Search results

The paper aims to examine disputed interpretations of “key meanings” between the audit regulator and Big 4 firms during a highly contentious regulatory debate, showcasing their use of “strategies of resistance” to achieve their intended outcomes.

A qualitative analysis is performed of the discourse in a South African audit regulatory debate, set within the country's unique political and historical context. The analysis is informed by the theoretical construct of a “regulatory space” and an established typology of strategic responses to institutional pressures.

The study’s findings show how resistance to regulatory intentions from influential actors, notably the Big 4 firms, was dispelled. This was achieved by the regulator securing oversight independence, co-opting political support, shortening the debate timeline and unilaterally revising the interpretation of its statutory mandate. The regulator successfully incorporated race equality into its interpretation of how the public interest is advanced (in addition to audit quality). The social legitimacy of the Big 4 was then further undermined. The debate was highly contentious and unproductive and likely contributed to overall societal concerns regarding the legitimacy of, and the value ascribed to, the audit function.

A deeper appreciation of vested interests and differing interpretations of key concepts and regulatory logic could help to promote a less combative regulatory environment, in the interest of enhanced audit quality and the sustainability and legitimacy of the audit profession.

The context provides an example, contrary to that observed in many jurisdictions, where the Big 4 fail to actively resist or even dilute significant regulatory reform. Furthermore, the findings indicate that traditional conceptions of what it means to serve “the public interest” may be evolving in favour of a more liberal social democratic interpretation.

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.

This study aims to explore the audit quality supplied by the Big 4, large indigenous Chinese (LIC) and five largest second-tier international network (Tier 2) audit firms in China during the second phase of their audit market development.

Ordinary least squares regression is used on an archival sample of firm-year observations. Endogeneity and self-selection bias are addressed by creating a propensity score matched sample and using two-stage regression with the inverse Mills’ ratio.

Strong evidence is found for higher levels of actual audit quality for the Big 4 relative to both LIC and Tier 2 audit firms. Weak evidence is found regarding the audit quality superiority of Tier 2 relative to LIC audit firms. Furthermore, the actual audit quality differential between the Big 4 relative to the LIC and Tier 2 firms widens after adopting International Financial Reporting Standards, which is contrary to the intention of Chinese regulators.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first known empirical study to trisect Big N and non-Big N audit firm proxies into the Big 4, LIC and Tier 2. Currently, only qualitative studies have fully appreciated the unique regulatory roles of these three firm structures in developing China’s audit market, which reflect tensions between reliance on foreign expertise and self-determination. In addition, this study adds to the ongoing global dialogue on Tier 2 as an alternative to the Big 4 and the benefits of international accounting network membership.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of ethnicity on auditor choice for Malaysian listed companies.

This study evaluates the effects of various independent variables on auditor choice behaviour, particularly ethnicity of auditor and ethnicity of management, using a logistic regression analysis approach for 300 companies listed on the Bursa Malaysia (formerly known as Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange‐KLSE) over an 18 year period.

Auditor choice is shown to be significantly influenced by client firm's characteristics, notably changes in management, complexity, and financial risk, lending support to the findings of previous survey studies. Ethnicity was found to be a significant factor influencing auditor choice only for auditor switches between non‐Big 4 and Big 4 firms.

A number of important variables such as corporate governance characteristics, audit fees, client size, and growth that might enhance an understanding of auditor choice behaviour in Malaysia were not incorporated in the regression models, and might be considered in future studies.

The results presented in the paper have important implications for both the auditing profession and regulators in Malaysia.

The purpose of this study is to examine the association between financial distress and accruals-based earnings management in emerging markets, and the role that auditors play in that association.

This study relies on a sample of 33,455 firm-year observations from 20 emerging markets, covering a large period of analysis of 20 years. A multivariate analysis is performed by considering the level of financial distress as the dependent variable, and the accruals-based earnings management and dummies for the type of auditor as the main independent ones.

The authors predict and find empirical evidence that firms facing greater financial distress engage in income-increasing accruals-based earnings management in emerging markets, and that such engagement is lower in firms audited by Big 4 firms compared to those audited by non-Big 4 auditors. The authors also find significant differences across Big 4 audit firms in their role of constraining income-increasing earnings management strategies in firms with high levels of financial distress.

The study adds to previous literature by investigating the association between financial distress and accruals-based earnings management in a comprehensive sample of 20 emerging markets, by providing important overall cross-country empirical evidence that has not been addressed by previous literature. The authors also bring new knowledge by discussing the role played by the Big 4 audit firms in limiting earnings management practices by firms with high levels of financial distress. Such a limitation serves as an important external corporate governance mechanism to restrain managers’ opportunistic behaviour in firms facing financial distress – especially in emerging economies characterized overall by institutional voids.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of audit quality on the value relevance of earnings and book value. Because joint audit is mandated for all Kuwait Stock Exchange-listed firms, it is hypothesized that the higher the quality of the audit team (as measured by the number of Big 4 audit firms in the joint audit team), the higher the value relevance of earnings and book values for equity valuation.

Consistent with prior research, the value relevance of earnings and book value is measured by the adjusted R² derived from the Ohlson’s 1995 regression model. The number of Big 4 audit firms represented on the firm’s audit team is used as a proxy for audit quality. Three tiers of audit quality exist, namely, two non-Big 4 audit firms, one Big 4 and one non-Big 4 audit firms or two Big 4 audit firms. To address this paper’s objective, the association between audit quality and the value relevance of earnings and book value were examined using four approaches. The final sample consists of 1,836 firm-year observations and covers fiscal years from a 12-year period (2002-2013).

Taken together, the four approaches used collectively provide empirical evidence that audit quality positively and significantly affects the value relevance of accounting measures to market participants. Importantly, the results reveal significant variations in the value relevance of earnings and book value jointly across the three possible auditor combinations.

Although using auditor size as a proxy for audit quality is well established in the auditing literature, a limitation of that proxy is that it measures audit quality dichotomously, which implicitly assumes a homogeneous level of audit quality within each group.

The findings show the importance of high-quality and rigorous external audits in improving the value relevance of accounting information.

This study contributes to the extent literature on audit quality by exploring the role of audit quality in a unique institutional setting that imposes mandatory joint audits. Although prior studies have investigated the effect of joint audit pair choice on earnings management and audit fee premium, this study is the first to investigate the effect of joint audit pair choice on the value relevance of accounting information.

This study aims to examine the effects of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital (COE) considering the impact of two owner types: government ownership and foreign ownership.

The study uses a panel data set of 236 Vietnamese firms covering the period 2007 to 2017. Because the two main dependent variables of the COE capital and the absolute value of discretionary accruals receive fractional values between zero and one, the paper uses the generalised linear model (GLM) with a logit link and the binomial family in regression analyses. The paper uses numerous audit quality measures, including hiring Big 4 auditors or the industry-leading Big 4 auditor, changing from non-Big 4 auditors to Big 4 auditors or the industry-leading Big 4 auditor, and the length of Big 4 auditor tenure. Big 4 companies include KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PwC, whereas the non-big 4 are the other audit companies.

The study finds a negative relationship between audit quality and both the COE capital and income-increasing discretionary accruals. The effects of audit quality on discretionary accruals and the COE capital depend on the ownership levels of two important shareholders: the government and foreign investors. Foreign ownership is negatively associated with discretionary accruals; however, the effect is more pronounced in the sub-sample of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the firms where the government owns 50% or more equity, than in the sub-sample of Non-SOEs.

To the best of the knowledge, no prior similar study exists that used the GLM with a logit link and the binomial family regression. Global investors may be interested in understanding how unique institutional settings and capital markets of each country impact the financial reporting quality and cost of capital. Further, policymakers of developing markets may have incentives to improve the quality of financial reporting and reduce the cost of capital which should result in attracting more foreign investments.

This paper aims to examine whether African banks audited by a Big 4 auditor use loan loss provisions (LLPs) for earnings management purposes before, during and after the global financial crisis. It focuses on income smoothing as a type of earnings management.

The study analyzed banks in 21 African countries from 2002 to 2014. The estimation techniques used are the fixed effect regression technique, descriptive statistic and Pearson correlation statistic. The model used in the study expresses LLPs as a function of its discretionary and non-discretionary determinants.

African banks audited by Big 4 auditors use LLPs to smooth income and the incentive to smooth income is greater during an economic downturn or recession. Also, African banks audited by a Big 4 auditor use income smoothing to lower high earnings during the financial crisis and in the pre-financial crisis period but not in the post-financial crisis period.

The literature shows that the presence of Big 4 auditors improves earnings quality. The direct impact of Big 4 auditors on earnings management in African banks has received little attention in the literature, and the impact of audit quality on bank earnings smoothing particularly in Africa is yet to be known.

This paper aims to investigate the effect of auditor switching and lowballing on conditional conservatism, particularly how different types of auditor switching, namely, upward, downward and lateral switching to/from Big 4 and industry specialists, affect earnings quality in the following selected Asian countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand.

Using conditional conservatism as a proxy for earnings quality, this study hypothesises that upward switching from non-Big 4 to Big 4 auditors, or from non-specialist to specialist auditors, would result in high conditional conservatism, while downward switching would lead to low conditional conservatism. The study further tests whether lowballing provides a viable explanation for reduced earnings conservatism in firms that switch from Big 4 to non-Big 4 auditors, or from specialist to non-specialist auditors.

The analysis, on a sample of 28,073 firm-year observations from 2007 to 2016, shows that the decision to downgrade auditors leads to lower conditional conservatism in the year of switching, compared with other firms and the pre-switching year. The evidence further shows that, when firms downgrade their auditors, lowballing contributes to a decrease in conditional conservatism in the first year of audit switching. Further, this research finds that switching to specialist auditors will result in increased conditional conservatism, while switching from specialist auditors to non-specialist auditors will result in reduced conditional conservatism.

The findings of this study are useful to investors who are looking to diversify their investment portfolio in developing markets, as evidence about auditor switching and quality of financial reporting may be an important factor in their investment decisions. Downward auditor switches and lowballing could act as red flags to investors in the sense that these events could signal a decrease in conditional conservatism and, hence, quality of earnings.

This research offers new evidence to support the view that management decisions to switch to lower-quality auditors will force newly appointed auditors to acquiesce to clients’ demands for reporting low-quality earnings.

This study examines the effects of institutional and government ownership on audit quality in Kuwait. Kuwait provides an interesting regulatory context as listed firms are legally required to appoint two external auditors from different auditing firms. This offers a unique opportunity to examine differentiation in demand for audit quality when there are three potential combinations of auditors: two non-Big 4, one Big 4 and one non-Big 4 and two Big 4.

The sample consists of all firms listed on the Kuwait Stock Exchange in 2013. Multinomial logistic regression examines the influence of ownership structure on audit quality. Analyses are controlled for the effect of company characteristics. Control variables are: firm size, complexity, growth, leverage, profitability and industry category.

The results show that institutional ownership is positively related to the number of Big 4 auditing firms that audit a company’s financial statements. This reflects the powerful and influential role institutional investors play in discouraging management from choosing lower-quality providers. In contrast, government ownership has a negative impact on audit quality. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that audit quality is a function of, among other factors, the structure of equity ownership.

Given the importance of audits, knowledge of the determinants of audit quality is of particular interest to regulators, enforcement agencies and investors. The findings imply that different ownership structures have different effects on the demand for audit quality; some structures strengthen it, while others weaken it. The negative relation between government ownership and audit quality raises serious questions about the effectiveness of government in monitoring its investments.

This paper extends the literature by investigating the determinants of the choice of auditors in an emerging market where there is a joint audit requirement. It highlights the important role played by ownership structure in shaping demand for audit quality. A distinguishing feature in previous research is the classification of the audit quality proxy into two choices (Big 4 vs non-Big 4 auditors). However, the regulatory context in Kuwait means that there are three choices. Thus, unusually, a multinomial logistic regression is used for the analysis.