Search results

The purpose of this paper is to empirically analyze the impacts of motivation for avoiding loss and actual abnormal audit fees on management behaviors of audit opinion shopping.

Using empirical research methods, this study employs regressive models and moderating effect models with data from Chinese listed companies from 2001 to 2008.

By analyzing the empirical data, it is found that strong motivation for avoiding loss has a certain moderating effect on the relationship between abnormal audit fees and audit opinion shopping; abnormal descent of audit fees significantly increases both the likelihood of receiving modified audit opinions of annual financial reports and that of the improvement of audit opinions; listed companies reporting consecutive losses in the last two years have a higher likelihood of an improvement in unfavorable audit opinions because of stronger motivation for avoiding loss and audit opinion shopping of management; and strong motivation for avoiding loss has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between abnormal increase of audit fees and audit opinion shopping.

This study has a significant practical implication for market supervisors, small and medium investors.

The paper classifies abnormal audit fees into abnormal increase and descent of audit fees, and audit opinions differences into the improvement and deterioration of audit opinions, and further empirically analyzes and verifies the moderating effect of motivation for avoiding loss on the relationship between abnormal audit fees and audit opinion shopping.

The going concern audit opinion is an audit opinion issued by an auditor to evaluate the company’s ability in maintaining the business continuity. The purpose of this paper is to discover the effects of audit client tenure, audit lag, opinion shopping, liquidity ratio and leverage on the going concern audit opinion.

The study used secondary data obtained from financial reports and independent audit reports published by Indonesian Stock Exchange (ISE) as well as Indonesian Capital Market Directory. Besides, the population of the study included manufacturing companies registered in ISE from 2009 to 2013. Further, the present study applied purposive sampling technique which resulted in 16 companies used as the sample of the study. Then the hypothesis was examined by applying logistic regression.

Results of the hypothesis examination indicated that the variables of opinion shopping and leverage affected the going concern audit opinion, whereas the variables of audit client tenure, audit lag and liquidity ratio did not affect the going concern audit opinion.

Results of the hypothesis examination indicated that the variables of opinion shopping and leverage affected the going concern audit opinion, whereas the variables of audit client tenure, audit lag and liquidity ratio did not affect the going concern audit opinion.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the behaviour of Chinese companies receiving a special treatment (ST) designation in order to determine the extent to which the application of this regulation may have led companies to engage in activities conducive to the removal of the ST designation. In particular, the paper examines evidence of opinion shopping or earnings manipulation by these companies.

Empirical analysis of annual report databases for Chinese‐listed companies, including statistical significance testing relating to ST companies.

Most ST companies have removed the ST status by the third year after the initial ST designation. Compared to non‐ST companies, ST companies losing the ST status are more likely to engage in practices indicating earnings manipulation. Also, compared to non‐ST companies, ST companies are more likely to change auditors after an initial or second year of ST designation. However, while this behaviour suggests opinion shopping, auditor switching for the ST companies is not associated with losses becoming profits nor with improved audit opinions.

The results reported in this paper must be considered in light of the limitations inherent in empirical analyses. That is, the relationships identified in this paper are indicative of potential earnings management or audit opinion shopping; however, the study cannot provide the actual reasons for these empirical results.

The results suggest the ST regulation did not lead to unintended consequences in terms of auditor switching by ST companies to improve either their reported earnings or their audit opinion.

The ST status is unique to China and this paper is the first to report on potential reporting and audit quality implications of this regulation.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether the change in accounting standards from the rules-based local GAAP to the principles-based IFRS influences a manager’s opportunistic auditor choice for a favorable audit opinion, opinion shopping (OS) behavior. The authors view that IFRS adopters exploit the flexibility of IFRS to their advantage and search for auditors that are more likely to give clean opinions. However, auditors may refuse to yield to client pressure for OS, because of the greater potential audit risk under principles-based standards.

This study applies a difference-in-differences methodology by using Korean listed firms (i.e. IFRS adopters) as a treatment sample and Korean unlisted firms that do not voluntarily adopt IFRS (i.e. K-GAAP users) as the control sample. OS behavior is measured by the methodology of Lennox (2000).

The results of this study show that the OS behavior of IFRS adopters increases after IFRS adoption compared to that of K-GAAP users. This phenomenon is more prevalent when they are audited by non-Big 4 auditors or when they are economically important to auditors. These suggest that the principles-based IFRS without specific rules increase the scope of OS, and auditors tend to accept OS clients by weighing up its costs and benefits.

This study contributes to the literature on OS by presenting that the approach of accounting standards can be an important influencing factor on a firm’s successful engagement in OS. This finding also provides policy implications for many economies by suggesting mechanisms that can be developed to reduce clients’ opportunistic auditor choices under principles-based accounting standards.

The objective of this study is to examine how formal and informal institutional environment influences managers’ fair value opinion shopping behaviour in the largest International Financial Reporting Standards adopter, China.

To test the hypotheses, I conduct a 2 × 2 between-subject randomised experiment since the inferences about cause and effect are important in this study. The between-subject experimental situations are manipulated on the basis of the financial condition of companies and boards’ oversight.

I find that managers are likely to seek favourable fair value opinions from external valuation professionals when they are under the weak boards’ oversight and high stress to meet the regulation target of the China Securities Regulatory Commission. These results are more pronounced for managers with higher both rent-seeking and favour-seeking guanxi orientations are more likely to engage in fair value opinion shopping.

Consistent with theoretical analysis of Balfoort et al. (2017), this study provides empirical evidence that guanxi influences the neutrality and faithful representation in fair value measurement in China. In addition, the findings extend Salzsieder’s study (2015) and reflect the context-embeddedness nature of accounting.

This study aims to study the relationship between audit components and collusion in the audit market.

The statistical population of the study includes 130 listed firms on the Tehran Stock Exchange from 2012-2017. The data tested using multivariate regression.

The findings of the study indicate that there is a positive and significant relationship between Rank A audit firms, competition and audit fees and audit market adaptability. The relationship standard fees and audit market adaptability, however, is negative and significant. Moreover, the results of the study show that there is no significant relationship between opinion shopping, type of audit report, audit market concentration, and agency costs with audit market adaptability.

The current study fills the gap in this area, and the results of the study may give direction to researchers and policy makers.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether audit opinions matter in China after the introduction of several key regulatory changes, specifically aimed at strengthening the confidence of investors in the audit function.

The question is addressed by examining the market response to modified audit opinions of companies listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

In contrast to earlier research, this paper does not find evidence that modified audit opinions have significant information value to Chinese investors, despite the regulatory changes. However, when partitioning the sample by year, there is weak evidence of a stock price response to modified audit opinions in 2003. Examination of the impact of different types of audit opinions shows no consistent results.

The results reported in this paper must be considered in light of the limitations inherent in empirical analyses. That is, the relationships identified in this paper are indicative of potential earnings management or audit opinion shopping, however, the paper cannot provide the actual reasons for these empirical results.

The results suggest the Chinese market is beginning to value audit opinions in the same fashion way as more developed markets.

The paper refines market reaction models used in earlier studies through the introduction of additional explanatory variables, together with an improved methodology.

This paper aims to examine the perspectives of auditors, regulators and financial report preparers on the effects of key audit matters (KAMs) reporting on audit effort, fees, quality and report transparency.

The authors conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (13 Audit Partners, 5 Chief Financial Officers and 3 regulators) and thematically analysed the interviews. They use the frame of “Paradox of Transparency” to explain the findings.

Auditors perceive that the overall quality control of their audits has improved both in the planning and execution stages, and such improvement can mostly be attributed to the coercive pressures from professional bodies and regulators. Nevertheless, audit fee remains unchanged. Auditors disclose industry generic items and descriptions of KAMs, sometimes masking the real problem areas of the clients. Even after improving the performative audit quality, transparency of audit reporting has not improved. Issues that warrant going concern qualifications or audit report modifications are now reported as KAMs. Hence, KAMs reporting might make the audit report less transparent.

Localised audit environments and institutions affect the transparency of KAMs reporting. Without attention to corporate governance and auditors’ independence issues, paradoxically, performative improvement in audit quality (due to the KAMs reporting requirement) does not enhance the transparency of audit reports.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide field-level evidence in Bangladesh and other developing countries about the perceptions of auditors, financial report preparers and regulators on the effects of KAMs reporting on audit efforts, fees, quality and report transparency.

This study aims to investigate whether auditors compromise their independence for economically important clients in countries with a secrecy culture.

The authors empirically examine the research question based on a data set of 33 countries for the period from 1995 to 2018. The dependent variable is the auditors’ propensity to issue modified audit opinions, which is a proxy for auditor independence. The authors use relative client size as a proxy for client importance. The authors adopt the Heckman (1979) two-stage model to mitigate the potential endogeneity issue involved in the selection of Big-N auditors.

Using a large sample of firms and controlling for the firm- and country/region-level factors, this study reveals that both Big-N and non-Big-N auditors are more likely to issue modified audit opinions to clients located in countries with a strong secrecy culture relative to those located in other countries. However, Big-N auditors are more likely to issue modified audit opinions for their economically important clients with a secrecy culture relative to their other clients, while no or weaker evidence is found for non-Big-N auditors. The results are consistent and robust to endogeneity tests and sensitivity analyses.

This study enriches the literature by providing a new perspective on auditor independence that an auditor’s reporting behavior can vary depending on the client’s importance and auditor type, even under the same secrecy culture.