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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A Bargaining Model of Auditor Reporting*

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

The Association Between Auditor Changes and Reporting Lags*

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

Investor Sentiment,Misstatements, and Auditor Behavior*

High investor sentiment has been linked with opportunistic managerial behavior in the face of more optimistic investors and analysts. We extend this line of work by documenting that the likelihood of misstatements is higher when sentiment is high. Although this would suggest elevated audit risk, we posit that a contemporaneous reduction in auditors' litigation cost could drive down audit fees and going concern opinion (GCO) reporting conservatism in order to please clientele. Consistent with this notion, we document that auditors charge lower fees and report GCOs less conservatively when sentiment is high. However, this reduction in reporting conservatism is unwarranted; results reveal that auditors are less likely to issue GCOs to clients which subsequently file for bankruptcy during high sentiment periods. We conduct additional tests to examine whether auditors' litigation costs indeed vary with sentiment and document that auditors are less likely to be sued and the market reacts less negatively to misstatement announcements when sentiment is high. Collectively, our findings suggest that, although misstatement risk is increasing with sentiment, auditors' litigation risk actually declines.     

Auditor Conservatism,Asymmetric Monitoring,and Earnings Management*

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

Auditor 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 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.     

Debt Covenant Restriction,Financial Misreporting,and Auditor Monitoring*

Theory suggests that financial report-based debt covenants engender incentives for the manager to relax covenant constraints through accounting choices in order to avoid costly covenant violations. Prior studies directly testing this hypothesis in the context of financial misreporting fail to find consistent evidence. Using a more refined measure of debt covenant restriction, we find that debt covenant restriction is positively associated with the probability of financial statement misstatements. This positive association is driven by performance covenants rather than capital covenants and is more consistent with the manager striving to avoid a “false-positive” violation than to delay the violation. Our results also imply that managers resort to both income-increasing and non–income-increasing misreporting to relieve covenant constraints and rely more on the latter when faced with greater earnings management constraints. Additionally, the auditor charges higher audit fees to firms with more binding covenants even outside the violation state, and audit fees increase with constraints relative to both performance and capital covenants, reflecting greater financial reporting risk and bankruptcy risk, respectively. Within capital covenants, we find some evidence of even higher audit fees for tighter intangible-inclusive versus intangible-exclusive capital covenants. Lastly, our evidence suggests that the positive association between covenant constraints and misreporting is attenuated when the auditor has more experience with debt covenants, has greater bargaining power over the client, or faces greater litigation risk.     

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.     

试论宏观调控行为的可诉性

法的可诉性是法治的基本特征。宏观调控行为的法治化是建立法治国家的题中之义。宏观调控行为与行政行为、国家行为、决策行为等既有区别又有联系。宏观调控行为的可诉性具有坚实的理论基础和强烈的现实需求,因此我们有必要强化宏观调控行为的可诉性。     

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.     

Auditor underreporting of time and moral reasoning: An experimental lab study*

Abstract. This paper introduces the theory of moral reasoning as a valid determinant of the underreporting of audit time. In an experimental lab design for a sample of 88 auditors from a national public accounting firm, actual underreporting on an audit task was observed. Findings show that underreporting is systematically related to the auditor's level of moral reasoning as measured by the Defining Issues Test (DIT). Here those with relatively low DIT scores were shown to underreport most severely. Results also show that although an unattainable time budget affects behavior, peer pressure has the most significant impact on underreporting. The present study makes three important contributions to the auditing and psychology literature. First, it establishes the significance of peer pressure as an antecedent to underreporting. Second, it shows that an auditor's moral reasoning explains actual underreporting behavior under conditions of work-related pressure. Third, it reveals marked underreporting under simulated audit conditions.     

The Joint Effects of Multiple Legal System Characteristics on Auditing Standards and Auditor Behavior

This paper derives the impacts of legal system characteristics and auditing standards on auditor behavior (audit quality), and analyzes the determination of optimal auditing standards under different legal regimes. Legal regimes are characterized by differences in the uncertainty concerning the outcome of legal proceedings (termed vagueness of legal systems) and differences in the average size of damage awards. Auditing standards as determined by standard setters can vary in both toughness and vagueness. Our analysis provides implications for the adoption of International Standards on Auditing (ISA). Countries, such as the United States, where auditor legal liability is significantly more onerous than the global norm are not likely to adopt ISA, since these standards may not induce auditors to provide the optimal level of audit quality. Conversely, the adoption of ISA by countries, such as China, where the legal system makes the recovery of damages from auditors quite difficult, is not by itself likely to result in a high level of audit quality. Furthermore, our model suggests that auditor rotation can help improve audit quality, but only in certain circumstances.