Search results

This paper aims to analyze Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection reports on audit reports of those inspected accounting firms in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). In meeting the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the PCAOB conducts inspections on audit reports of firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

The reports include those submitted by both the US audit parent firms and their secondary firms located outside the USA. In each PCAOB report, it unravels the nature of audit deficiencies. The focus is on Big Four because they play a dominant role in the marketplace and issuers’ market capitalization. All the seven-year deficiencies are documented since publications of the reports from 2004 to 2012.

Of the 37 reports, 19 (51 per cent) were issued relating to audits conducted by the Big Four. Out of these 19 reports, 10 (53 per cent) contain inspection criticism. These include audit quality and common recurring audit deficiencies.

This paper is based solely on those inspection reports published by the PCAOB.

The findings have significant implications to audit firms and the audit profession on improving audit quality, firms’ internal control and reports.

No known prior research paper is available on the ramifications of the PCAOB’s inspection reports relating to BRIC.

This paper deals with the preferences of creditors and investors in Jordan regarding the credibility and use of financial statements audited by accounting firms with international affiliations compared to local accounting firms. Audit firms in Jordan are divided into two groups. Group 1 consists of audit firms with affiliation with an international firm. Group 2 consists of audit firms with no international affiliation. A questionnaire elicited preferences of creditors and investors for Group 1 and Group 2 audit firms. This questionnaire was administered to a sample of investors and creditors. The results suggest that a preference by both creditors and investors for financial statements audited by accounting firms with international affiliation. The factors leading to such a preference are also indicated. The results suggest that affiliation with international audit firms, application of international standards, personal contacts and the long experience of auditors are the most important factors that make both investors and creditors prefer Group 1 over Group 2 audit firms.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of audit quality, measured by financial statements audited by the big four accounting firms, on the investors' ability to predict future earnings for profitable and unprofitable firms.

The paper uses the returns‐earnings regression model and interacts all independent variables in this model with a dummy variable, AUDIT, which is set to equal one if financial statements audited by the big four accounting firms, zero otherwise. Future earnings response coefficient is the measure of earnings predictability.

The paper finds that investors are able to better anticipate future earnings when financial statements are audited by the big four accounting firms. However, the findings are not applicable for unprofitable firms.

The findings of the paper have implications for auditing related academic research and the users of financial statements. In particular, the study shows that the big four accounting firms have not lost their audit quality advantage and that financial statements audited by the big four accounting firms are arguably of higher quality than those audited by non‐big four accounting firms.

It is believed that there is no UK study to date examining the association of the quality of financial statements audited by the big four accounting firms and the returns‐earnings association. Consequently, this paper significantly contributes to the limited literature on the perceived value relevance of audit quality.

This paper seeks to discuss the effect that the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOA) had on both the nature of the external audit function and overall audit quality. Additionally, it aims to discuss how audit firms maneuvered through the newly regulated environment, and what their strategic actions are for the future.

This discussion is based on interviews conducted with auditors from nine public accounting firms located in Northeast Ohio, United States of America. The sample consisted of five national and four regional firms, and the interviewees included mostly partners and a few senior managers.

The increased oversight and workload resulting from the SOA requirements has changed the nature of the external audit function to more compliance type work, and the environment has created much anxiety for the auditors. The new reform has significantly impacted the audit environment in terms of: scope of services; client assessment procedures; management and audit committee relationships with the external auditor; audit firm personnel management; and the long‐term outlook of the profession. The details of these impacts are discussed throughout the paper.

This paper provides detailed insight as to how the SOA impacted the audit profession. Hopefully, such an understanding will benefit future research in measuring the costs and benefits of the new reform. Lastly, a future research showed further examine the effect that the SOA has had on overall audit quality.

This paper summarizes the insightful comments obtained in structured interviews with several leading audit professionals. The sample was judged to be highly knowledgeable of the changing audit environment caused by the SOA. With an improved understanding of its impacts, regulators, practitioners, and academics can better assess the effectiveness of the SOA.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Andersen implosion over Enron impacted Fortune 500 firms that were competitors of Enron and/or audited by Andersen. This event provides an opportunity to study various contagion effects.

An event study methodology is used to analyze the immediate financial impact of the Andersen implosion on competitors of Enron and/or firms audited by Andersen. More specifically, how did the announcement of the implosion impact these firms?

The results support a strong industry contagion effect where Enron's failure benefited the surviving energy/utility firms who could then increase their market shares. The authors find the energy/utility firms not audited by Andersen, on average, experienced an astounding 2.5 percent increase in market capitalization when the audit scandal was announced. In dollar terms, the mean and median market capitalization increases were $226 million and $101 million, respectively. In the aggregate, the 21 utility/energy firms gained $4.76 billion in market capitalization.

The results show the importance of the auditing process and the impact of unethical actions on the firm, their auditor, and their competitors. One limitation is the data are limited to large Fortune 500 firms.

This is the first study, to the authors' knowledge, that evaluates the contagion effect of the Andersen/Enron audit scandal on Fortune 500 firms: in the same industry as Enron; audited by Andersen; and operating in the same industry as Enron and audited by Andersen.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a succinct overview of academic research that has examined audit firm rotation both in the USA and in other countries.

The authors outline the unresolved nature of academic research on audit firm rotation, review recent literature, discuss why academics have been unable to resolve this issue and offer suggestions for improving subsequent research in the area.

Overall, the collective evidence is inconclusive at best; with earlier studies generally finding mixed results and more recent studies indicating that audit quality generally goes through two distinct phases during the auditor‐client relationship, the “auditor learning” and “auditor closeness” phases.

Given the importance of the issue, this article provides an overview of academic research that has examined audit firm rotation, discusses why academics have been unable to resolve this issue, and provides suggestions on how academics and practitioners can work together to enhance the quality of future research.

Establishing an audit committee presumably strengthens the external auditor’s independence. Several studies have examined how audit committees affect the selection of the company’s external auditor, negotiate audit fees and enhance the auditor’s independence. But what of the independence of the audit committee members themselves? Do audit committee members exhibit biases when they select their company’s auditors? The relationship between the entity’s external auditor and the audit committee member’s affiliated company’s auditors has not been examined. For example, are audit committee members prone to select or remain with audit firms with which they have developed a formal relationship within their own company? This study of 247 New York Stock Exchange firms finds significant relationships (at the 0.05 level of significance) between CPA firms selected by audit committees and by the CPA firm which audits the audit committee member’s own organization. Results indicate that audit committee members exhibit conscious or unconscious biases in their selection or retention of their companies’ auditors.

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 paper aims to examine whether the audit committee moderates the relationship between audit quality and market reactions.

Using fixed effects and the GMM model for robustness, the study used 472 publicly listed firms on South Africa’s Johannesburg stock exchange spanning a period of six years from 2014 to 2019.

Results obtained show that audit quality impacts market reactions through share price and adjusted market returns. And, that the audit committee moderates the relationship between audit quality and market reactions in South Africa’s publicly listed firms. An effective audit committee is expected to play a crucial role in overseeing the audit process, ensuring the independence of auditors and promoting transparency and accountability which in turn impacts asset prices.

The study implies that governments and regulatory bodies in other developing economies could strengthen regulations about companies’ Acts, how firms regulate themselves and more so audit committees. Firms can also strive to make sure that audit committees are staffed with experts to promote higher audit quality and investor attention to get access to the much-alluded capital.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the study adds value by being the first to explore the subject matter of the importance of audit committees in defining audit quality and market reactions in publicly listed firms. The research adds to the body of knowledge on corporate governance and audit quality. It provides a case study specific to the South African context, contributing to the global literature on these topics.

Purpose – This study examines the relationship between Big Four audit firm country-level market shares and audit fees across a sample of nine emerging economies: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and Taiwan.

Design/methodology/approach – First, auditor market share is calculated as a percentage of client sales based on all publicly traded companies in each of the sample countries during the period 2002–2005. Next, Audit Analytics is used to obtain audit fee data for a set of foreign companies listed on a primary U.S. exchange. A final sample of 483 client-year observations is included in the audit fee regression analysis.

Findings – After controlling for other factors related to audit pricing, Big Four auditors with dominant country-level market shares earn a fee premium of approximately 27% over competitor firms.

Originality/value – These results suggest that individual Big Four firm reputations, as measured by fee premiums, are not homogeneous across countries. Rather, it appears the largest audit firms are associated with quality-differentiated services and thus earn higher fees. Although accounting research tends to classify large international accounting firms into a pool of the “Big Four,” these findings indicate that it is important to consider each firm's market share in specific geographic locations when examining questions related to auditor reputation and pricing.