Search results

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 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 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 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.

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 reviews and discusses the accounting literature that analyzes the role of auditors and enforcers in the context of fraud.

This literature review includes both qualitative and quantitative studies, based on the idea that the findings from different research paradigms can shed light on the complex interactions between different financial reporting controls. The authors use a mixed-methods research synthesis and select 64 accounting journal articles to analyze the main proxies for fraud, the stages of the fraud process under investigation and the roles played by auditors and enforcers.

The study highlights heterogeneity with respect to the terms and concepts used to capture the fraud phenomenon, a fragmentation in terms of the measures used in quantitative studies and a low level of detail in the fraud analysis. The review also shows a limited number of case studies and a lack of focus on the interaction and interplay between enforcers and auditors.

This study outlines directions for future accounting research on fraud.

The analysis underscores the need for the academic community, policymakers and practitioners to work together to prevent the destructive economic and social consequences of fraud in an increasingly complex and interconnected environment.

This study differs from previous literature reviews that focus on a single monitoring mechanism or deal with fraud in a broadly manner by discussing how the accounting literature addresses the roles and the complex interplay between enforcers and auditors in the context of accounting fraud.

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.

This study updates the literature review of Jones (1987) published in this journal. The study pays particular attention to two important themes that have shaped the field over the past 35 years: (1) the development of a range of innovative new statistical learning methods, particularly advanced machine learning methods such as stochastic gradient boosting, adaptive boosting, random forests and deep learning, and (2) the emergence of a wide variety of bankruptcy predictor variables extending beyond traditional financial ratios, including market-based variables, earnings management proxies, auditor going concern opinions (GCOs) and corporate governance attributes. Several directions for future research are discussed.

This study provides a systematic review of the corporate failure literature over the past 35 years with a particular focus on the emergence of new statistical learning methodologies and predictor variables. This synthesis of the literature evaluates the strength and limitations of different modelling approaches under different circumstances and provides an overall evaluation the relative contribution of alternative predictor variables. The study aims to provide a transparent, reproducible and interpretable review of the literature. The literature review also takes a theme-centric rather than author-centric approach and focuses on structured themes that have dominated the literature since 1987.

There are several major findings of this study. First, advanced machine learning methods appear to have the most promise for future firm failure research. Not only do these methods predict significantly better than conventional models, but they also possess many appealing statistical properties. Second, there are now a much wider range of variables being used to model and predict firm failure. However, the literature needs to be interpreted with some caution given the many mixed findings. Finally, there are still a number of unresolved methodological issues arising from the Jones (1987) study that still requiring research attention.

The study explains the connections and derivations between a wide range of firm failure models, from simpler linear models to advanced machine learning methods such as gradient boosting, random forests, adaptive boosting and deep learning. The paper highlights the most promising models for future research, particularly in terms of their predictive power, underlying statistical properties and issues of practical implementation. The study also draws together an extensive literature on alternative predictor variables and provides insights into the role and behaviour of alternative predictor variables in firm failure research.

This study aims to address the following four research questions: first, whether auditors report critical audit matters (CAMs) to shield themselves against possible litigation; second, whether reporting quality affects auditors’ propensity to report CAMs; third, whether auditors’ tenure length – reflecting familiarity with clients’ financial reporting – affects their likelihood to report CAMs; and fourth, whether auditors’ conservatism increases the likelihood of CAMs reporting.

Data are manually collected from audit reports including CAMs in 10-K, then financial data are collected from the Capital IQ database, and market data are collected from the CRSP database. Using propensity score matching, the initial sample of companies with CAMs is matched with companies without reported CAMs. Performance adjusted discretionary accruals, real earnings management proxy, Khan and Watts’ (2009) C-score, propensity to issue a going concern opinion, Dechow et al.’s (2011) F-Score, Rogers and Stocken’s (2005) model and Houston et al.’s (2010) model are used to measure reporting quality, auditor conservatism, misstatement risk and litigation risk, respectively.

The results do not show that auditors report CAMs opportunistically to shield themselves from litigation risk. However, the results do suggest that auditors have a greater tendency to report CAMs when reporting quality is low and when they are more conservative. On the other hand, they have less tendency to report CAMs in their first year of engagement.

The findings of this study have important implications for the auditor behavior literature as it shows that, when it comes to reporting CAMs, auditors actually behave objectively and do not report in a trite way. This study also provides early archival evidence on a standard that relates to the first major change to the auditor’s report in decades. To the best of the author’s knowledge, it is the first to provide evidence on the association between auditor conservatism and auditors tendency to report CAMs and the first to triangulate prior research on auditor litigation risk by providing the first archival evidence on the auditors “litigation-shielding” concern.

This study examines whether auditors attempt to meet the stated objective of reporting CAMs by signaling information about reporting quality. This study demonstrates that reporting CAMs is not a “boilerplate” communication. This study has implications for standards setters, as it shows that CAMs are reported in a way consistent with the objectives of the new standard, namely, via signaling information in the audit report on the quality of the financial statements.

In terms of originality, this paper uses a manually collected sample and, to the best of the author’s knowledge, is the first to focus on auditor’s behavior rather than on investors or clients reactions to CAMs. Also, this paper addresses a recently issued standard using US data and archival approach, rather than experimental. This paper also provides relevant evidence related to concerns raised earlier but were not empirically examined, such as reporting CAMS as “boilerplate” expectations. This paper provides new evidence on the auditors’ behavior with regard to litigation risk.

This study aims to investigate the link between audit quality and in-court debt restructuring. The aim is to understand whether the confirmation of debt restructuring plans is affected by audit quality, which, in the light of agency theory, reduces information asymmetries between outsiders (creditors and the court) and insiders (shareholders and managers) of the debtor company.

A logistic regression is performed to test whether higher audit quality is associated with an increased probability of successfully completing a debt restructuring proceeding (RP). Consistent with the literature, audit quality is assessed ex ante based on auditor size, which is used as a proxy for independence. The analysis considers private Italian companies.

Audit quality positively affects debt restructuring. Among financially distressed companies, those audited by an audit company are more likely to succeed in RPs than those audited by a single practitioner. There is no evidence of a Big N effect.

This study fills a gap in literature as, in contrast to other financial and governance characteristics, audit quality has never been studied before as a determinant of efficient restructuring. It contributes to the literature on auditing and governance by highlighting the importance of audit quality in complex situations such as RPs, and it expands on debt restructuring literature by considering the importance of the information exchanged during RPs.