Auditing Section Research Summaries Space
A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice
Posts
research summary posted June 26, 2017 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 06.09 Litigation Risk, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit QualityTitle:Malleable Standards of Care Required by Jurors When Assessing Auditor NegligencePractical Implications:This study is relevant for practitioners, investors, and regulators. It demonstrates to firms that the effectiveness of high audit quality as a defense in litigation may be decreased depending on the timing of jurors’ assessment of SOC. One way to try and lower the probability of jurors’ assessing SOC after receiving audit knowledge is to warn the jury about the potential affects. Simply changing the jurors’ instructions has been found to mitigate the outcome effects.
Citation:Maksymove, Eldar M., and M. W. Nelson. 2017. “Malleable Standards of Care Required by Jurors When Assessing Auditor Negligence”. The Accounting Review. 92.1 (2017): 165.
Home:http://commons.aaahq.org/groups/e5075f0eec/summary
- research summary posted June 26, 2017 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 03.01 Auditor Qualifications, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit QualityTitle:The Contagion Effect of Low-Quality Audits at the Level of Individual AuditorsPractical Implications:
This study highlights the importance of individual auditor identification in audit reports. The results are also useful for financial information users, regulators, and policymakers to help them understand the impact of an auditor’s characteristics on an audit. The results are especially helpful for firms trying to understand the reasons behind audit failures and subsequently, to mitigate audit failures in the future.
Citation:Li Baolei Qi Gaoliang Tian, Liuchuang, and G. Zhang. 2017. “The Contagion Effect of Low-Quality Audits at the Level of Individual Auditors”. The Accounting Review 92.1 (2017): 137.
Home:http://commons.aaahq.org/groups/e5075f0eec/summary
- research summary posted June 26, 2017 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 05.0 Audit Team Composition, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit Quality, 15.0 International MattersTitle:The Effect of Joint Auditor Pair Composition on Audit Quality: Evidence from Impairment TestsPractical Implications:
Regulators are constantly trying to find ways to improve audit quality. The findings in this paper are useful to policymakers in understanding the benefits of a joint audit. It is also useful to companies and investors who are interested in what audit pairs provide a superior audit.
Citation:Lobo, Gerald J., L. Paugam, D. Zhang, and J. Francois Casta. 2017. “The Effect of Joint Auditor Pair Composition on Audit Quality: Evidence from Impairment Tests”. Contemporary Accounting Research 34.1 (2017): 118.
Home:http://commons.aaahq.org/groups/e5075f0eec/summary
- research summary posted February 16, 2017 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit Quality, 11.08 Proxies for Audit QualityTitle:Understanding Audit Quality: Insights from Audit Professionals and InvestorsPractical Implications:
This study provides evidence that should help inform the public discussion of audit quality in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley era and adds empirical substance to theoretical frameworks of audit quality.
Citation:Christensen, B. E., S. M. Glover, T. C. Omer, and M. K. Shelley. 2016. Understanding Audit Quality: Insights from Audit Professionals and Investors. Contemporary Accounting Research 33 (4): 1648 – 1684.
- research summary posted January 17, 2017 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit Quality, 11.08 Proxies for Audit QualityTitle:Understanding the Relation between Financial Reporting Quality and Audit QualityPractical Implications:
These findings imply that recognizing the relation between financial reporting quality and audit quality and the observability of differing outcomes can provide greater insight into the interpretation of research findings. They also suggest that greater consideration of how changing and differing economic situations affect financial reporting and audit outcomes will provide deeper insight into the determinants and consequences of both audit quality and financial reporting quality. Finally, recognizing and controlling for the potential endogeneity can lead to greater insights into both financial reporting quality and audit quality. The authors also provide a framework for identifying potential areas for future research.
Citation:Gaynor, L. M., A. S. Keaton, M. Mercer and T. L. Yohn. 2016. Understanding the Relation between Financial Reporting Quality and Audit Quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 35 (4): 1 – 22.
- research summary posted May 31, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control, 11.05 Training and General Experience, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit QualityTitle:Do Industry-Specialist Auditors Influence Stock Price Crash Risk?Practical Implications:
This study shows that industry specialists reduce a specific type of risk, stock price crash risk, which has become increasingly important following the Enron scandal and the recent financial market crisis. It also shows that the effects of opacity and conservatism on crash risk are moderated by auditor quality, furthering the emerging literature on the determinants of crash risk.
Citation:Robin, J. Ashok and Hao Zhang. 2015. Do industry-specialist auditors influence stock price crash risk? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 34 (3): 47-79.
- research summary posted March 31, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 10.0 Engagement Management, 10.06 Audit Fees and Fee Negotiations, 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit QualityTitle:On the Benefits of Audit Market Consolidation: Evidence from Merged Firms.Practical Implications:
The study results are important to audit firms and audit clients as they show audit efficiency benefits (lower audit hours and improved audit quality) post-merger. Although a merger with an international Big 4 firm may bring some reputational improvements, mergers with domestic Big 10 firms create improvements in audit efficiency. Audit firms interested in merging in the Chinese market should consider the benefits of local expertise and higher fees in a merger transaction. These results provide further insights into mergers and acquisitions and the benefits of economies of scale when performing audits.
Citation:Gong, Q., O. Z. Li, Y. Lin, and L. Wu. 2016. On the Benefits of Audit Market Consolidation: Evidence from Merged Audit Firms. The Accounting Review 91 (2): 463–488.
- research summary posted September 17, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit Quality, 11.08 Proxies for Audit Quality, 11.11 Impact of Firm and External Inspection ProgramsTitle:Do Big 4 Auditors Provide Higher Audit Quality after Controlling for the Endogenous Choice of Auditor?Practical Implications:
The evidence presented in this paper is of interest to managers, audit committees, investors, creditors, and regulators. Managers and audit committees would like to know whether the Big 4 actually do provide higher quality audits. This information will help them choose an auditor. Given that Big 4 auditors earn a fee premium, managers and audit committees must decide whether the services they receive from the auditor are worth the premium. Investors and creditors will also be interested in the results, as this will help them assess the credibility of firms’ financial reports. Regulators are also interested in whether the Big 4 accounting firms actually provide higher quality audits.
Citation:Eshleman, J. D., and G. Peng. 2014. Do Big 4 Auditors Provide Higher Audit Quality after Controlling for the Endogenous Choice of Auditor? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 33 (4): 197-219.
- research summary posted September 15, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 05.0 Audit Team Composition, 05.05 Diversity of Skill Sets e.g., Tenure and Experience, 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit QualityTitle:The Effect of China’s Weak Institutional Environment on the Quality of Big 4 Audits.Practical Implications:
This study suggests that the strength of the institutional environment can significantly influence audit quality, and subsequently financial reporting quality even for global accounting firms with standardized training and auditing procedures. Furthermore, this study has important implications for the SEC which has voiced concerns about the quality of auditing in China, and the PCAOB which has been barred by the Chinses government from conducting inspections of auditing firms located in mainland China.
Citation:Ke, B., C. S. Lennox, and Q. Xin. 2015. The Effect of China’s Weak Institutional Environment on the Quality of Big 4 Audits. The Accounting Review 90 (4): 1591-1619.
- research summary posted July 22, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 04.0 Independence and Ethics, 04.03 Non-Audit Services, 04.07 Audit Firm Rotation, 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control, 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit QualityTitle:Audit Firm Tenure, Non-Audit Services, and Internal Assessments of Audit Quality.Practical Implications:
The lower quality and higher effort associated with first-year audits represent additional costs that should be considered in the ongoing debate on mandatory audit firm rotation. The differential findings for private and public clients suggest that market and related regulatory forces discipline auditors of SEC clients to maintain a high level of audit quality even when tenure is long or NAS fees are high. The findings are important for regulatory policies related to audit firm tenure and auditor-provided NAS. The finding that quality declines in private-client audits as NAS fees increase or tenure becomes long should be of interest to standard setters in the private sector.
Citation:Bell, T. B., Causholli, M., & Knechel, W. R. 2015. Audit Firm Tenure, Non-Audit Services, and Internal Assessments of Audit Quality. Journal Of Accounting Research 53 (3): 461-509.
Filter by Type
Filter by Tag
- All
- 01.0 Standard Setting
- 01.01 Changes in Reporting Formats
- 01.02 Changes in Audit Standards
- 01.03 Impact of New Accounting Pronouncements
- 01.04 Impact of 404
- 01.05 Impact of SOX
- 01.06 Impact of PCAOB
- 01.07 Impact of SEC Actions
- 02.0 Client Acceptance and Continuance
- 02.01 Audit Fee Decisions
- 02.02 Client Risk Assessment
- 02.03 Management Integrity Assessments
- 02.04 Predecessor Auditor Factors
- 02.05 Business Risk Assessment - e.g., industry, IPO, complexity
- 02.06 Resignation Decisions
- 03.0 Auditor Selection and Auditor Changes
- 03.01 Auditor Qualifications
- 03.02 Dismissal Decisions – impact of restatements, disagreements, fees, mergers
- 04.0 Independence and Ethics
- 04.01 Scope of Services
- 04.02 Impact of Fees on Decisions by Auditors & Management
- 04.03 Non-Audit Services
- 04.04 Moral Development and Individual Ethics Decisions
- 04.05 Ethics and Consultation
- 04.06 Reporting Ethics Breaches – Self & Others
- 04.07 Audit Firm Rotation
- 04.08 Impact of SEC Rules Changes/SarbOx
- 04.09 Individual & Team Conduct - e.g., premature signoff, underreporting hours
- 05.0 Audit Team Composition
- 05.01 Use of Specialists e.g., financial instruments, actuaries, valuation
- 05.02 Industry Expertise – Firm and Individual
- 05.03 Partner Rotation
- 05.04 Staff Hiring, Turnover and Morale
- 05.05 Diversity of Skill Sets e.g., Tenure and Experience
- 05.06 Qualifications of Engagement Quality Reviewers
- 05.07 Impact of 150-hour requirement
- 05.08 Impact of Office Size
- 05.09 Group Decision-Making
- 05.10 Impact of Diversity - e.g., gender - on Group Decision Making
- 06.0 Risk and Risk Management, Including Fraud Risk
- 06.01 Fraud Risk Assessment
- 06.02 Fraud Risk Models
- 06.03 Failure Risk Models
- 06.04 Management Integrity
- 06.05 Assessing Risk of Material Misstatement
- 06.06 Earnings Management
- 06.07 SAS No. 99 Brainstorming – process
- 06.08 SAS No. 99 Brainstorming – effectiveness
- 06.09 Litigation Risk
- 06.10 Impact of office size
- 07.0 Internal Control
- 07.01 Scope of Testing
- 07.02 Assessing Material Weaknesses
- 07.03 Reporting Material Weaknesses
- 07.04 Assessing Remediation of Weaknesses
- 07.05 Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality
- 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent
- 08.01 Substantive Analytical Review – Effectiveness
- 08.02 Sample Selection – use of statistical sampling
- 08.03 Conclusions Based on Samples
- 08.04 Auditors’ Professional Skepticism
- 08.05 Evaluating Accruals/Detection of Abnormal Accruals
- 08.06 Earnings Management – Detection and Response
- 08.07 Interim Testing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent
- 08.08 Projecting Interim Testing Conclusions Year End
- 08.09 Impact of Technology on Audit Procedures
- 08.10 Confirmation – Process and Evaluation of Responses
- 08.11 Reliance on Internal Auditors
- 09.0 Auditor Judgment
- 09.01 Audit Scope and Materiality Judgments
- 09.02 Documentation Specificity
- 09.03 Adequacy of Evidence
- 09.04 Going Concern Decisions
- 09.05 Failure Risk Models
- 09.06 Adequacy of Disclosure
- 09.07 GAAP Departures
- 09.08 Evaluation of Errors – Statistical and Non-statistical
- 09.09 Impact of Consultation on Judgments
- 09.10 Prior Dispositions/Biases/Auditor state of mind
- 09.11 Auditor judgment in the workpaper review process
- 09.12 Impact of potential post-audit review - e.g., PCAOB, internal firm inspections
- 09.13 Recognition vs. Disclosure
- 10.0 Engagement Management
- 10.01 Budgeting and Audit Time Management
- 10.02 Materiality and Scope Decisions
- 10.03 Interaction among Team Members
- 10.04 Interactions with Client Management
- 10.05 Interactions with Audit Committee Members
- 10.06 Audit Fees and Fee Negotiations
- 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control
- 11.01 Supervision and Review – Effectiveness
- 11.02 Engagement Quality Review – Processes and Effectiveness
- 11.03 Management/Staff Interaction
- 11.04 Industry Experience
- 11.05 Training and General Experience
- 11.06 Working Paper Review – Conduct, Biases and Predispositions
- 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit Quality
- 11.08 Proxies for Audit Quality
- 11.09 Evaluation of Evidence
- 11.10 Impact of Quality Reviewers
- 11.11 Impact of Firm and External Inspection Programs
- 11.12 Impact of National Office on Auditor Decisions
- 11.13 Partner incentive schemes
- 12.0 Accountants’ Reports and Reporting
- 12.01 Going Concern Decisions
- 12.02 Quarterly Reviews
- 12.03 Restatements
- 12.04 Investigations
- 12.05 Changes in Reporting Formats
- 12.06 Consequences of Adverse 404 Opinions
- 12.07 Attestation Services
- 13.0 Governance
- 13.01 Board/Audit Committee Composition
- 13.02 Board/Financial Experts
- 13.03 Board/Audit Committee Tenure
- 13.04 Board/Audit Committee Compensation
- 13.05 Board/Audit Committee Oversight
- 13.06 Board/Audit Committee Processes
- 13.07 Internal auditor role and involvement in controls and reporting
- 14.0 Corporate Matters
- 14.01 Earnings Management
- 14.02 Corporate Whistle Blowers
- 14.03 Interim Reporting
- 14.04 MD and A Language/Signaling
- 14.05 Earnings Targets and Management Behavior
- 14.06 CFO Tenure and Experience
- 14.07 Executive Compensation
- 14.08 Press Release Language and Signaling
- 14.09 CEO Tenure and Experience
- 14.10 CEO Compensation
- 14.11 Audit Committee Effectiveness
- 15.0 International Matters
- 15.01 Audit Partner Identification by Name
- 15.02 IFRS Changes – Impacts
- 15.03 Audit Partner Rotation
- 15.04 Audit Firm Rotation
- 15.05 Sustainability Services