid to the company's auditors. We find that the magnitude of both audit fees and non-audit fees are significantly associated with the issuance of a going-concern modified audit opinion. In particular, financially stressed companies with high audit fees are more likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion, whereas companies with high non-audit fees are less likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion. Additional analyses indicate that the results are generally robust across alternative model and variable specifications. Overall, evidence supports the contention that high non-audit fees have a detrimental effect on going-concern reporting judgments for financially stressed U.K. companies.     

How individual auditor characteristics impact the likelihood of audit failure: Evidence from China

Audit failure imposes a severe loss on investors and damages market participants' confidence in financial reporting quality. This study investigates the impacts of individual auditor characteristics on the likelihood of audit failure. Chinese regulators mandate listed firms to disclose the engagement auditors' identity. Furthermore, the information regarding individual auditor characteristics in China is also publicly available. Utilizing this unique setting, we examine the relationship between individual auditor characteristics and the likelihood of audit failure in China during the period from 2000 to 2009. We document that individual auditors with more auditing experience are less likely associated with audit failure. We also find a weaker negative relationship between auditor education level and audit failure. Our study has important implications for both auditors and regulators by shedding lights on the determinants of audit failure and by providing guidance to the human resource management in audit firms.     

Audit opinions and information asymmetry in the stock market

This study analyses the relationship between the content of the audit reports and information asymmetry levels in the stock market for a sample of Spanish firms. By implementing an association study, we document (1) that firms with audit qualifications show higher information asymmetry levels than those with unqualified opinions; (2) firms with non‐quantified qualifications show higher informational asymmetry than firms with quantified qualifications; and (3) we find a stronger effect on the level of informational asymmetry in the case of going concern qualifications. Our findings suggest that audit qualifications reporting more uncertainty on firm accounting statements result in higher adverse selection risk.     

Non-audit services and financial reporting quality: evidence from 1978 to 1980

We provide evidence on the long-standing concern about the potential conflicts of interest of auditors that provide clients with non-audit services using rarely explored non-audit services fee data from 1978 to 1980. In this setting, we find evidence of improved earnings quality when auditors provide non-audit services, especially those related to information services. This is consistent with better audit quality resulting from knowledge spillovers in the joint offering of audit and consulting services. Events related to the 1982 repeal of mandatory non-audit services disclosures are associated with a small positive stock price reaction, suggesting that the disclosure repeal has no adverse economic consequences. Furthermore, following the repeal we find no change in the earnings quality of client firms. In sum, our data suggest that non-audit services offered by audit firms can be associated with improved audit and reporting quality in client firms via auditors’ reputational incentives, synergies, and knowledge transfers.     

Public Attention and Auditor Behavior: The Case of Hurun Rich List in China

Adverse client publicity can entail regulatory scrutiny over audited financial statements and impose political costs on auditors. We use the changes in client publicity caused by their controlling owners’ presence on the Hurun Rich List (the rich listing) in China to test the hypothesis that auditor conservatism increases with client publicity. Our evidence indicates auditors issue more adverse audit opinions to clients and charge higher fees following the rich listing events. Moreover, we observe that auditors strategically respond to clients with different attributes—for clients whose owners accumulated wealth in a more questionable manner, auditors choose more stringent audit reporting to better defend themselves from regulatory scrutiny; for clients without such attributes, auditors primarily rely on increasing audit fees to cope with any post-listing increase in audit risks. Our analyses also suggest the impacts of rich listings tend to be concentrated among large audit firms with stronger reputation concerns or among engagement auditors with more conservative reporting styles. By showing how auditors manage political risks associated with heightened public scrutiny, we contribute to both the auditing and political cost literature.