Search results

Accounts manipulation has been the subject of research, discussion and even controversy in several countries including the USA, Canada, the U.K., Australia, Finland and France. The objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the literature and propose a conceptual framework for accounts manipulation. This framework is based on the possibility of wealth transfer between the different stake‐holders, and in practice, the target of the manipulation appears generally to be the earnings per share and the debt/equity ratio. The paper also describes the different actors involved and their potential gains and losses. We review the literature on the various techniques of accounts manipulation: earnings management, income smoothing, big bath accounting, creative accounting, and window‐dressing. The various definitions of all these, the main motivations behind their application and the research methodologies used are all examined. This study reveals that all the above techniques have common elements, but there are also important differences between them.

Prior research finds evidence that audit quality is positively associated with the joint purchase of tax nonaudit services (NAS) and concludes that jointly provided tax services result in audit-related knowledge spillovers that lead to improved audit quality. We extend this line of research. We examine the relation between auditor-provided tax services and restatements and determine whether this relation differs when the auditor is a small or large accounting firm. We also examine whether the Securities Exchange Commission’s restrictions on certain tax consulting practices (SEC, 2006) altered this relation. Specifically, we measure whether the probability of financial statement restatements varies with (1) variation in accounting firm size (measured as PCAOB annually inspected firms versus PCAOB triennially inspected firms), and (2) the joint provision of audit and tax services. We find a negative relation between auditor-provided tax services and restatements which is consistent with prior research. We also find that this relation is significantly more negative when the auditor is a small accounting firm. Finally, we find that the lower probability of a restatement associated with the joint provision of audit and tax services persists regardless of auditor size after the SEC-imposed restrictions on certain tax consulting services in 2006. Our study provides evidence that accounting firms, and particularly small accounting firms, benefit from knowledge spillovers when jointly providing audit and tax services and these benefits lead to improved audit quality. Prior research concludes that large auditors provide higher audit quality and that the provision of tax services improves audit quality. Our results provide evidence that audit quality improvements are greater for small auditors and their clients. This improvement narrows that audit quality gap between large and small auditors. We do not find evidence that the SEC’s restrictions on certain tax consulting services altered the relation between audit quality and tax services.

Non-profit organizations constitute an important share of the U.S. economy, and recent audit failures and GAO findings highlight the importance of auditor reporting decisions in this sector. In this study, we examine going-concern modified audit opinions for non-profit organizations. Using audit opinion data for 3,567 non-profits exhibiting some signs of financial stress, we find that non-profits are more likely to receive a goingconcern modified opinion if they are smaller, are in worse financial condition, expend less on program-related activities, and have more internal control related audit findings. Our analysis of the subsequent resolution of the going-concern uncertainties suggest that only 27 percent of the non-profits receiving an initial going-concern modified audit opinion filed for dissolution in the subsequent four fiscal years. Our findings fill a gap in an important area that has received little research attention, and provide a useful benchmark for non-profits and their auditors.

ONE OF THE questions I get thrown at me at fairly frequent intervals by undiscerning friends is ‘Why don't you go on Mastermind/Brain of Britain/ etc? You're a librarian. You could do it easily.’

In 2001, the US moved to regulate internal control reporting by management and auditors. While some jurisdictions have followed the lead of the US, many others have not. An important question, therefore, is the relevance of internal control to stakeholders. The more specific issue of the benefits of US-style regulation of internal control reporting is also topical. We review studies on the determinants of internal control quality and its economic consequences for stakeholders including investors, creditors, managers, auditors and financial analysts. We extend previous reviews by focusing on US studies published since 2013 as well as all non-US studies investigating IC quality including countries regulating IC disclosure as well as unregulated settings and both developed and developing economies. In doing so, we identify research questions where evidence remains mixed and new directions in which there are research opportunities.

Three main insights arise from our analysis. First, evidence on the economic consequences of internal control quality suggests that the quality of internal control can have a significant effect on decision making by users of financial information. Second, the results of research on the empirical association between ownership structure, certain board characteristics and internal control quality is generally mixed. Empirical evidence concerning the association between audit committee characteristics and internal control quality generally supports a positive and significant association. Finally, while studies in non-US jurisdictions are increasing, opportunities remain to explore the determinants and consequences of internal control in other jurisdictions. Our review provides evidence for policy makers of whether there are benefits from requiring management and auditors to report on internal control over financial reporting.

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 examines the relation between governance (as measured by board and audit committee characteristics) and accounting quality (as measured by abnormal accruals) in a setting where there is no a priori reason to suspect systematic management of earnings. Using data from Singapore and Malaysia, we find both board size and audit committee independence are related to lower abnormal working capital accruals. Furthermore, the relation between audit committee independence and higher quality accounting exists only when the abnormal accruals are income increasing. This suggests that audit committees are effective in the financial reporting process by reducing the level of income increasing abnormal accruals. The results also indicate that audit committees are effective only when all members are independent directors.

Fudenberg and Tirole (1995) argue that concern about job security creates an incentive for managers to smooth earnings. Consistent with their model, Defond and Park (1997) show that managers smooth earnings in consideration of both current and future relative performance. To provide a more direct evidence of anticipating smoothing and job security, we hypothesize that the extent of income smoothing will vary with managers' job security concerns as proxied by the level of the investment opportunity set or growth opportunities. Our results confirmed our predictions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the empirical association between expected and unexpected audit fees and reported earnings quality for a sample of Big 4(5) client companies over a period from 2000 to 2005.

The paper employs a cross‐sectional multiple regression model for a sample of 1,142 firms (6,852 firm‐years) covering a time period of six years comprising 2000 to 2005 to evaluate the relationship between both expected and unexpected audit fees and performance‐adjusted discretionary accruals that are estimated from the extended version of the modified Jones model.

The paper finds that both expected and unexpected audit fees are associated with an increase in earnings quality, as indicated by the reduction of both absolute and signed discretionary accrual adjustments. Furthermore, in some analyses these associations are found to persist into the post‐Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) period. The main results hold in sensitivity tests that involve using both the absolute and signed unexpected audit fees as independent variables and in tests that use both the absolute and signed current accruals as dependent variables of interest.

The results suggest that audit efforts consistent with client‐specific business attributes and reflected in expected audit fees mitigate financial reporting biases, the effect of which is incrementally observable to some extent in the post‐SOX period as well. Unexpected audit fees, a proxy for fee surprise arising out of auditor‐client‐specific contractual situations, are also associated with an increase in earnings quality. The association is, in some analyses, significant for the post‐SOX years. The test results do not exhibit any evidence of auditor independence problems associated with high expected and unexpected audit fees; a result that supports the “reputation protection” argument for auditors' reporting decisions.

In a time period surrounding the introduction of SOX when nonaudit consulting services have severely been restricted, and the audit fee growth for publicly traded companies have been dramatic, an analysis of this nature potentially produces valuable insights into the auditors' fee decision, audit efforts, and auditor independence issue. The study looks into a new perspective concerning the relationship between audit fees and financial reporting practice over the two regulatory regimes, pre‐ and post‐SOX.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relevance of asset composition of a firm (tangible versus intangible properties), when evaluating its financial health. The paper argues that relevance of any asset is a function of how effectively it is used.

The paper uses two distinctive samples: a sample of traditional firms holding primarily traditional physical assets and a sample of technology service firms holding primarily intangible assets and examines the ability of intangible assets to surrogate as financial health signals.

The results show that when evaluating firms with significant intangible assets, using information about intangible assets to improve financial health evaluation. However, fundamental financial variables continue to be important in signaling financial health, regardless of asset composition.

The results highlight the importance of both objectively‐measured and reported fundamental financial information and subjectively measured intangible asset values. The results would help managers and markets in using greater caution when evaluating firms with intangible assets.

Unlike prior studies, this paper uses both fundamental financial variables and surrogates for intangible asset values in the model. The paper contributes by highlight the importance and limitations of intangible asset values.