The effect of disclosing audit quality control deficiencies on non-audit tax services: Evidence from Deloitte’s 2007 PCAOB Part II inspection report

We examine whether public disclosure of Deloitte 2007 PCAOB Part II report, which identifies quality control deficiencies related to audits of income tax accounts, affects Deloitte’s auditor-provided tax services (APTS). Using a difference-in-differences model, we document a 17 percent lower likelihood of Deloitte’s audit clients employing APTS relative to clients of other annually inspected firms when the report is made public. We also find that the dampening effect of publicly disclosing the Part II report on Deloitte’s APTS is more evident among audit clients paying higher non-audit fees to auditors and those with more complex tax planning. These results suggest that revealing income tax-specific quality control deficiencies prompts audit clients to revise upward (downward) their expected costs (benefits) of perceived auditor independence impairment (knowledge spillover) stemming from APTS. Overall, our study suggests that public disclosure of audit firm-wide quality control deficiencies pertaining to audits of income tax accounts imposes a collateral damage to the inspected firm’s non-audit tax services, thereby providing a more complete understanding of the consequences of the PCAOB’s communications about quality control deficiencies in Part II reports.     

Group audits: Are audit quality and price associated with the Lead auditor’s decision to accept responsibility?

Lead auditors frequently rely on work performed by Other auditors, especially when auditing clients with operations in multiple countries. The PCAOB has expressed concern that the quality of such group audits may differ depending on whether the Lead auditor accepts or declines responsibility for work done by Other auditors. The PCAOB also has been concerned with the venue through which Lead auditors and Other auditors disclose their participation in group audits, including disclosure of whether Lead auditors accept or decline responsibility. To investigate these issues, we employ a sample consisting entirely of group audit engagements. We identify Lead auditors taking responsibility from PCAOB Form 2, filed by Other auditors of U.S. registrants for fiscal years 2009 to 2017. We identify Lead auditors not accepting responsibility from audit report disclosures during the same period. The results suggest that Lead auditors accepting responsibility charge higher audit fees but provide audits of no higher quality, and possibly of even lower quality. These results are robust to various additional analyses. Our research contributes to the ongoing debate over how the participation of Other auditors affects audit quality.     

PCAOB inspection reports and audit quality

With the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), audit firm oversight shifted away from self-regulation to independent regulation. The inspections program is the central feature of the PCAOB. We examine whether PCAOB inspections are able to distinguish actual audit quality (as opposed to perceived) during the period inspected to better understand this important regulatory tool. We use three measures that proxy for actual audit quality: abnormal accruals, restatements, and the propensity to issue a going concern opinion. For triennially inspected auditors, we find that PCAOB inspections are associated with lower audit quality when the reports are seriously deficient (weaker results for deficient reports). More specifically, we find clients of triennially inspected auditors that receive a deficient or seriously deficient report are associated with significantly higher abnormal current accruals and clients of auditors that receive a seriously deficient report are associated with a greater propensity to restate. Our evidence is subject to the caveat that PCAOB reports for triennially inspected auditors do not capture the going concern aspect of audit quality. For annually inspected auditors, the results are conflicting and suggest PCAOB inspection reports do not distinguish audit quality during the period inspected for annually inspected auditors.     

Costs and benefits of auditors' disclosure of critical audit matters: Initial evidence from the United States

In an effort to make audit reports more informative to financial statement users, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) requires an expanded audit report in which auditors are required to disclose critical audit matters (CAMs). The new standard (AS 3101) became effective for audits of financial statements of large accelerated filers for fiscal years ending on or after June 30, 2019. Using a sample of annual reports of large accelerated filers with and without CAM disclosures, we examine the costs and benefits of the mandatory disclosure of CAMs in auditors' reports. Our evidence suggests that compared to auditor reports reporting no CAMs, the presence of a single CAM disclosure in the auditor's report provides incremental information to equity investors without a significant increase in audit costs. However, using the benchmark of a single CAM disclosure, multiple CAMs in an auditor's report results in higher audit fees and longer audit delays.     

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.     

The effects of disclosing critical audit matters and auditor tenure on nonprofessional investors’ judgments

In an effort to provide more meaningful information to financial statement users, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) recently adopted sweeping changes to the audit report, requiring the audit firm to disclose whether or not it identified a critical audit matter (CAM) and its tenure with the client. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to explore how nonprofessional investors’ judgments are influenced by (1) the relative effects of a CAM disclosure versus a disclosure that the auditor did not identify a CAM, and (2) the disclosure of the audit firm’s tenure. We find that, relative to disclosing that no CAMs were identified, disclosing a CAM reduces investment intentions. We do not find a significant effect of tenure disclosure on investment intentions, despite evidence that participants attended to and understood the tenure manipulation. Concerning investors’ cognitive processes, we find that perceptions of both risk of material misstatement and management disclosure credibility mediate the effect of CAM disclosure on investment intentions, while perceived audit quality suppresses this effect. Our contributions include furthering the understanding of cognitive mechanisms through which CAM disclosure influences investment intentions, identifying a relatively unique setting in which perceptions of management disclosure credibility and audit quality move in opposite directions, and providing evidence that auditor tenure disclosure does not appear to affect investment intentions. Our findings should be of interest to regulators, auditors, issuers, and investors.     

Responses by Australian auditors to the global financial crisis

We examine the impact of the global financial crisis (GFC) on auditor behaviour in Australia. Using a sample of listed companies, we examine whether the GFC impacted the propensity of auditors to issue going concern modifications and increased audit effort as reflected in audit fees and audit reporting lag. Controlling for client characteristics, we find an increase in the propensity to issue going concern opinions during the period 2008–2009 compared with the period 2005–2007 and that Big N auditors responded to the GFC earlier than non‐Big N auditors. In relation to audit effort, we find evidence of increased audit fees during the period 2008–2009 compared with the period 2005–2007. There is, however, no evidence of increased audit reporting lags during the GFC.     

Consequences of adopting an expanded auditor’s report in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has recently required an expanded auditor’s report for large public companies. We investigate whether this requirement is associated with an increase in the decision usefulness of the auditor’s report and whether it has indirect consequences on audit fees and quality. Our analyses cover four years surrounding the changes, including companies that transitioned to the new regime and companies that continued issuing the previous report’s format. We do not find evidence that the regulatory change significantly affected investors’ reaction to the release of auditors’ reports, audit fees, or audit quality. Furthermore, we do not find that variation in the expanded reports’ content has affected these outcomes. Although companies with long reports pay comparatively higher fees, the mere increase in disclosure does not affect audit fees or quality. Collectively, our evidence is consistent with the expanded auditor’s report providing little incremental information to investors.     

The Audit Report under Going Concern Uncertainties: An Empirical Analysis

This study explores the value of the audit report in the context of the going concern qualification (GCQ) decision along the joint dimensions of auditor competence and independence. Likelihood of company failure, auditor switch rates, the self-fulfilling prophecy argument and audit firm size are analysed as variables potentially affecting the value of the audit report in a GCQ situation. This study focuses on the outcomes of such decisions: the presence or absence of a GCQ, for a large sample of UK quoted companies over the decade 1977–86. Our results suggest that, unless the likelihood of failure is very high, the probability of a GCQ is very low. We find some evidence in support of an association between the presence of a GCQ and auditor switching but no support for the self-fulfilling prophecy argument. In addition, smaller UK audit firms do not appear to exhibit lower GCQ rates than do large firms. There is some evidence that the issues of auditor competence and independence may be a cause for concern in this context in the UK.     

Effect of audit report disclosure on auditor litigation risk

Internationally, the escalating number of cases levelled against auditors and the costs of defending such actions has led to the auditing profession calling for measures to reduce their liability burden. Relatively few measures have been taken by the auditing profession by way of adapting the disclosure contained in the audit report to mitigate their litigation risk. This study examines whether the issuance of an audit opinion with a going concern related ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph or work practices disclosure has any effect on potential litigants' likelihood of pursuing litigation against the auditor. An analysis of 69 responses from advanced law students and 18 practitioners working in corporate liquidation demonstrate that a modified (but not qualified) audit report effectively acts as a ‘red flag’ and reduces potential litigants' propensity to initiate litigation. However, work practices disclosure did not significantly alter potential litigants' inclination to recommend litigation. Despite this finding, respondents (particularly liquidators) indicated that work practices disclosure was an important factor in their litigation decision. These results suggest that further investigation into how to effectively disclose the work done on audit and assurance engagements is needed. This has implications for standard setters and the auditing profession, especially considering recent changes in the disclosure contained in audit and assurance reports.     

An Investigation of Framing and Firm Size on the Auditor's Going Concern Decision

This study investigated the effects of framed information and firm size on the auditor's going concern report modification decision. Framing has been shown to affect individual decision-making in a variety of contexts. Investigations of framing effects in an audit context have reported mixed results. The findings of this study indicate that auditors are susceptible to the effect of framed information. Previous research has reported that auditors from small firms may be less conservative in audit disclosure recommendations than auditors associated with larger firms. This study evaluated the going concern decisions of auditors from three firm sizes: local/regional, a large non-Big Six firm, and a Big Six audit firm. Results indicate that differences in the report issued do exist across firm size. Possible explanations for the reported results are discussed.     

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.     

Management Going‐concern Disclosures: Impact of Corporate Governance and Auditor Reputation

The UK regulatory requirements relating to going‐concern disclosures require directors to report on the going‐concern status of their firms. Such directors have incentives not to report fairly in the case of financially‐distressed firms. We expect effective corporate governance mechanisms will encourage directors to report more truthfully in such situations. This paper tests this proposition explicitly using a large sample of going‐concern cases over the period 1994–2000. We find that whereas auditors' going‐concern opinions predict the subsequent resolution of going‐concern uncertainties directors' going‐concern statements convey arbitrary and unhelpful messages to users. However, robust corporate governance structures and high auditor reputation constrain directors to be more truthful in their going‐concern disclosures, bringing these more into line with the more credible auditor opinions.     

Information content, audit reports and going-concern: an Australian study

Research conducted on the information content of going concern ‘modified’ reports in the USA and UK indicates that a modified audit report does not appear to have information content to users if the going concern contingency is disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. In the present study, we provide evidence from Australia. We examine whether modification/qualification by an auditor in Australia (an ‘Emphasis of Matter’ and an ‘Except for’ report, respectively) has information content to a user. The results indicate that for a company in a state of financial distress, the modification, in either form, does not appear to significantly enhance either perceptions of risk or decision-making.     

Audit quality effects of the PCAOB's 2006 tax service restrictions

In 2004 and 2005, use of aggressive tax services provided by a company's auditor had become so broadly concerning that it was the focus of a PCAOB roundtable and discussed in a Congressional subcommittee investigation report (PCAOB, 2004 and US Senate, 2005). Although auditor provision of these and other nonaudit services to issuer audit clients was restricted in 2006, research on the effectiveness of these restrictions finds that they did not impact audit quality (Notbohm, Paterson and Valencia, 2015 and Lennox, 2016). We reexamine this issue with a focus on the audit quality effects for the engagements most impacted by the restrictions-Big 4 audit clients with pre-restriction tax service fees of at least $100,000 that fell by at least 75% following the restrictions. Using a difference-in-difference framework and two proxies for audit quality, we find evidence of the effectiveness of the PCAOB's 2006 restrictions among those clients. Additionally, we find these results are sensitive to the level of pre-restriction tax service fees, with the restatement (going concern) effect of the restrictions strengthening (weakening) in the pre-restriction tax service fee level. We also find that the effects of these restrictions are concentrated among clients of Big 4 auditors rather than clients of the 2nd tier or 3rd tier auditors. Results of additional analyses indicate that audit quality, as measured by the probability of restatement, was lower in the pre-restriction period for purchasers than for non-purchasers. Our results are robust to a barrage of sensitivity tests. Our findings contribute to the continued regulator discussion about the proper level and types of allowable tax nonaudit services.     

Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions

We find no significant association between non–audit service fees and impaired auditor independence, where auditor independence is surrogated by auditors' propensity to issue going concern audit opinions. We also find no association between going concern opinions and either total fees or audit fees. In addition, our findings are robust to controlling for unexpected fees, to controlling for endogeneity among our variables, and to several alternative research design specifications. Our results are consistent with market–based incentives, such as loss of reputation and litigation costs, dominating the expected benefits from compromising auditor independence.     

To switch or not to switch? The effect of audit firms’ economies of scale on audit firm switches after audit price deregulation in China

We exploit the unique setting of China’s 2014 audit price deregulation policy to examine whether audit firms use their economies of scale (EOS) to compete for clients. We find a significant increase in client firms switching from a non-EOS auditor to an EOS auditor after the audit price deregulation policy was implemented. The additional analyses show that EOS audit firms are more likely to offer audit fee discounts than non-EOS audit firms while retaining audit quality. We also find that the auditors’ EOS effect is more pronounced for highly homogeneous industries and firms paying high abnormal audit fees, firms in financial distress, and firms receiving less capital market attention than for less homogeneous industries and firms paying low abnormal audit fees, financially stable firms, and firms receiving more capital market attention. Finally, we find that the presence of state-owned enterprises and political connections both separately and jointly moderate the effect of audit firm–client realignments from a non-EOS auditor to an EOS auditor after the audit price deregulation. Overall, our study provides important insights for policymakers and regulators reviewing and developing new policies on audit services.     

Audit quality indicators: Perspectives from Non-Big Four audit firms and small company audit committees

Through a combined study, we explore the professional perspectives of two distinct PCAOB constituent groups related to the PCAOB's proposed regulatory approach for audit quality indicators. First, we examine the comment letters of Non-Big Four audit firms and find that this specific constituent group views most of the PCAOB's proposed audit quality indicators as infeasible and redundant. Further, Non-Big Four audit firms contend that the indicators require greater clarification from the regulator as well as substantial accompanying qualitative context to avoid misinterpretation that may lead to unintended consequences. Second, we survey a collection of audit committee members from small, publicly-traded companies regarding the current evaluation and perceived effectiveness of eleven specific PCAOB audit quality indicators, each of which is well-established in the extant audit quality literature. We find indicators related to auditor personnel with specialized skill and knowledge, experience of audit personnel, and the timely reporting of internal control issues are perceived to possess the highest level of effectiveness in the evaluation of audit quality.     

Do the Big 4 and the Second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality?

In this paper, we examine audit quality for Big 4 and Second-tier auditors during 2003–2006. We utilize the auditor’s propensity to issue a going concern audit report for distressed clients as a measure of audit quality. In addition, since the purpose of an audit is to improve financial reporting quality, we utilize abnormal accruals as an observable proxy for audit quality. Further, we utilize the client- and year-specific ex ante equity risk premium as a proxy for audit quality as perceived by investors. We control for auditor self-selection bias using the matched-pairs sample approach discussed by Francis and Lennox (2008). We find weak evidence that the Big 4 have a higher propensity to issue going concern audit opinions for distressed companies. However, the level of performance-adjusted abnormal accruals for Big 4 and Second-tier audit firm clients appears to be similar. With respect to investor perceptions, we find the client-specific ex ante equity risk premium to be lower for Big 4 clients than for Second-tier audit firm clients. Overall, our findings suggest little difference in actual audit quality but a more pronounced difference in perceived audit quality. Collectively, the evidence we provide informs the current discourse on audit quality, auditor choice, and the viability of Second-tier auditors as an alternative to the Big 4.     

Auditor reporting and earnings management: some additional evidence

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