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.     

Evidence-based policymaking in auditing regulation: An historical analysis of academic research citation in PCAOB standard-setting practices

The success of the auditing profession hinges on the efficient and effective development of authoritative guidance that directs practice. Given the opportunity to assist, academicians can provide an understanding of the costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of potential regulatory decisions. Currently, few studies exist in the extant literature that explore the relationship between the development of auditing standards and the contribution of academic research. To investigate the scope of academic literature consideration in the development of public company auditing regulation, we examine whether and to what extent academic citations are referenced throughout the PCAOB’s rulemaking documents. We find evidence that the PCAOB currently appears to incorporate the use of an evidence-based policymaking approach in its standard-setting practices, progressively evolving since its incipience. The findings of this study may lead to a calling for more robust academic discussion in future PCAOB public policy decisions, which in turn may benefit the auditing profession.     

New audit partner identification rules may offer opportunities and benefits

From the WorldCom and Enron accounting debacles that triggered the demise of Arthur Andersen to Ernst & Young’s 2013 and 2015 settlements of claims that its audits facilitated massive accounting fraud by financial services firm Lehman Brothers, large-scale financial scandals have led to increasing scrutiny of public auditors. Investors are justifiably eager to ascertain the quality of audits of public companies when making investment decisions. In the U.K., the reputation of the audit partner is recognized as a signal of audit quality, and as such, the names of the lead partners have been disclosed to the public since 2009. The U.S. standard of providing the auditing firm name without identifying the lead partner recently changed to match the U.K. and EU standard after much debate. As of May 2016, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has adopted—and the Securities and Exchange Commission has approved—new regulations that will require the public disclosure of the individual audit partner responsible for each public company audit, as well as the identification of any additional accounting firms that contribute to the audit. This article examines the new rules in light of disclosure requirements imposed on other professionals, as well as international auditor disclosure requirements. The accounting profession has generally opposed the new disclosures, but this article suggests opportunities and benefits for the profession as a result of the changes, including the opportunity for audit partners to develop individual reputations for quality and specialization. In addition, this article makes recommendations for business managers, owners, and investors for making the best use of the information the new disclosures will provide.     

Does the signature of a CPA matter? Evidence from Taiwan

This paper employed aquestionnaire survey to investigate the opinions of audit report stakeholders in Taiwan regarding the regulation of signatures in audit reports. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) proposed these regulations in 2009, and again in 2011 with a slight alteration. Most respondents agree that having the engagement partner sign the audit report could increase the accountability of CPAs. In addition, the participants believed that knowledge of the name of the engagement partner is important for the users of audit reports. Both of these views are consistent with the views voiced by the PCAOB. Most of the respondents also believe that the regulation of signatures would increase the legal responsibility of the engagement partner and minimize the role of firms in the auditing process. Finally, the respondents felt that the engagement partner has a much greater responsibility when their signature is in the audit report than when it is disclosed elsewhere, indirectly supportingthe second proposal of the PCAOB, which, rather than having the engagement partner sign their name on the audit report, simply lists the names of engagement partners elsewhere.     

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.     

Did the PCAOB's 2009 Office Expansion Improve Audit Quality?*

We investigate whether the PCAOB's decision to expand the number and location of its inspection offices in 2009 improved the reliability of US audits. We use a difference-in-differences empirical design to consider the impacts of the expansion on audit quality and find that audit quality significantly improved following the PCAOB's expansion in markets where new offices opened relative to markets without an office opening. We find that the improvement in audit quality appears to be driven by auditors' reaction to real changes in PCAOB oversight and that triennially inspected auditors appear to be impacted the most by this office expansion. Our findings provide new insights into the PCAOB's operational decision-making and suggest that the regulator's additional investment in audit oversight was effective in improving audit quality.     

Auditors’ Use of In-House Specialists

Using Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection data from 2006 to 2018, we examine the use of auditor-employed specialists in audit engagements. First, we find that the use of specialists is increasingly prevalent and related to clients’ size and complex accounting estimates. Second, the use of specialists is positively associated with the incidence of audit process deficiencies (identified by PCAOB inspections) but is not associated with output-based audit-quality proxies (restatements or absolute discretionary accruals). Hence, although process deficiencies are more likely to occur in engagements with higher use of specialists, financial reporting quality is not negatively impacted. Third, the use of specialists is positively associated with the likelihood of goodwill impairments and negatively associated with engagement profitability. Finally, cross-sectional tests suggest that board accounting expertise is a salient condition for more effective use of specialists. Collectively, our findings align with concerns noted by the PCAOB and prior experimental and survey studies. Although specialists assist auditors with the audit of complex estimates, engagements with comparatively high specialist use entail an incremental risk of audit process deficiencies.     

The impact of PCAOB international registration on audit quality and audit fees: Evidence from China

Despite the importance of registration with the PCAOB, there is surprisingly little academic research on the registration process and its impact on audit outcomes (Abernathy et al., 2013). The PCAOB allows registration of audit firms from non-US countries. However, China and a few other countries do not allow the PCAOB to conduct inspections of audit firms. We take advantage of this setting to investigate whether PCAOB-registered audit firms improve audit quality in the absence of inspections and whether they charge an audit fee premium. Our findings indicate that audit quality increases following PCAOB registration and that clients pay higher audit fees for audits by PCAOB-registered firms.     

PCAOB international inspection access and debt contracting: Evidence from American Depositary Receipt firms

We examine whether the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB’s) international inspection access affects the usage of accounting-based debt covenants in bank loan contracts of American Depositary Receipt (ADR) borrowers. We show that there is an increase in the use of financial covenants in debt contracts after the auditor of an ADR borrower becomes subject to PCAOB inspections. We also document that lenders increase the usage of financial covenants only in loans to ADR borrowers domiciled in countries with weak home country intuitions, and the increase is more pronounced for ADR borrowers from countries without a local auditor regulatory oversight body. These findings suggest that PCAOB regulatory oversight enhances the perceived credibility of accounting numbers for debt contracting and serves as a substitute for the weak monitoring of auditors for ADR borrowers domiciled in countries with weak country institutions.