Search results

Post-Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX), the audit committee has been empowered greatly to play a central role in the corporate governance of firms. Embedded in agency theory, this study aims to examine the effect of the audit committee on the likelihood by firms to pay dividends.

The study population is US firms in the Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) database from 2007 to 2018. The authors apply the multivariate logit fixed-effect regression for the analyses after conducting the appropriate statistical tests.

From the results of the research model, the authors find that there is a positive relationship between the size and gender diversity of the audit committee and the propensity to pay dividends suggesting that a larger audit committee with substantial women representation improve the information environment in firms leading to higher dividend distribution. The extent of busyness of the audit committee impacts negatively on the propensity to pay dividends. The results are driven by high-performing firms and not driven by specific levels of firm size.

The findings of the study give impetus to the audit committee as an important component of the corporate governance mechanism that advances the interest of stakeholders. Thus, efforts that seeks to promote the audit committee’s resourcefulness must be embraced by all stakeholders.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to focus on audit committee and dividend payout policy of US firms post-SOX. The study demonstrates how the audit committee characteristics including its size, gender diversity and busyness affect dividend policy by mitigating information asymmetry problems.

While existing research explores the impact of audit market competition on audit fees and audit quality, there is limited investigation into how competition in the audit market influences auditors' writing style. This study examines the relationship between audit market competition and the readability of audit reports in Iran, where competition is particularly intense, especially among private audit firms.

The sample comprises 1,050 firm-year observations in Iran from 2012 to 2018. Readability measures, including the Fog index, Flesch-Reading-Ease (FRE) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), are employed to assess the readability of auditors' reports. The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) is utilized to measure audit market competition, with lower index values indicating higher auditor competition. The concentration measure is multiplied by −1 to obtain the competition measure (AudComp). Alternative readability measures, such as the Flesch–Kincaid (FK) and Automated Readability Index (ARI) are used in additional robustness tests. Data on textual features of audit reports, auditor characteristics and other control variables are manually collected from annual reports of firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).

The regression analysis results indicate a significant and positive association between audit market competition and audit report readability. Furthermore, a stronger positive and significant association is observed among private audit firms, where competition is more intense compared to state audit firms. These findings remain robust when using alternative readability measures and other sensitivity checks. Additional analysis reveals that the positive effect of competition on audit report readability is more pronounced in situations where the auditor remains unchanged and the audit market size is small.

This paper expands the existing literature by examining the impact of audit market competition on audit report readability. It focuses on a unique audit market (Iran), where competition among audit firms is more intense than in developed countries due to the liberalization of the Iranian audit market in 2001 and the establishment of numerous private audit firms.

The current study uses an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, this study aims to explore the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.

The study uses an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables.

The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism, the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors’ risk assessments.

The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) or pre- and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.

The study has major public policy suggestions as it responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks such as climate change.

The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US SEC, to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the IASB Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.

This study aims to examine whether firms that appear to exhibit high sustainable outputs are more likely to pay higher audit fees than firms without such outputs.

The sustainability outputs are measured using a sustainable product portfolio consisting of four products: clean energy products, eco-design products (EDP), environmental products (EP) and sustainable building projects (SBP). The audit fee variable is measured by the natural logarithm of the total amount of audit fees. The study tests two models of the association between these outputs and audit fees; Model 1 tests this association in the absence of the moderating variable (sustainability committee), and Model 2 tests the association in the presence of the moderating variable.

An analysis of data on 261 European firms from the Refinitiv Eikon database from 2010 to 2019 shows that high sustainability outputs are significantly and positively associated with audit fees. More importantly, this association is moderated by the presence of a board-level sustainability committee, suggesting that this type of committee reflects a factor considered by auditors in their audit risk assessment practices. The findings indicate that in Model 1, one (EP) out of four variables has a significant and positive association with audit fees, while in Model 2 and in the presence of sustainability committee, two variables (EP and EDP) have a significant and negative association with audit fees. However, the robust analysis shows that three variables (EP, EDP and SBP) have significant and negative associations with audit fees.

The study findings have important implications for policymakers, auditors and firms’ managers. For policymakers, the findings provide support for the argument that sustainable attitudes incentivise firms to manage sustainable product profiles more effectively. As such, policymakers should incentivise firms to establish a sustainability committee and regulate its role and responsibilities. Auditors should coordinate with the sustainability committee to facilitate audit efforts and reduce audit fees.

Understanding the relationship between sustainable products and audit fees will allow firms to improve their portfolio of sustainable products. In addition, other social implications of this study relate to improving relationships with society by establishing a sustainability committee that is responsible to communicate with that society.

The results support the argument that firms should manage sustainable product portfolios more effectively. In addition, the results of the study highlight the importance of a new variable as a moderator, the sustainability committee, which has not been examined before.

This study aims to investigate whether auditors compromise their independence for economically important clients in family business settings.

The authors empirically examine the research question based on China for the years 2011 to 2020. The dependent variable is the auditors’ propensity to issue modified audit opinions, which is a proxy for auditor independence. The authors use relative client audit fees as a proxy for client importance. To address endogeneity issues in the selection of family firms, the authors use the two-stage least squares regression model and, subsequently, the propensity score matching and Hausman firm fixed effect modeling.

This study reveals that the propensity to issue modified audit opinions is positively correlated with client importance. Big-N auditors are more likely to issue modified audit opinions for their economically important family firm clients, whereas such evidence is not found for non-Big-N auditors. Results are consistent and robust to endogeneity test and sensitivity analysis.

This study enriches the literature on auditor independence and the effect of family firms’ ownership structure factors on audit reporting behavior for their economically important clients. Findings may prove useful for managers and practitioners interested in family business.

This paper aims to examine whether family business groups’ (FBG) having the same network auditor among their affiliates mitigates earnings manipulation (EM).

This paper used unbalanced panel data from the years 2010–2019. The sample of the study is composed of 327 nonfinancial listed Pakistan Stock Exchange firms, consisting of 187 FBG-affiliated firms and 140 nonaffiliated firms. The ordinary least square and generalized least square regressions have been used to check the hypothesized relationship. Furthermore, the propensity score matching technique is used to ascertain comparable companies’ features and to control the potential endogeneity problem. Finally, the results are robust to various measures of EM and FBG’ proxies.

The findings of the study show that the same network auditor is reducing EM in FBG affiliates. In addition, the BIG4 same network auditors are also instrumental in constraining EM as compared to non-BIG4 audit firms. Overall, the results of this study depict that the same network auditor in FBG’s affiliated firms significantly influences EM. These results are robust with respect to generalized least squares and the endogeneity problem.

This research study has two important implications for the interested parties. First, although the authors find in this research study that the same network auditor is negatively associated with EM in the FBG-affiliated firms, however, FBG-affiliated firms might use opportunistically the real activity manipulation. Second, regulators highlight the change in audit partner/firm rotation, though the study findings indicate that regulators and practitioners may consider the benefits associated with the same network auditors for FBG.

This research study adds a new investigation to previous literature by examining the role of the same network auditors in the EM of the FBG’ affiliates. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to bring new knowledge by investigating the role played by the same network auditors along with the BIG4 same network audit firms in constraining EM in FBG.

This article investigated whether the executives' compensation and corporate governance attributes are aligned with stakeholders' demands for higher corporate voluntary disclosures. Moreover, the study also examined the moderating role of the auditor's reputation in the direction of association among executive compensation, corporate governance attributes, and voluntary disclosures.

The study used a sample of S&P BSE index constituents' 90 Indian firms for 2017–2019. The voluntary disclosure scores were fetched from the India Disclosure Index Report published by FTI Consulting. This analysis was carried out in two parts by applying four panel-data regression models in the agency and signalling theories framework. First, the study examined the association between executive compensation, board strength, composition, gender diversity, and voluntary disclosures. Second, the article investigated the moderating role of the “Big 4” in the direction of association among executive compensation, corporate governance attributes, and voluntary disclosures.

The willingness of executives to share private information with stakeholders depends on the compensation they receive from their employer. The higher compensation paid to executives leads to a higher “tone from the top,” which is better aligned with stakeholder interests. Further, the research also found that bigger board sizes, a higher proportion of independent and woman directors (indicators of good governance), and an auditor's reputation are associated with increased voluntary disclosure.

The findings showed that the executives' compensation and corporate governance attributes are aligned with stakeholders' demand for higher voluntary information from firms. Moreover, the study also found that the “Big 4” play a moderating role in this direction. The choice of a reputed auditor indicates the firms' long-term positive future perspectives, which strengthens investor confidence in the financial market.

The study suggests that fair executive compensation can address the agency problem.

This research furnishes managers and different stakeholders with significant implications of executives' compensation, corporate governance, and auditor's reputation in the best interests of a firm through reducing potential risks of information asymmetry.

The literature on the influence of audit committees (AC) and cosmetic accounting (CA) is scarce. AC plays a unique and vital role in boosting earnings reliability in countries with weaker application of accounting standards or weaker legal protection for investors. AC, therefore, are considered to be one of the essential tools available to directors in supervising management decisions regarding financial reporting. This paper aims to examine the influence of AC characteristics (ACC) on CA and how this relationship is moderated by the audit fee.

This study used probit regression to analyze 1,218 firm-year observations of listed companies in Tehran Stock Exchange from 2014 to 2020.

The results show that AC financial accounting expertise, AC independence, female AC membership and AC tenure were negatively related to CA. The negative relationship is highly pronounced when a firm incurs higher audit fees, and audit fees moderate the relationship between ACC and CA. Results for the robustness checks show that only AC independence was significant, and the results of other characteristics were not significant.

This research was conducted in an Iranian setting where the formation of ACs is on the verge of regulation; therefore, the data used for the study only contains the seven-year period of ACs’ statutory activity. In addition, a lack of consensus on the precise measures of an AC’s effectiveness could be considered as a restrictive factor.

The findings provide an initial insight into the effect AC on CA and moderating effect of audit fee on the relationship between ACC and CA.

The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of audit committee financial experts on the risk of financial corruption in public companies.

A time-lagged, matched-pairs sample of 352 corporations was utilized to test the study's hypotheses (176 financially corrupt firms plus 176 compliant firms). To uncover financially corrupt firms, 2,895 Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases from the Securities and Exchange Commission were thoroughly evaluated.

The results show that financial experts on audit committees generally increased financial corruption. However, the impact was reversed when audit committees had three or more financial experts, showing that having at least three financial experts reduced financial corruption.

The study's findings call into question the long-held practice of appointing at least one financial expert to audit committees. This study offers a novel approach to improve corporate oversight and reduce financial corruption by having at least three financial experts on audit committees.

In a rapidly changing career landscape where lifelong job security is no longer guaranteed, this study investigates how audit firms play an important role in shaping their employees’ career perceptions and the subsequent effects on auditor behavior. Specifically, it explores the link between audit firms’ career development initiatives and auditors’ perceptions of external employability – an important determinant of auditor behavior. Using the framework of social exchange theory, the study investigates how perceived external employability affects both relational and operational behaviors of auditors.

The study employs structural equation modeling on survey data from 359 auditors.

The results indicate that when audit firms actively support career development, it positively contributes to auditors’ perceived external employability. A higher perceived external employability, in turn, leads to positive behavioral outcomes among auditors, including stronger relational behaviors (such as professional commitment) and operational behaviors (including heightened professional skepticism and reduced behaviors that could compromise audit quality).

This study uncovers a paradox where perceived external employability, typically viewed as a risk, emerges as a potent driver of desirable auditor behavior. In today’s dynamic career landscape, emphasizing individual-centered and flexible careers, these results highlight the benefits of perceived external employability. Rather than undermining audit services, increased perceived external employability driven by firm investments in auditors’ careers acts as a catalyst for desirable auditor behavior. Organizational support in terms of career development practices creates an environment where auditors are more committed, professionally skeptical and uphold the quality of audit services.