This analysis provides empirical support for the argument that the mandatory requirement suppresses information that is conveyed when companies are allowed to choose whether to be audited. Moreover, additional tests indicate that the opt-out companies were only passively complying with the audit requirement—evident in their attempts to reduce costs through auditor choice and fees—under the mandatory regime. In other words, it is difficult to force companies to privately contract for stringent audits if they would choose not to be audited voluntarily. However, the research on private companies cannot contribute valid insights on the relative merits of voluntary and mandatory audits for public companies.

For more information on this study, please contact Clive Lennox.

Lennox, C. S. and J. A. Pittman. 2011. Voluntary Audits versus Mandatory Audits. The Accounting Review 86 (5): 1655-1678. 

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

Our study highlights the importance of taking into account executive incentive plans in improving the understanding of auditors’ risk assessment and pricing decisions, in support of the current professional audit standards. The findings that auditors respond to CEO and CFO equity incentives differently have significant implications for the corporate governance reforms and the design of optimal corporate executive compensation policies. Following the accounting scandals in the early 2000s, there has been increased regulatory and legislative scrutiny on corporate governance. Especially, regulators have recognized CFOs as the individuals bearing responsibilities for the integrity of financial information. Our paper lends support to the regulatory inclusion of CFOs as accountable individuals, and to concerns that firms should exercise caution in compensating CFOs using equity-based tools.

For more information on this study, please contact Yonghong Jia.

Billings, B. A., X. Gao, and Y. Jia. 2014. CEO and CFO Equity Incentives and the Pricing of Audit Services. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 33 (2): 1-25

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

The results of this study have very important implications regarding how stakeholders respond to the disclosed audit fee and business risk. Stakeholders could devote special attention the audit fee disclosure that is mandated by the SEC as it has the potential to reveal risk information. Additionally, the results of this study should warrant increased awareness on the part of the auditors when they price an audit because audit firms should consider what the public believes the audit fee implies about the client’s business risk.

For more information on this study, please contact Jonathan D. Stanley.
 

Stanley, J.D. 2011. Is the audit fee disclosure a leading indicator of clients’ business risk? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 30 (3): 157-179.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

While research on “quality-threatening behaviors” by auditors is difficult to perform due to confidentiality constraints, the available findings suggest that audit firms can make a difference in their incidence and severity through careful attention to policies and procedures for assessing, monitoring and controlling risk of violation of professional standards. While there is likely to be greater resistance to higher quality control standards among smaller firms, research shows that audit quality concerns are greater for smaller firms and that larger firms are currently passing smaller and riskier clients to them. The authors suggest that small accounting firms can adopt strategies, like creating alliances or becoming niche providers of certain audit services, to allow them to meet this challenge.

Bedard, J.C., D.R. Deis, M.B. Curtis, and J.G. Jenkins. 2008. Risk monitoring and control in audit firms: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 27 (1): 187-218.

The results of this study call into question the legitimacy of compensation structure as a red flag for fraud risk and introduce company size as a new (and easily assessed) indicator of financial statement fraud. CFO attitude emerged as the most influential factor in the formation of intentions to misreport. This indicates that it is important that auditors attempt to assess client management’s attitude toward fraudulent financial reporting. Although directly assessing management’s attitude may not be possible, auditors can subjectively assess management attitude based on ongoing personal interactions with the client. More formal audit decision aids to assess management attitudes toward fraudulent financial reporting might also be valuable for successfully detecting fraud.

Gillett, P.R. and N. Uddin. 2005. CFO Intentions of Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 24 (1): 55-75.