Search results

The present study's goal is to analyze the impact of audit quality (AQ) on earnings quality (EQ) using different audit attributes. The study shows empirical evidence from India, considered an emerging market.

The sample selected represents the 376 non-financial firms listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). With a 20-year time frame, the authors used the absolute value of discretionary accruals (McNichols, 2002) (DA) as a proxy for EM, which is inversely related to EQ. The authors analyzed data using OLS, fixed effect (FE), 2SLS and Panel-IV estimators.

The authors found that most audit attributes positively affect EQ. In the Indian context, joint auditor (JA), auditor size (A_SIZE), auditor fee (A_FEE) and auditor tenure (A_TENURE) have a negative association with EM indicating high EQ. In contrast, auditor rotation (A_ROTATON) positively affects EM confirming low EQ.

The present study uses Big-4 and its member firms as a proxy of auditor size (A_SIZE); instead, other bases may be taken for it, like the dominant audit firms in a particular industry in sample data, etc. The authors have started audit tenure from the base year, i.e. 2001, which may ignore the association of auditor and auditee just before 2001.

The study findings would enhance policymakers' willingness to prepare appropriate regulations regarding JAs and auditor rotation, which might improve financial market efficiency and reduce financial fraud among Indian corporates.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to incorporate “Joint Auditor” (JA) as a proxy for audit quality in the Indian context, which might significantly contribute to the literature.

This study aims to examine whether national industry expertise in Italy is more dominant than local expertise. Prior studies from Australia, USA and UK show that audit fees for industry experts are priced at a higher premium at the local level than the national level. These countries have voluntary audit firm rotation, while Italy has mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR). The authors predict that Italy has a stronger national than local level of industry expertise, to better retain and transfer industry expertise.

The authors compare audit fee premiums of national industry experts to local levels, using quantitative (multivariate tests) and qualitative (interviews) methodology.

Using hand-collected audit fees, the authors find that the audit fee premium for industry expertise is greater at the national level than the local level. The authors find corroborating results with audit hours. To provide further support, the authors conduct analysis for a neighboring country that does not have audit firm rotation. Using hand-collected data from Germany, the authors find that audit fee premiums from national industry expertise are no different from local industry expertise.

The present study study has theoretical and practical implications, for European Union countries, which recently adopted MAFR and for countries considering adoption in the future.

In this research, using an analytical framework on factors affecting the quality of auditing services, we consider factors that affect an expectations gap in providers and users of auditing services related to factors affecting auditing quality. Effective factors studied in this regard are professional features, including the professional role of individuals in the auditing process (auditors against preparers of financial statements), professional experience of individuals, professional rating and size of auditing firms. The first statistical society consists of certified public accountants (CPAs) working in the auditing organization and audit firms in Iran, and the second statistical society consists of all investment companies that operate under the supervision of the Tehran Stock Exchange Organization. Based on the results of the research, the role of professionals in the auditing process is not effective as an independent auditor or financial statements provider, as well as the professional experience of individuals in the expectations gap from factors affecting auditing quality, while the size and qualities of the auditing firms were influenced by the expectations gap of individuals in the field of auditing regulation.

The present study aims to assess the impact of narcissism, self-confidence and auditor's characteristics on audit report readability for companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange.

The study’s statistical population comprises firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. The present research used a systematic elimination method, and 1,162 firm-year observations were obtained for seven years from 2012 to 2018. Three variables including auditor tenure, audit fee and audit specialization are used for measuring auditing features. The Fog index is used as a proxy for measuring audit report readability. In addition, in this paper, four regressions, including fixed effects, random effects, pooled and T+1, are used to estimate reliable coefficients.

The findings show a negative and significant relationship between auditor’s characteristics (tenure, fee and specialization) and audit report readability. Moreover, the variables of the auditor’s narcissism, self-confidence and mandatory auditor change have a positive and significant association with audit report readability. This study lends support to the theories of personality disorder and behavioral decision.

Since narcissism and self-confidence are two characteristics that shape an individual’s character and personality, some involved behavioral factors in auditors’ characteristics contribute to their decisions. The effects of these should be detected to enhance the decision-making process. The said factors significantly impact audit report readability. Hence, this paper attempts to assess the effect of the said factors on audit report readability.

This rich descriptive study examines auditors' client risk assessment (i.e. “key audit matters”/critical audit matters) disclosures in expanded audit reports of 328 Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies. The study compares auditor-identified client risks with corporate risk disclosures identified in audit committee reports, in terms of number and type of risks. The research also compares variation in auditor-identified client risks between individual Big 4 audit firms. In addition, the study examines auditor ranking of their client risks disclosed.

The study manually content analyses disclosures in audit reports and audit committee reports of a sample of 328 FTSE-350 companies with 2015 year-ends.

Audit committees identify more risks than auditors (23% more risks). However, auditor-identified client risks and audit-committee-identified risks are similar (80% similar), as are auditor-identified client risks between the individual Big 4 audit firms. Only ten (3%) audit reports rank the importance of auditor-identified client risks.

Sample is restricted to one year, one jurisdiction, large-listed companies and companies audited by Big 4 auditors.

The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

The paper mobilises institutional theory to interpret the findings. The findings suggest that auditor-identified client risks in expanded audit reports may demonstrate mimetic behaviour in terms of similarity with audit-committee-identified risks and similarity between individual Big 4 audit firms. The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.