Search results

We examine how auditors' use of limited liability agreements (LLAs) impact perceptions of private company creditworthiness in a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment. Ninety-three United States-based bank loan officers evaluate whether LLA clauses and the size of the company's external auditor impact lending decisions. We use signaling theory to predict, and we find that LLAs decrease perceived creditworthiness, mainly when the company engages a Non-Big4 auditor. We find no difference in perceived creditworthiness when the company employs a Big4 firm, irrespective of including an LLA clause. Supplemental analyses show that lenders perceive that LLA clauses signal higher credit risk and, in turn, decrease perceived creditworthiness. We offer insights into how lenders integrate information about privately held companies into their decisions, which could impact the cost of capital for private companies. Our study should be of interest to preparers and the varied users of financial statements and regulators.

This study examines the effects of key audit matter (KAM) disclosures in auditors' reports on auditor liability in cases of fraud and error misstatements using evaluators with audit experience.

The experiment is conducted using 174 professional auditors as participants.

The participating auditors assess higher auditor liability when misstatements are related to errors rather than when they are related to fraud. In addition, the results also demonstrate that KAM disclosures reduce auditor liability only in cases of fraud and not in cases of errors. Together, the results support the view that KAM reduces the negative affective reactions of evaluators, which in turn, reduce the assessed auditor liability.

This study did not analyze the setting in which auditors who act as peer evaluators had an opportunity to discuss the case among their peers, which may have affected their judgments.

The results of KAM disclosures on auditor liability in cases of error and fraud misstatements inform auditors that, different from the auditors' concern that disclosing KAM may increase auditors' legal risk, it tends to decrease or at least have no impact on the liability judgment.

This study contributes to the accounting literature by adding findings on another aspect of KAM in different audit settings, particularly, in the Thai legal environment with different types of undetected misstatements. The current conflicting results on how KAM disclosures affect auditor liability warrant further investigation of this issue in other audit contexts in different countries.

From a management viewpoint, identifies the quantitative information relative to environmental activities the management should have. Describes the types of auditing that should be conducted to protect the organization. Cost and liabilities must be established on an objective and realistic basis. Auditing by external and internal auditors must be the safety valve – the control that helps to ensure that there will be a minimum exposure to serious problems and then, when the problems occur, that the requirements of the government agencies are met.

This paper investigates the perceptions of senior auditors in large firms in Australia, Malaysia and New Zealand concerning sources of auditor legal liability, what should constitute auditors’ duties and what may be done to reduce litigation exposure. Results are consistent with our conjecture that professional and organisational culture dominates perceptions, even in the presence of quite strong jurisdictional, cultural and institutional differences. The analysis indicates that auditors’ perceptions are strongly affected by international trends, while cultural and institutional effects tend to be more subtle but are identified by detailed and focused analysis.

The objective of this research is to identify those industry‐specific elements of the financial statements of listed South African long‐term insurers that are potentially exposed to the highest level of inherent risk. Auditors of these companies should focus on these elements to ensure effective and efficient audits. An exploratory literature study was conducted. A questionnaire was subsequently used to identify significant accounts potentially exposed to the highest level of inherent risk. Relative levels of inherent risk were measured using a “Relative Inherent Risk Index” that had been specifically developed as part of this research. The research indicates that policy liabilities and operating profit from long‐term insurance activities are potentially exposed to a significantly higher level of inherent risk than the other industry‐specific elements of the financial statements of long‐term insurers.

This study aims to examine the effect of state-level legal risk on audit fee pricing in the USA. This study hypothesizes that auditors are more likely to charge higher audit fees to clients headquartered in states with higher legal risk in terms of probability of being sued, expected size of damages allocated to the auditors and breadth of third parties able to claim damages.

This study hypothesizes that higher state-level legal risk leads to higher audit fees. To test this, this study estimates ordinary least squares regressions of audit fees for 56,576 company years from 2001 to 2018 with the three measures of state legal risk and other factors known to affect audit fees.

This study finds that state-level legal risk is positively associated with audit fee pricing for two of three measures. Interestingly, the third measure, breadth of third parties able to claim damages, is negatively associated with audit fees.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper fulfills an identified need and is the first study to comprehensively test the association between state-level differentials in legal risk and audit fees.

This paper aims to examine the different perspectives of auditors and non-auditors on this question, along with the rationale and impact of these differences. Chinese company law requires an audit report on paid-up capital when business entities are newly formed or their capital altered, which raises questions regarding the liability of auditors should the business entities fail.

Interviews and a questionnaire survey were conducted to analyse how legislation can impact on interested parties in a relatively immature audit environment. The theories of social construction of reality and symbolic interactionism are used as a basis for explaining the different conceptions of capital verification held by interested parties.

There is a mismatch between the purpose of capital verification and the functions of paid-up capital. Paid-up capital is not a reliable indicator of business liquidity and creditworthiness. Auditors and non-auditors have different understandings about the assurance provided by paid-up capital at the point of company formation or auditing field work, and at the point of actual trading after the company formation or auditing field work. They also differ on the causation between deficient capital verification reports and trading loss. The liability crisis adversely influenced auditors’ perception of the capital verification service, although it did not lead to outright rejection by them.

This paper describes an important compliance auditing service in China. By conducting an analysis of the conflicting views of auditors and non-auditors on capital verification, it contributes to the existing literature on the sources of disputes between auditors and other stakeholders, and the efforts to establish a balanced auditor liability regime.

This paper aims to apply the Capital Market Liability of Foreignness (CMLOF) framework to the audit fees of a sample of foreign firms listed on US exchanges to examine whether American auditors price foreignness.

The four components of the CMLOF are institutional distance (civil versus common law system and enforcement), information asymmetry (disclosures and mandatory IFRS adoption), unfamiliarity (exports, English language and geographical distance) and cultural difference [Hofstede (1980) dimensions of culture]. These variables are examined in a regression model that explains audit fees to determine the auditor perception of risk associated with the CMLOF.

Examining the factors that mitigate perceived agency costs, this investigation determines that auditors price risk according to each component of the liability of foreignness. Audit fees are higher for shareholders of firms headquartered in countries exhibiting greater institutional distance, unfamiliarity and cultural distance. Audit fees are higher for firms when their home country requires additional disclosures or the adoption of IFRS to reduce information asymmetry.

CMLOF is costly for capital market participants and has implications for auditors, shareholders of foreign firms and managers considering listing in the US Auditors, and investors should carefully assess this risk for pricing and valuation, and managers should take action, to the extent possible, to reduce the firm-specific level of unfamiliarity and increase transparency.

This paper is the first to apply the CMLOF to examine whether auditors price aspects of foreignness of their non-US-headquartered clients.

Gaining an understanding of the business and accounting processes of the insurers concerned is a key element of the complex, high‐risk external audits1 of listed South African long‐term insurers. In this empirical study, the value chain concept developed by Porter in the 1980s is customised for listed South African long‐term insurers. Furthermore, the accounting support processes that affect the high‐risk components of policy liabilities and the related earnings of these insurers are identified. The generic value chain and list of accounting support processes developed in this study are useful tools to assist auditors in gaining an understanding of the business and accounting processes of these insurers.

This paper examines latest thinking and new developments in the regulatory framework for statutory audit at European Union (EU) level. It follows an earlier paper, published in this journal. Since 1999 when the paper was drafted, even more developments have occurred both at an EU level and in the USA, which are likely to have a significant impact on statutory audit in the EU in years to come. Latest developments are reviewed in three areas: profession related issues; company law issues; and, accounting and auditing standards. The paper concludes that significant advances have been made towards completion of the regulatory framework of statutory audit in the EU. What remains of concern is a lack of progress towards adoption of international auditing standards. Unless financial statements are both prepared and audited in the same way, it is difficult to see how financial information in the EU can ever be truly harmonised.