Auditor Lobbying for Accounting Standards: The Case of Banks and Savings and Loan Associations

This study examines auditor lobbying on seven proposed US accounting standards which affect banks and savings and loan associations. Evidence is provided in support of the Watts and Zimmerman (1982, 1986) theory on auditor lobbying. Watts and Zimmerman (WZ) hypothesise that auditor lobbying is a function of the client-manager position and a set of wealth effect variables. These variables may provide an incentive for auditors to disagree with their clients on proposed accounting issues. The WZ model is modified by including an audit risk variable. Results show that the model is statistically significant and that the identified wealth and audit risk effects are significant explanatory variables of auditor lobbying behaviour.     

Acceptance of Accounting Standards

When financial statements are audited, a client and auditor may disagree about an accounting disclosure. While the disclosure of such a disagreement may increase the information content of a statement it may also be socially undesirable in that it signals a difference in views about the state of the reporting enterprise. This in turn may increase agency costs and introduce uncertainty about the state of the firm. In this paper we focus on public policy implications concerning auditor-client disagreements and examine the ex ante probability that such cases will occur. We find that accounting standards that allow two accounting options may be optimal in reducing frequency of disagreements among auditors and between standard-setters and their constituencies, and possibly also between clients and their auditors. The New Zealand model of compliance with accounting standards may be preferable to that practiced in the US.     

The relative effectiveness of persuasion tactics in auditor–client negotiations

In this study, we examine the effectiveness of four persuasive arguments that auditors may use to convince clients to accept their desired position in auditor–client negotiations. In addition, we investigate how the style in which the argument is communicated by the auditor impacts its effectiveness. Our results indicate that the type of persuasion tactic used by auditors significantly impacts the amount of concessions made by clients. Specifically, we find that, while threatening to qualify the audit opinion can result in significant client concessions, a tactic of simply informing the client that other companies have handled the accounting issue in a way consistent with the auditor’s preference is as effective, or more effective, than all of the other tactics examined at eliciting significant concessions as well as engendering positive affect toward the auditor. This result is consistent with findings from the persuasion literature relating to the pervasive power of social validation. We also find that clients offer more concessions, evaluate the auditor more positively, and are more satisfied with the negotiation outcome when auditors communicate their arguments using a cooperative, as opposed to a contentious, communication style. The results of this study indicate that auditors may benefit from training in persuasion tactics in order to achieve more desirable negotiation outcomes.     

The influence of large clients on office-level auditor oversight: Evidence from the property-casualty insurance industry

We analyze the loss-reserving practices of 562 insurance companies in 1993 to assess the relation between client influence and auditor oversight. Consistent with Petroni [1992. Management's response to the differential costs and benefits of optimistic reporting in the property-casualty insurance industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics 15, 485–508.], we find that financially struggling insurers tend to under-reserve. However, this behavior is attenuated when the weak insurer is important to the local practice office of the auditor. This result holds across various measures of client influence and supports the contention of Reynolds and Francis [2001. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting divisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 30, 375–400.] that auditors allow less accounting discretion to their larger clients.     

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.     

Measuring audit quality of local governments in England and Wales

The purpose of this paper is to model and test the audit quality provided to local governments in England and Wales. A key question is: are there major differences in audit quality provided? The Audit Commission, a national public body under Parliament, regulates the audits. It sets audit standards, appoints the auditors, and (although each auditor and client local government set the specific audit fee for that client) it establishes a formula to determine standard audit fees. The Audit Commission also conducts an annual review of the audit quality provided by the selected auditors, as well as a survey of client satisfaction. The majority of audits are conducted by District Auditors (public sector employees of the Audit Commission). About a quarter of local governments are audited by one of six private sector auditors (including three of the Big 4). Actual results indicate that audit quality differences are associated with the number of governmental audit clients and local government type. Generally, there were modest quality differences by auditor category.     

Why good accountants do bad audits

On July 30, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act addressing corporate accountability. A response to recent financial scandals, the law tightened federal controls over the accounting industry and imposed tough new criminal penalties for fraud. The president proclaimed, "The era of low standards and false profits is over." If only it were that easy. The authors don't think corruption is the main cause of bad audits. Rather, they claim, the problem is unconscious bias. Without knowing it, we all tend to discount facts that contradict the conclusions we want to reach, and we uncritically embrace evidence that supports our positions. Accountants might seem immune to such distortions because they work with seemingly hard numbers and clear-cut standards. But the corporate-auditing arena is particularly fertile ground for self-serving biases. Because of the often subjective nature of accounting and the close relationships between accounting firms and their corporate clients, even the most honest and meticulous of auditors can unintentionally massage the numbers in ways that mask a company's true financial status, thereby misleading investors, regulators, and even management. Solving this problem will require far more aggressive action than the U.S. government has taken thus far. What's needed are practices and regulations that recognize the existence of bias and moderate its effects. True auditor independence will entail fundamental changes to the way the accounting industry operates, including full divestiture of consulting and tax services, rotation of auditing firms, and fixed-term contracts that prohibit client companies from firing their auditors. Less tangibly, auditors must come to appreciate the profound impact of self-serving biases on their judgment.     

Determinants of auditor changes for non-accelerated filers

Significant accounting scandals and the imminent collapse of Arthur Andersen in 2001 precipitated a period of heightened regulatory response, most notably the enactment of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. In the years that followed, the Securities and Exchange Commission created a separate class of non-accelerated filers (companies with public float of up to $75 million) and provided these companies with significant regulatory relief from certain financial reporting disclosure and auditing requirements, including the extension of scaled disclosure to these companies in 2007. Over the period of 2001 through 2007, as non-accelerated clients anticipated and responded to their different and evolving regulatory regime, audit firms were adjusting to the increased concentration in their market, a new monitoring structure, and significant changes to the scope of their work. We examine whether auditor–client misalignment is a significant determinant of auditor change during this period, particularly for non-accelerated filers, as large auditors sought to rebalance their client portfolios. We find evidence that auditor–client misalignment increases the likelihood of auditor change (resignation and dismissal) for non-accelerated, but not accelerated, filers. We also find that auditor–client misalignment increases the likelihood of downward changes to third-tier auditors for non-accelerated, but not accelerated, filers.     

Client influence and auditor independence revisited: Evidence from auditor resignations

Financial scandals such as the Enron-Andersen debacle provoke concerns that auditors lack independence when faced with influential clients. Unlike previous studies that examine whether client influence affects audit quality on ongoing engagements (providing mixed results), we investigate whether client influence (which engenders “independence risk”) at the audit-office level affects auditor resignations from high engagement-risk clients. We construct summary measures of engagement risk, using client disclosures on Form 8-K filings, potential risk factors (e.g., litigation risk), and auditor action (e.g., issuance of a going concern opinion) on the previous year’s financial statements. Focusing on risky clients, we find that auditors are more likely on average to resign from influential clients, and this positive association holds for auditors that are less likely to have mechanisms in place to mitigate independence risk. Also, importantly, influential clients are prevalent across the spectrum of client size, and the positive association between client influence and auditor resignations holds for both large and small clients.     

The impact of auditor rotation on auditor–client negotiation

This paper reports the results of an experiment designed to investigate how mandatory audit firm rotation affects auditor–client negotiations. Drawing upon process theories of negotiation, we examine the strategies used by auditors and clients as well as the outcomes of their negotiations in alternative settings in which mandatory rotation is imposed or is not imposed. We posit that mandatory rotation changes (1) the dynamics of the audit market by increasing the number of clients who are in the market for a new auditor, and (2) the political costs to a client who switches auditors. These changes, in turn, alter the willingness of the auditor and the client to cooperate during negotiation. The results suggest that with mandatory rotation auditors adopt less cooperative negotiation strategies, producing asset values that are more in line with the auditor’s preferences than with the client’s preferences and more negotiation impasses.     

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.     

The impact on the market for audit services of aggressive competition by auditors

Supporters of direct uninvited solicitation activities argue that clients can make more informed choices of auditors when auditors are allowed to solicit prospective clients. In banned markets, auditors are allowed to submit bids to provide audit services only when invited by the client. This study provides theoretical models that examine the efficiency of client–auditor alignments in the banned and allowed market. We identify conditions under which realignment differences between the two markets occur and derive client losses in the banned market as compared to the allowed market. We also identify conditions under which independence may be impaired in the allowed market, consistent with the claims of solicitation opponents. However, we believe that, in view of the potential positive effects related to audit pricing and client–auditor alignment, restrictions on advertising or direct uninvited solicitation are not necessarily indicated. Instead, regulators or market mechanisms should insure that the independence (truth-telling) condition is so readily satisfied as to be virtually irrelevant. This can happen in one of two ways: (a) increased scrutiny, leading to an increased likelihood of discovery, or (b) increased penalties when an audit failure is discovered, leading to increased costs of an audit failure, or both.     

Understanding the determinants of the magnitude of entity-level risk and account-level risk key audit matters: The case of the United Kingdom

This study was conducted to analyse the influence of auditor and client characteristics on the magnitude and type of key audit matters (KAM) disclosed in the audit reports of the FTSE 100 companies in the UK during the period 2013–2016. A recently introduced standard requires auditors to reveal the main risks faced by the client and to describe how these are addressed in the audit. Our results show that Deloitte, EY and KPMG tend to report fewer entity-level-risk KAM (ELRKAM) than PwC, while KPMG and BDO report fewer account-level-risk KAM (ALRKAM) than PwC. In general, auditors of companies that pay higher audit services fees present more ELRKAM and fewer ALRKAM. Our findings also show that client characteristics are relevant to the number and type of KAM included in the audit report. Our results show that auditor and client characteristics are determinants of the number of KAM disclosed and, moreover, determine the type of KAM disclosed in the audit reports.     

Economic analysis of accountants' ethical standards: The case of audit opinion shopping

The public accounting profession presently employs a strict system of ethical standards that relies upon explicit rules plus monitoring and enforcement procedures that penalize violations of the rules. An alternative approach to ethical standards that the public accounting profession may wish to consider is a laissez faire approach. Instead of rules and penalties to enforce desired behaviors, the laissez faire approach utilizes moral training and leadership to motivate professional accountants to act in the public interest, for the sake of the profession as a whole. The theoretical basis for the laissez faire approach is a growing body of evidence in economics and related disciplines that people often take actions to further the collective welfare of a group despite a detrimental effect on their own selfish interests. This paper offers a framework for examining the relative economic merits of the strict and laissez faire approaches to ethical standards within the accounting profession. The framework is based on game theory, and the setting employed in the paper involves opinion shopping by audit clients. The paper finds that the effectiveness of a laissez faire approach to ethical standards, at least in the opinion-shopping scenario, is related to (a) the ethical climate, which refers to the likelihood a given independent auditor will choose the ethical action, (b) the frequency of independent auditor rotation, which reduces the economic advantage of being the incumbent auditor, (c) the explicitness of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), which reduces uncertainty over whether or not a particular act is ethical, (d) the availability of opportunities to discuss ethical choices with rival auditors, and (e) disclosure requirements associated with auditor–client disputes over material accounting issues.     

我国审计市场制度安排与审计质量需求——中天勤客户流向的案例分析

本文分析了中天勤会计师事务所原来的63家客户的走向。作者的主要发现是:上市公司在选择会计师事务所时,对地域因素考虑较多,同时,经办的注册会计师与上市公司选择同一家事务所的比例相对比较高。这些现象都与高质量审计市场的特征存在一定的差异。此外,作者还发现国际五大在承接原中天勤客户的行为上,存在一些值得关注的现象。     

Does Auditor Industry Specialization Improve Audit Quality?

This study examines whether auditor industry specialization, measured using the auditor's within‐industry market share, improves audit quality and results in a fee premium. After matching clients of specialist and nonspecialist auditors on a number of dimensions, as well as only on industry and size, there is no evidence of differences in commonly used audit‐quality proxies between these two groups of auditors. Moreover, there is no consistent evidence of a specialist fee premium. The matched sample results are confirmed by including client fixed effects in the main models, examining a sample of clients that switched auditors, and using an alternative proxy that aims to capture the auditor's industry knowledge. The combined evidence in this study suggests that the auditor's within‐industry market share is not a reliable indicator of audit quality. Nevertheless, these findings do not imply that industry knowledge is not important for auditors, but that the methodology used in extant archival studies to examine this issue does not fully parse out the effects of auditor industry specialization from client characteristics.     

Financial reporting consequences of natural disasters: Evidence from the impact of resource constraints at audit offices on non-affected clients

Disaster-affected clients demand significant additional effort from their audit office, and hence strain the audit office’s resources available to other non-disaster-affected clients. We consider audit offices with disaster-affected clients to be strained offices and find that, compared with clients audited by non-strained audit offices, non-disaster-affected clients audited by strained audit offices are more likely to have their financial statements restated. This result suggests the financial reporting quality of companies not directly exposed to disasters could also be negatively affected by the disasters, due to their auditors’ strained-resource issue. We further find such a negative effect is more pronounced when the degree of resource constraints is greater and when the audit office lacks client experience or industry expertise. We offer novel evidence of financial reporting consequences of natural disasters, focusing on the externality of disasters on companies not directly affected by disasters. The findings have important implications for regulators in making disaster-related policies, for auditors in managing their client portfolios, and for companies in making auditor choice decisions.     

Auditor objectivity as a function of auditor negotiation self-efficacy beliefs

This study empirically examines whether an auditor's perceived ability to negotiate discretionary accounting issues with clients (auditor negotiation self-efficacy) is related to auditor objectivity, and whether an auditor's negotiation self-efficacy has a greater impact on her objectivity when the auditor's accuracy motive (professional identity) is strong rather than weak. We tested the hypotheses using a cross-sectional survey design and obtained 146 responses from among 800 surveyed experienced Swedish auditors. The findings indicate that auditors with higher negotiation self-efficacy were more likely to make decisions on a material and discretionary accounting issue contrary to their clients' desires compared to auditors with lower self-efficacy. The relationship between negotiation self-efficacy and auditor objectivity was not moderated by professional-identity strength. These research findings suggest that recruiting and training auditors to increase their negotiation self-efficacy may be an effective method to enhance auditor objectivity without the problems inherent in other methods, such as auditor rotation. Our sample was obtained in Sweden, which allows long auditor tenures. We caution that, although our analysis controlled for auditor tenure, the effect of auditor negotiation self-efficacy may not be generalizable to countries that limit tenure through regulation.     

The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions

This study examines how auditors respond to precedents in accounting situations where authoritative guidance does not exist. Three experiments were conducted with practicing audit managers and partners from a Canadian Big Six accounting firm. The results show that auditors rely to a greater extent on precedents that are similar (versus not similar) to the problem situation. When the client's position on the accounting matter was known to the auditor and all available precedents pointed to the same treatment of the accounting issue in question, auditors did not heed the client's position. Rather, they used the available precedents to judge the appropriate accounting. In contrast, when the client's position was known and the available precedents were mixed in their implications for the appropriate accounting treatment, auditors tended to follow the client's position. These results are considered in light of issues of auditor independence and the accounting regulatory environment.     

AUDITOR CHOICE AND AUDIT FEE DETERMINANTS

An analytical model predicts that cross-sectionally (1) the marginal cost of auditor quality is inversely related to the strength of client companies' internal control. (2) In the short run, clients with stronger control, lower business risk, or less complex audits choose higher quality auditors; but whether they pay higher audit fees is indeterminate. (3) In the long run, client companies have both lower quality auditors and weaker controls as risk or complexity increase, so less precise financial reporting is expected from them. (4) The effects of risk and complexity on fees are indeterminate, because the price and quantity components of fees tend to vary inversely as risk or complexity change. The predictions are consistent with findings that have been viewed as empirical anomalies.