Search results

This paper aims to examine the effect of conditional conservatism on audit fees and whether the firm’s engagement in sustainable practices moderates the relationship between conditional conservatism and audit fees.

Using a sample of 3,767 firm-year observations from 14 European Union countries over the period of 2006–2019, the authors adopt the ordinary least square estimator to perform a panel data analysis of the effect of conditional conservatism on audit fees, and the moderating role of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores on the relationship between conditional conservatism and audit fees.

The authors find that conditional conservatism has a significant negative effect on audit fees, suggesting that auditors charge lower audit fees on more conservative clients. The authors also find that firms engaging in ESG actions, whether combined or individual, pay higher audit fees. More interestingly, the authors provide evidence that the negative effect of conditional conservatism on audit fees is mitigated only when ESG performance is considered in combination. This implies that firms exhibiting less commitment to ESG sustainability practices are prone to paying reduced audit fees when engaged in more conservative reporting. The findings remain robust after conducting a battery of tests.

The findings of this study have practical implications for several parties, including companies, auditors and regulators. This study emphasizes the potential benefit associated with using conservative accounting practices in terms of shaping downward the amount of audit fees. However, it also highlights the importance of considering the additional audit costs associated with higher ESG scores when making decisions about implementing sustainable practices.

Unlike prior studies that investigate the direct impact of sustainable practices on audit fees, the present work contributes to the literature on the benefits and costs of ESG by examining the moderating role of ESG performance in the association between audit fees and conditional conservatism. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine this relationship. Theoretically, the research integrates the theories of audit risk and agency to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the drivers of audit fees.

This study aims to examine whether China's unique dual audit policy affects one specific aspect of audit quality: auditor conservatism. In China, listed companies issuing B/H-shares in addition to A-shares must release two financial reports – one based on Chinese accounting standards and the other based on international accounting standards (ISA). The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) further requires that the financial reports following Chinese accounting standards should be audited by a domestic CPA firm, and the financial reports following ISA should be audited by an approved overseas CPA firm. This study investigates whether the dual audit requirement induces more auditor conservatism.

Based on a sample of 7,046 firm-year observations that issue A-shares from 2001 to 2006, the authors empirically test whether the dual audit requirement induces more auditor conservatism, measured by the level of discretionary accruals.

The authors find the dual audit requirement significantly restricts the use of income-increasing discretionary accruals but not income-decreasing discretionary accruals. Moreover, financial reporting becomes most conservative when two auditors are from two un-affiliated audit firms. Nevertheless, the difference-in-difference analysis fails to show a significant decrease in auditor conservatism after the revocation of the dual audit rule for the treatment group with dual audit before but no dual audit after 2007 comparing to the control group that experience no change in 2007.

First, the previous studies examine issues regarding the effects of supervision pressure through experimental setting. The authors extend the literature by examining empirically the impact of perceived peer pressure on auditor conservatism. Second, the findings from China regarding the effect of the dual audit system on auditor conservatism serve as a reference for other emerging markets that have not yet established sound audit systems.

This study aims to address the following four research questions: first, whether auditors report critical audit matters (CAMs) to shield themselves against possible litigation; second, whether reporting quality affects auditors’ propensity to report CAMs; third, whether auditors’ tenure length – reflecting familiarity with clients’ financial reporting – affects their likelihood to report CAMs; and fourth, whether auditors’ conservatism increases the likelihood of CAMs reporting.

Data are manually collected from audit reports including CAMs in 10-K, then financial data are collected from the Capital IQ database, and market data are collected from the CRSP database. Using propensity score matching, the initial sample of companies with CAMs is matched with companies without reported CAMs. Performance adjusted discretionary accruals, real earnings management proxy, Khan and Watts’ (2009) C-score, propensity to issue a going concern opinion, Dechow et al.’s (2011) F-Score, Rogers and Stocken’s (2005) model and Houston et al.’s (2010) model are used to measure reporting quality, auditor conservatism, misstatement risk and litigation risk, respectively.

The results do not show that auditors report CAMs opportunistically to shield themselves from litigation risk. However, the results do suggest that auditors have a greater tendency to report CAMs when reporting quality is low and when they are more conservative. On the other hand, they have less tendency to report CAMs in their first year of engagement.

The findings of this study have important implications for the auditor behavior literature as it shows that, when it comes to reporting CAMs, auditors actually behave objectively and do not report in a trite way. This study also provides early archival evidence on a standard that relates to the first major change to the auditor’s report in decades. To the best of the author’s knowledge, it is the first to provide evidence on the association between auditor conservatism and auditors tendency to report CAMs and the first to triangulate prior research on auditor litigation risk by providing the first archival evidence on the auditors “litigation-shielding” concern.

This study examines whether auditors attempt to meet the stated objective of reporting CAMs by signaling information about reporting quality. This study demonstrates that reporting CAMs is not a “boilerplate” communication. This study has implications for standards setters, as it shows that CAMs are reported in a way consistent with the objectives of the new standard, namely, via signaling information in the audit report on the quality of the financial statements.

In terms of originality, this paper uses a manually collected sample and, to the best of the author’s knowledge, is the first to focus on auditor’s behavior rather than on investors or clients reactions to CAMs. Also, this paper addresses a recently issued standard using US data and archival approach, rather than experimental. This paper also provides relevant evidence related to concerns raised earlier but were not empirically examined, such as reporting CAMS as “boilerplate” expectations. This paper provides new evidence on the auditors’ behavior with regard to litigation risk.

Auditors tend to focus more on income-increasing items compared to income-decreasing items because they are trained to be conservative and also because the risk of litigation is significantly higher for failing to detect material income-increasing items compared to material income-decreasing items. Auditors’ consideration of transaction-level items is also affected by their evaluation of company-level information. Therefore, this study aims to examine how the interaction between company-level information and sign of the material items affects auditors’ evaluation of income-increasing and income-decreasing items.

A three-treatment between-subjects experiment was conducted to investigate the research questions.

The results indicate that in the absence of company-level information, auditors intuitively associate a higher risk and audit effort to income-increasing items. When the company-level information indicates that management is under pressure to inflate earnings, auditors’ conservatism associated with income-increasing items gets amplified. This leads to an increase in the difference in assessed risk and audit effort between income-increasing and income-decreasing items. However, when the company-level information indicates that management is not under pressure to inflate earnings, there are no significant differences in assessed risk and audit effort between income-increasing and income-decreasing items. These results indicate that auditor conservatism is affected by company-level information.

The findings indicate how an analysis of company-level information (as prescribed by auditing standards) and inherent auditor conservatism could potentially affect audit procedures and have important implications for the audit profession.

This study aims to examine the effect of reducing disclosure and auditing requirements on audit quality, auditor effort and auditor conservatism. The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 is used as a setting for this research. The JOBS Act aimed to boost economic growth by easing emerging growth companies’ (EGCs) access to capital markets. The Act provides scaled disclosure and auditing provisions and exemptions for EGCs.

Using data from Capital IQ, CRSP and Audit Analytics on EGCs and matching non-EGCs between 2012 and 2018, this study assesses the effect of such reduced disclosure and audit requirements on audit quality, auditor effort and auditor conservatism.

The findings denote that while audit quality and auditor effort are lower for EGCs, auditor conservatism is not different for EGCs as compared to non-EGCs.

This study expands the current research by providing evidence on the impact of reduced reporting and auditing requirements on auditor conservatism and audit quality, in addition to auditor effort in EGC engagements.

The purpose of this study is to examine high-quality auditors’ conservatism in Iran market based on the classification of Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) in terms of their reaction to client’s earnings management behavior and their limitations to issue the going concern opinions (GCOs) over an eight-year period from 2009 to 2016.

The study population consists of 1,376 observations and 172 companies listed on the TSE during the years 2009-2016. Following the prior studies, the authors used the modified Jones model to measure discretionary accruals as a proxy for earnings management.

The results witnessed a negative relationship between the size of the audit firm and discretionary accruals; besides, the relationship between abnormal accruals and GCO on companies audited by high-quality audit firms is higher than other companies. In other words, firms with GCO, which were audited by the Iranian large auditors, report negative abnormal accruals less than those audited by non-large auditors. In short, in spite of the special features of Iran market because of economic sanctions, this paper extends prior literature clarifying that auditors’ conservatism induces accrual reversals when auditors issue GCOs. One interpretation of this result is that the existence of such association is because of not only auditor conservatism but also financially distressed firms.

The outcomes of this paper will help to fill the knowledge gap related to this issue between developing and developed countries because this investigation exposed more than ever the vital role of the auditor as an observer on the financial statements. Without any exaggeration, this research will make investors and stakeholders aware of this fact that auditor conservatism will be effective in reducing the manipulation of financial reporting and agency problems in emerging markets, particularly those markets facing with economic sanctions like Iran.

Because of Iran’s dire economic situation during the period under consideration, this is one of the most comprehensive research among the countries of the Middle East that surveys the impact of auditor conservatism on accruals and GCO in an emerging market, namely, Iran.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of internal control weaknesses on accounting conservatism in Chinese listed firms. It also investigates the relationship between the demand for external audit and accounting conservatism, and whether additional assurance of internal control reports (ICRs) can mitigate the negative impact of ICWs on accounting conservatism.

An empirical research approach is taken through the use of ordinary least squares (OLS) models and hand-collected internal control weakness data from ICRs released by Chinese listed firms.

The results of this paper show that the existence of ICWs has a negative effect on accounting conservatism in China. Further, the results demonstrate that both accounting-related and non-accounting-related ICWs affect accounting conservatism. The authors also find that there is a complementary relationship between accounting conservatism and the demand for additional assurance of ICRs, and additional assurance of ICRs can mitigate the negative impact of ICWs on accounting conservatism.

This study provides timely evidence to Chinese regulators of the possible economic consequences of the official implementation of internal control standard in China from 2012. The findings of this paper can also benefit regulators around the world and, in particular, the regulators in emerging markets that are considering implement regulations similar to the US SOX.

The paper demonstrates that a wider scope of ICWs, including non-accounting-related ICWs, also has a significant impact on accounting conservatism. Therefore, this research provides a more general evidence on the relationship between internal control quality and accounting conservatism.

The main aim of the present study is to assess the moderating effect of joint audit (JA) on the relationship between audit committee effectiveness (ACEFF) and audit quality (AQ) in Egypt.

The sample included 61 non-financial corporations listed on the Egyptian Exchange from 2016 through 2020. The results are estimated using panel data analysis with fixed-effect models.

The findings exhibit that audit committee (AC) independence, ACEFF; and audit firm size negatively affect AQ. Conversely, the influence of AC meetings on AQ is positive and significant. The findings also reveal that JA moderates the relation between the ACEFF and AQ.

The study offers theoretical contributions to corporate governance mechanisms, JA; and AQ by using data from listed firms in Egypt. The study is the first one that examines the moderating role of JA on ACEFF and AQ.

The study has practical implications for investors, board members, practitioners, academicians; and policymakers. Moreover, the study contributes using a composite measure for the ACEFF score.

The findings, supported by agency, resource dependence; and signaling theories, contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between ACEFF, AQ; and JA. The evidence about JA is still unknown in developing countries. Further, revisiting AQ with different measures, particularly accounting conservatism, has not been a subject of prior studies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of audit failure on Big 4 audit firm monitoring activities. The paper analyzes changes in discretionary accruals (DAs) among clients of firms implicated in audit failure events and examines whether these DAs decline in the period following the event.

The paper uses archival data and regression analyses to test whether DAs for clients of implicated audit firms decline in the period following the audit failure as compared to clients of other Big 4 firms. Audit failures are identified during the years 1996‐2004 based on significant lawsuit settlements. The paper focuses on an office‐level analysis to control for audit quality differences which may vary across firm geographic locations as suggested by recent research.

Empirical results indicate that auditor response to audit failure has changed over time. Auditors implicated in audit failure events occurring in the post‐Enron and Sarbanes‐Oxley period enforce more conservative accounting choices in the year following the event. Specifically, clients of the implicated firm's office report a significant decline in discretionary accounting accruals relative to clients of other auditors in the same city location. However, a significant change in client discretionary accounting accruals is not found following audit failures that occurred prior to 2001, the year of the Enron bankruptcy.

The results of this paper extend the knowledge of the effects of litigation pressure on audit quality. Additionally, this paper helps address the question of how large‐scale audit failures witnessed at the beginning of the century have impacted audit firm conservatism.

Using the most recent observations (2005‐2011) from a sample of UK listed companies, This paper aims to investigate whether Big 4 audit firms exhibit a “fee premium” and, if this is the case, whether the premium is related to the delivery of a better audit service.

Univariate tests, multivariate regressions and two methodologies that control for self‐selection bias are used to answer the proposed research questions. Data are collected from DataStream.

Findings provide consistent evidence about the existence of an “audit fee premium” charged by Big 4 firms while they do not highlight any significant relationship between audit quality and type of auditor with respect to the audit quality proxies investigated.

Evidence from this paper might signal the need for legislative intervention to improve the competitiveness of the audit market on the basis that its concentrated structure is leading to “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients. Findings might also enhance Big 4 client bargaining power. However, as the paper analyses only one country, generalizability of the results might be a limitation.

This study joins two streams of the extant literature that investigate the existence of a “Big 4 audit fee premium” and different levels of audit quality among Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients. Evidence supports the concerns raised by the UK House of Lords in 2010 that the concentrated structure of the audit market could be the driver of “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients as it does not find differences in audit quality between Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients.