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.     

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.     

A Reexamination of Auditor versus Model Accuracy within the Context of the Going-Concern Opinion Decision*

Abstract. The Cohen Commission and previous research have suggested that auditors' opinions are inferior indicators of bankruptcy relative to the predictions of statistical models. This research reexamines this question in light of two important considerations that make the comparison between audit opinions and model predictions considerably more reflective of the auditors' real-world decision environment. First, the sample is partitioned into stressed and nonstressed observations and the importance of doing so is demonstrated; second, the statistical models and the forecast errors are adjusted so that they reflect the proportion of bankrupt firms actually faced by auditors. The empirical results provide convincing evidence suggesting that the notion established in previous research that auditors' opinions are interior to models in predicting bankruptcy is unfounded. It should be noted, however, that neither the auditors' opinions nor the bankruptcy prediction model are very good predictors of bankruptcy when population proportions, differences in misclassification costs, and financial stress levels are considered. Résumé. Les travaux de recherche de la Commission Cohen et d'autres travaux qui les ont précédés semblent indiquer que les opinions des vérificateurs sont des indicateurs de faillite moins efficaces que les prédictions des modèles statistiques. Les auteurs se penchent à leur tour sur cette question, à la lumière de deux éléments importants qui font en sorte que la comparaison entre les opinions des vérificateurs et les modèles prévisionnels s'inscrit beaucoup plus dans le contexte décisionnel véritable dans lequel travaillent les vérificateurs. D'abord, l'échantillon est scindé en deux groupes d'observations selon la présence ou l'absence de contrainte financière, partage dont les auteurs expliquent l'importance; ensuite, les modèles statistiques et les erreurs prévisionnelles sont ajustés de manière & refléter la proportion des sociétés dont la faillite a été envisagée par le vérificateur. Les résultats empiriques démontrent de façon probante que les conclusions tirées des travaux précédents selon lesquelles les opinions des vérificateurs sont moins efficaces que les modèles en matière de prévision des faillites ne sont pas fondées. Il convient de noter, cependant, que ni les opinions des vérificateurs ni les modèles prévisionnels ne sont des prédicteurs très efficaces des faillites si l'on tient compte des proportions de la population, des différences dans le coût des erreurs de classification et du niveau de contrainte financière.     

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.     

Auditor Sensitivity to Earnings Management*

Abstract. Generally accepted auditing standards, auditing textbooks, and firm audit manuals indicate that, other things equal, the presence of significant monetary incentives based on financial results increases the inherent risk of material misstatement, and higher inherent risk should ordinarily cause the auditor to exercise a heightened degree of professional skepticism in conducting the audit. This article addresses the following basic research question: Are auditors sensitive to management's incentives to manage earnings? Research that examines whether auditors distinguish between explanations provided by managers with different incentives is important because audit standards indicate that inquiry of management can assist the auditor in evaluating significant unexpected differences. Two experiments were conducted. The first experiment explored whether management-buyout-induced incentives to make income-decreasing accruals affect auditors' judgments of the probability that a material misstatement exists. As predicted, auditors were sensitive to these incentives. The second experiment explored whether bonus-induced incentives affect auditors' judgments of the probability that a material misstatement exists. The auditors agreed that bonus plans such as the one in the experiment create incentives for management to make income-increasing or income-decreasing accruals depending on the terms of the plan. However, the auditors' judgments were unaffected by whether the unexpected difference and management's incentives were congruent. The auditors opted for potential audit effectiveness rather than potential audit efficiency by assuming that—on balance—management had incentives congruent with the unexpected overstatement. Résumé. Selon les normes de vérification généralement reconnues, les manuels de vérification et les guides de vérification des cabinets comptables, toutes choses égales par ailleurs, la présence d'encouragements monétaires substantiels basés sur les résultats financiers accroît le risque inhérent d'inexactitudes importantes, et un risque inhérent supérieur doit normalement amener le vérificateur à exercer davantage de vigilance dans la réalisation de sa mission de vérification. L'auteur s'intéresse à la question fondamentale suivante: les vérificateurs sont-ils sensibles aux motivations de la direction à user d'astuces comptables aux fins de l'établissement des bénéfices? Les recherches visant à déterminer si les vérificateurs établissent une distinction entre les explications fournies par les gestionnaires dont les motivations sont différentes revêtent beaucoup d'importance, compte tenu du fait que les normes de vérification indiquent que les demandes de renseignements de la direction peuvent aider le vérificateur à évaluer les écarts inattendus appréciables. Deux expériences ont été menées. La première avait pour but de déterminer si les motivations à agir sur les comptes de régularisation de manière à réduire les bénéfices, induites par un rachat de l'entreprise par les cadres, ont une incidence sur les jugements des vérificateurs relatifs à la probabilité d'inexactitudes importantes dans les déclarations. Conformément aux prévisions, les vérificateurs se montrent sensibles à ces motivations. La seconde expérience visait à déterminer si les motivations induites par les primes ont une incidence sur les jugements des vérificateurs en ce qui a trait à la probabilité de l'existence d'inexactitudes importantes. Les vérificateurs conviennent que les systèmes de primes, comme celui de la seconde expérience, motivent la direction à agir sur les comptes de régularisation de façon à augmenter ou réduire les bénéfices, selon les conditions du système. Toutefois, les jugements des vérificateurs ne sont pas influencés par le fait que l'écart inattendu dans les bénéfices et la motivation de la direction sont reliés. Les vérificateurs optent pour l'efficacité potentielle de la vérification plutôt que pour son efficience potentielle, en supposant que, dans l'ensemble, la direction présente des motivations qui vont dans le sens des surestimations inattendues en matière de bénéfices.     

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 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.     

A Reexamination of Behavior in Experimental Audit Markets: The Effects of Moral Reasoning and Economic Incentives on Auditor Reporting and Fees*

This study uses experimental markets to investigate how moral reasoning influences auditor reporting under different levels of economic incentives. In each multiperiod market, auditor subjects could either (1) misreport low observed outcomes as high and thereby reap economic advantages at the expense of third‐party investors, or (2) truthfully report low observed outcomes as low but thereby forgo the economic advantages of misreporting. We extend the Calegari, Schatzberg, and Sevcik 1998 experimental‐markets setting to incorporate moral reasoning, and test hypotheses based on the economic model of Magee and Tseng 1990 and the neo‐Kohlbergian moral reasoning framework of Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma 1999. We document a significant effect of moral reasoning on auditor behavior. Specifically, we find that misreporting and premium fees are more likely with higher than with lower moral reasoning subjects, and the moral reasoning effect diminishes as economic penalties increase in the market. These findings provide valuable insights for specifying the determinants of auditor misreporting, the observable behaviors that signal its existence, and the institutions that can prevent its occurrence in the market. We conclude that the relation between moral reasoning and behavior is more complex than commonly assumed in the accounting literature, and identify directions for future research.     

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 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.     

国际调停发生的讨价还价模型:一种定量检验

国际冲突是否经历调停是由调停的供给方(即调停者)和需求方(即争端方)共同决定的。与既有大多数研究强调影响调停发生的"深层原因"不同,作者借鉴理性主义解释视角,着重关注影响调停发生的"即时原因",即将调停的发生视为需求方讨价还价成功的结果。根据理性主义的解释,影响需求方讨价还价结果的主要障碍有私有信息(包括故意误传私有信息)、承诺问题和议题不可分割性三种,而第三方调停者的干预可以帮助需求方克服这三种障碍,从而增加调停发生的可能性。作者使用"国际危机行为"和"国际冲突管理"两个数据库数据,运用统计方法检验了调停发生的讨价还价模型。统计结果表明,当影响需求方之间讨价还价结果的三种问题得到有效管理时,国际冲突更容易经历调停。     

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.     

R&D Reporting Biases and Their Consequences*

The immediate expensing of research and development (R&D) expenditures is often justified by the conservatism principle. However, no accounting procedure consistently applied can be conservative throughout the firm's life. We therefore ask the following questions: (1) When is the expensing of R&D conservative and when is it aggressive, relative to R&D capitaliza‐tion? (2) What are the capital‐market implications of these reporting biases? To address these questions we construct a model of profitability biases (differences between reported profitability under R&D expensing and capitalization) and show that the key drivers of the reporting biases are the differences between R&D growth and earnings growth (momentum), and between R&D growth and return on equity (ROE). Companies with a high R&D growth rate relative to their profitability (typically early life‐cycle companies) report conservatively, while firms with a low R&D growth rate (mature companies) tend to report aggressively under current generally accepted accounting principles. Our empirical analysis, covering the period 1972‐2003, generally supports the analytical predictions. In the valuation analysis we find evidence consistent with investor fixation on the reported profitability measures: we detect undervaluation of conservatively reporting firms and overvaluation of aggressively reporting firms. These misvaluations appear to be corrected when the reporting biases reverse from conservative to aggressive and vice versa. This evidence is consistent with behavioral finance arguments about investor cognitive biases.     

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.     

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.