Search results

This study aims to examine whether two periods of extreme market conditions – the governance crisis and Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulatory shock of 2002 and the 2007–2008 global financial crisis – incrementally impacted the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, by examining the propensity of US firms receiving going concern modification (GCM) opinions to go bankrupt relative to their non-GCM distress risk-matched counterparts during these two crisis periods.

To assess the potential influence of the governance/regulatory shock of 2002 and the global financial crisis moderate or mitigate the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, the authors use multivariate logit analysis, regressing t + 1 bankruptcy status on time t GCM and other bankruptcy determinants, interacting crisis period dummies with the GCM variable.

GCM firms were more likely to declare bankruptcy than their distressed non-GCM counterparts, confirming prior research documenting the existence of a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. The authors also find that the self-fulfilling prophecy effect was exacerbated by the governance crisis/Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulatory shock, but not the global financial crisis, a financial/banking sector shock.

This study contributes to the financial crisis and auditing literatures by examining whether exogenous shocks exacerbate the self-fulfilling prophecy effect. The present analysis and findings have implications for future academic research related to systemic shocks and for auditors in documenting the inducement effect arising from the issuance of GCMs during crisis periods.

One of the most emerging areas of audit knowledge is sustainable quality, which can comprehensively cover the development of audit reports inclusiveness for stakeholders. The purpose of this study is to present the sustainable audit quality (SAQ) framework based on the UK Financial Reporting Council.

The paper discusses the main concepts in both spreadsheets and process mining. Using a concrete data set as a running example, the different types of process mining are explained. Where spreadsheets work with numbers, process mining starts from event data with the aim to analyze processes.

The results of the study showed that the SAQ is more effective based on the two criteria of going concern and disclosure of key audit items. It was also determined that, based on total interpretive structural modeling, the two themes of debt covenants disclosure and assessment of firms’ leverage ratio have a higher priority for SAQ in the Tehran Stock Exchange.

This paper contributes to the discussion on the use of data mining for microarray databases and specifically for studying the present SAQ framework based on the UK Financial Reporting Council. An area that has not been paid attention to by prior research studies, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first research that attempts to provide the SAQ framework.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact hosting the Super Bowl has on audit completion and financial reporting timeliness for companies headquartered in Super Bowl hosting cities.

Using 16 years of financial reporting data, this study uses the Super Bowl and related activities, combined with required filings during “busy season,” as a natural experiment to examine how audit firms navigate short-term, exogenously imposed but anticipated, audit team capacity constraints.

Companies headquartered in a city hosting the Super Bowl, during busy season, have longer audit report lags (by approximately three days, in comparison to non-hosting busy season audits) and less timely securities and exchange commission (SEC) (10-K) filings. The authors find no evidence that Super Bowl hosting affects audit fees or earnings announcement timeliness.

When confronted with anticipated capacity shocks, audit firms take longer to complete the audit, absorbing the financial costs of the delay and maintaining audit quality, resulting in less timely financial reporting.

This study demonstrates the costs of Super Bowl-related inefficiencies and contributes to our understanding of how auditors navigate capacity shocks. This study provides evidence that auditors can effectively manage business risk and continue to facilitate providing timely and accurate information to financial statement users in the face of a capacity shock.

The purpose of this study is to explore the economic impact of financial restatements by major customers on the audit opinion of their suppliers, showing that non-financial information disclosure potentially helps auditors make better assessments.

Using a sample of China’s listed firms from 2007 to 2021, the authors aim to find the relationship between customers’ financial restatements and their suppliers’ audit opinions. Heckman selection model, placebo tests and other robustness checks are used as well.

The findings reveal that customers’ financial restatements have a significant effect on the likelihood of suppliers receiving modified audit opinions. This relationship is pronounced when suppliers face a higher level of financial constraints, exhibit poorer accounting conservatism or receive more negative media coverage. Additionally, this effect occurs through increased business risk and information risk, which heightens auditors’ perceived audit risk. Moreover, the study highlights the influence of switching costs, auditor expertise and restatement severity on this relationship.

Risks originating from customers can spread along the supply chain, emphasizing the necessity for auditors to give heightened attention to both the audited firms and their customer information. Moreover, regulators should carefully consider the important impact of customer information disclosures to maximize the protection of the interests of external information users.

This study not only confirms the crucial role of customer information disclosures in annual reports for stakeholders and auditors but also contributes to the existing literature on customer–supplier relationships.

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 address the unanswered question of whether corporate sustainability has an impact on auditors’ overall judgment and to provide incremental evidence that corporate sustainability reporting has significant effect on financial auditors’ judgment.

Following prior research, the authors, respectively, apply auditors’ decisions on going-concern opinions and three discretionary accrual measures as proxies for auditor conservatism over financial risk and financial reporting risk. The authors collect corporate sustainability reporting and sustainability assurance data of U.S. firms from the global reporting initiative (GRI) database to construct and measure firms’ sustainability reporting activities.

The authors find that nonreporting firms are more likely to receive going-concern opinions than the reporting firms. In addition, reporting firms have a larger scale of discretionary accruals than their nonreporting counterparts. The authors also obtain consistent findings that sustainability assurance or accounting assurance providers strengthen the effect of sustainability reporting on auditors’ judgment.

First, using discretionary accruals as measures of auditor conservatism is controversial, as accruals are the joint product by auditors and clients. Second, binary variables as a measure of sustainability reporting activities limit the inference. Lastly, the findings based on limited samples may weaken the external validity.

The findings imply that firms engaging in sustainability activities are lower in financial or financial reporting risk. Firms can influence audit practitioners’ overall judgment through sustainability reports. Sustainability commitments and reporting have become a part of firms’ risk management.

The findings imply that sustainability reporting could become an integrated part of regulated corporate disclosure. Sustainability assurance reduces social costs by lending credibility to sustainability reports.

This paper provides incremental evidence that sustainability reports provide useful information and signals that influence auditors’ professional judgment. The findings also suggest that sustainability assurance strengthens auditors’ confidence in using sustainability information, thus amplifying the effect of sustainability reporting on auditors’ judgment.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of qualified audit opinions on the returns of stocks listed at Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) after the introduction of the recent amendments by the International Auditing and Assurance Standard Board (IAASB) on audits reporting and conclusions. It further investigates if results differ between first time qualified and sequenced qualifications, and between plain qualified opinion and qualifications with going concern.

Audit opinions’ announcements and stock returns data are collected from companies’ annual reports for the fiscal years 2016 to 2019 while stock returns are computed from stock closing prices published at ASE website. The authors apply the event study approach and use the market model to calculate normal returns. Cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) and average abnormal returns (AARs) are computed for all qualified audit opinions’ announcements.

The empirical evidence suggests that investors at ASE do not react to qualified audit opinions announcements. That is, the authors find an insignificant impact of qualified audit opinion announcements on stock returns using both CAR and AAR estimates. The results are robust to first time and sequenced qualifications, and for qualifications with going concern. Results are also robust to the use of risk adjusted market model.

The insignificant impact of qualified audit opinions on stock returns have two potential conflicting research implications. First, the new amendments introduced to auditors’ report made them more informative and reduce the negative signals contained in the qualified opinions. That is, investors are now aware of the real causes of qualifications and not overreacting to the qualified opinion. Second, the documented insignificant impact confirms that ASE is not a semi-strong form efficient.

The apparent excessive use of qualifications should ring the bell on whether auditors misuse their power or companies are really in trouble. Hence, the Jordanian regulatory bodies need to warn auditors against the excessive use of qualifications on the one hand, and to raise the awareness of investors on the implications of auditors’ opinions on the other hand.

This study is innovative in twofold. First, it explores the impact of qualified audit opinions on stock returns after the introduction of new amendments by IAASB at ASE. In addition, it uses event study approach and distinguishes between first time qualified and sequenced qualifications, and between plain qualified opinion and qualifications with going concern. The results are consistent with efficient market theory and behavioral finance explanations.

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 explore COVID-19-related accounting disclosures using sociological disclosure analysis (SDA) within the context of the developing economy of Bangladesh.

COVID-19-related accounting disclosures from listed banks’ annual reports have been examined using three levels of SDA: textual, contextual and sociological interpretations. Data were gathered from the banks’ 2019 and 2020 annual reports. The study uses the legitimacy theory as its theoretical framework.

The research reveals a substantial shift in corporate disclosures due to COVID-19, marked by a significant increase from 2019 to 2020. Despite regulatory and professional directives for COVID-19-specific disclosures, notable non-compliance is evident in subsequent events, going concern, fair value, financial instruments and more. Instead of assessing the implications of COVID-19 and making disclosures, companies used positive, vague and subjective wording to legitimize non-disclosure.

The study’s insights can inform regulators and policymakers in crafting effective guidelines for future crisis-related reporting like COVID-19. The research adds to the literature by methodologically using SDA to explore pandemic-specific disclosures, uncovering the interplay between disclosures, legitimacy and stakeholder engagement.

This study represents a pioneering effort in investigating COVID-19-specific disclosures. Moreover, it uses the SDA methodology along with the legitimacy theory to analyze accounting disclosures associated with COVID-19.