scholarly journals An Analysis of Auditors' Going-Concern Reporting Accuracy in Private Firms

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 117-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Hardies ◽  
Marie-Laure Vandenhaute ◽  
Diane Breesch
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Private Firms ◽  
Reporting Accuracy ◽  
Public Firms ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
One Year ◽  
Audit Reports

SYNOPSIS The accuracy of audit reports is often viewed as a signal for audit quality. Prior research shows that in the context of going-concern reporting in audit markets dominated by public firms, some auditors are more accurate than others (e.g., Big N firms). This study is the first large-scale study that investigates going-concern reporting accuracy in an audit market dominated by private firms. The threat of reputation and litigation costs incentivizes auditors to report accurately in markets dominated by public firms, but such incentives are largely absent in markets dominated by private firms. Hence, reporting accuracy in such markets might not vary across auditors. Our main analysis is based on a sample of 1,375 Belgian firms that ceased to exist within one year from the financial statement date. Our results show that the frequency of Type II misclassification does not vary across auditor types (Big 4 versus non-Big 4, audit firm and partner industry specialists versus non-specialists, more experienced versus less experienced, and female versus male auditors). Overall, these results cast doubt on the existence of quality differences among auditors in audit markets dominated by private firms.

To be or not to be – auditors’ ability to signal going concern problems

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torbjörn Tagesson ◽  
Peter Öhman
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Research Opportunity ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
The Impact

Purpose – This paper aims to chart Swedish auditors’ likelihood of issuing going concern warnings (GCWs), and to investigate the relationship between formal auditor competence, audit fees and audit firm, respectively, and the likelihood of issuing GCWs. Design/methodology/approach – The empirical data are based on annual reports and audit reports for 2,547 limited companies that went bankrupt in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis and had filed a financial statement in the year before the bankruptcy. Findings – The findings indicate that Swedish auditors seldom issue GCWs. Moreover, there is a positive relationship between audit fee level and the likelihood of issuing GCWs, and Big 4 auditors being more likely to issue such warnings than other auditors. However, the analyses identify differences between audit firms (within the group of Big 4 firms and within the group of other audit firms) in terms of their predictions of client bankruptcies. This suggests a need for further investigation of firm-specific differences. Contrary to what was predicted, authorized auditors are not more likely to issue GCWs than approved auditors. Research limitations/implications – This paper did not investigate the impact of audit experience and tenure or the possibility that auditors may signal survival problems by resigning. Practical implications – Levying appropriate audit fees creates opportunities for thorough audits, but auditors’ formal competence based on training and qualification is not a factor that enforces audit quality. Based on the findings, the authors also suggest some clarifications of existing standards to reduce ambiguity regarding the reporting of survival problems. Originality/value – The Swedish setting is a context in which most companies are small, creditor interest in accounting and auditing is strong and auditors must issue a modified audit opinion if half of the shareholders’ equity is spent. This setting offers a unique research opportunity because the formal competence differs between Sweden’s two categories of certified auditors, and it allows exploration beyond the dichotomy of Big 4 versus other audit firms.

Big 4 Office Size and Audit Quality

2009 ◽  
Vol 84 (5) ◽  
pp. 1521-1552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jere R. Francis ◽  
Michael D. Yu
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Earnings Management ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Management Behavior ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Client Risk ◽  
Office Size ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Auditor Characteristics

ABSTRACT: Larger offices of Big 4 auditors are predicted to have higher quality audits for SEC registrants due to greater in-house experience in administering such audits. We test this prediction by examining a sample of 6,568 U.S. firm-year observations for the period 2003–2005 and audited by 285 unique Big 4 offices. Results are consistent with larger offices providing higher quality audits. Specifically, larger offices are more likely to issue going-concern audit reports, and clients in larger offices evidence less aggressive earnings management behavior. These findings are robust to extensive controls for client risk factors and to controls for other auditor characteristics. While the evidence suggests audit quality is higher on average in larger Big 4 offices, we make no claims that audit quality is unacceptably low in smaller offices.

Consequences of Going-Concern Opinion Inaccuracy at the Audit Office Level

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-208
Author(s):  
Qiao Xu ◽  
Rachana Kalelkar
Keyword(s):  
Market Share ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type I Errors ◽  
Negatively Associated ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Office Market ◽  
Going Concern Opinion ◽  
Office Level

SUMMARY This paper examines whether inaccurate going-concern opinions negatively affect the audit office's reputation. Assuming that clients perceive the incidence of going-concern opinion errors as a systematic audit quality concern within the entire audit office, we expect these inaccuracies to impact the audit office market share and dismissal rate. We find that going-concern opinion inaccuracy is negatively associated with the audit office market share and is positively associated with the audit office dismissal rate. Furthermore, we find that the decline in market share and the increase in dismissal rate are primarily associated with Type I errors. Additional analyses reveal that the negative consequence of going-concern opinion inaccuracy is lower for Big 4 audit offices. Finally, we find that the decrease in the audit office market share is explained by the distressed clients' reactions to Type I errors and audit offices' lack of ability to attract new clients.

scholarly journals Audit quality and the cost of debt in private firms: evidence from the Brazilian sugarcane industry

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Aviner Augusto Silva Manoel ◽  
Marcelo Botelho da Costa Moraes ◽  
David Ferreira Lopes Santos ◽  
Gabriel Pereira Pündrich
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Cost Of Debt ◽  
Private Firms ◽  
Financial Reports ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Sugarcane Industry

Evidence is mixed regarding the economic benefits achieved by companies hiring large firms to audit their financial statements. The studies approaching this theme concentrate mostly on public companies in developed markets, while the effect on private firms in emerging markets is still an open question. This research explores this gap by analyzing whether private firms in the Brazilian sugarcane industry audited by a Big 4 have a lower cost of debt than those audited by a non-Big 4. For that, a unique, hand-collected, dataset was used. This paper contributes to the literature by providing evidence of the role of audit institutions in an environment lacking studies on private firms’ financial reports, especially in emerging economies. The empirical analysis does not indicate that the cost of debt is negatively influenced by the verification of financial statements by a high-quality auditor. Banks and credit unions, as the primary funding sources of the industry, condition the cost of debt reduction to the levels of tangibility, leverage, and profitability. We also contribute to the literature by demonstrating that lenders may have other soft information sources, obtained through banking relationship, which may substitute higher-quality auditor. The results hold after robustness checks and endogeneity concerns.

Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence—Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions in Germany

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 129-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole V. S. Ratzinger-Sakel
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Manufacturing Companies ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Reporting Decisions ◽  
Auditor Fees

SUMMARY This study examines the potential for non-audit services to impair auditor independence using going concern modifications as a proxy for audit quality. While prior research has focused primarily on Anglo-Saxon environments, this study focuses on Germany because of the country's unique reporting attributes and lower litigation risk when compared to Anglo-Saxon settings. Based on a sample of financially stressed manufacturing companies during the period 2005–2009, the results do not suggest that German auditors are less independent when the level of non-audit fees is high. However, there is some evidence that Big 4 audit firms are less likely than their non-Big 4 counterparts to issue a going concern emphasis-of-matter paragraph for engagements characterized by both relatively high levels of non-audit fees and financial stress.

scholarly journals An Analysis of Auditors' Going-Concern Reporting Accuracy in Private Firms

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Hardies ◽  
Marie-Laure Vandenhaute ◽  
Diane Breesch
Keyword(s):  
Private Firms ◽  
Reporting Accuracy ◽  
Going Concern

Audit Firm Size and Going-Concern Reporting Accuracy

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marshall A. Geiger ◽  
Dasaratha V. Rama
Keyword(s):  
Firm Size ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Reporting Accuracy ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Reporting Error ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Second Tier

Prior research suggests that the Big 4 audit firms are of higher quality than are non-Big 4 firms. However, existing tests for an association between audit firm size and reporting accuracy are indirect and provide mixed results. Our study extends this line of research by examining whether the Big 4 audit firms exhibit higher quality reporting by having fewer “audit-reporting errors” in the context of issuing going-concern modified reports. Our analyses examine both types of going-concern reporting errors (i.e., type I errors—modified opinions rendered to subsequently viable clients; and type II errors—unmodified opinions rendered to subsequently bankrupt clients) over an 11-year period. We also examine reporting error rate differences between the national second-tier firms and regional/local third-tier firms. Our findings indicate that both type I and type II error rates for Big 4 audit firms are significantly lower compared to non-Big 4 firms. In contrast, we find no significant differences between the national second-tier and regional/local third-tier audit firms with respect to either type of reporting error. Our results provide evidence about a Big 4 audit quality difference in reporting on client's going-concern problems.

Does the use of honorific appellations in audit reports connote higher financial misstatement risk? Evidence from China

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Chen ◽  
Xingqiang Du ◽  
Shaojuan Lai ◽  
Mary Ma
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Public Firms ◽  
Financial Misstatements ◽  
Financial Misstatement ◽  
Chinese Auditors ◽  
Audit Reports

Purpose From the sociolinguistic perspective, the purpose of this paper is to examine whether the honorific and actual-name appellations that Chinese auditors use to address clients in audit reports connote differential financial misstatement risk. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that auditors’ use of honorifics signals their inferior social status relative to their clients, thereby leading to compromised auditor independence, lower audit quality, and higher financial misstatement risk. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a sample of manually coded appellation data from audit reports of Chinese public firms between 2003 and 2012 to conduct the research. Findings The authors find significantly greater financial misstatements, both in terms of likelihoods and magnitudes, for companies addressed by honorifics than for those addressed by actual names. Moreover, compared to auditors’ consistent honorific usage, discretionary honorific usage has a stronger positive association with misstatements. The authors further show that the positive association between honorific usage and client misstatement risk weakens when the audit firm is a Top 10 accounting firms in China, is an industry specialist, is formed as a partnership, or resides in a more concentrated audit market. Originality/value This study contributes to the sociolinguistics literature in accounting and provides evidence supporting the reform proposed by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board to enhance the usefulness of audit reporting.

Firm versus Partner Measures of Auditor Industry Expertise and Effects on Auditor Quality

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsin-Yi Chi ◽  
Chen-Lung Chin
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Audit Opinion ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Auditor Industry Expertise ◽  
Industry Expertise

SUMMARY This paper first examines whether the Big 4 audit quality is associated with auditor industry expertise, measured as both individual partner- and audit firm-level leadership. We focus on a sample of listed firms in Taiwan, where audit reports must be audited and signed by the two signing auditors as well as by an audit firm. For accruals analyses, we find that differential discretionary accruals due to industry expertise are driven by a combination of firm and partner expertise. For audit opinion analyses, we find that differential likelihood of a modified audit opinion (hereafter, MAO) is primarily attributable to signing auditor specialists. We also find that firm-level specialists alone are not associated with a higher likelihood of issuing a MAO. However, firm-level specialists, in combination with signing auditor specialists, can add something over and above the effects of the signing auditor specialists alone. Second, we further examine whether there is differential audit quality between signing auditors (i.e., lead and concurring auditors). We find that clients of lead signing auditor specialists, either alone or in conjunction with concurring auditor specialists, have smaller accruals and are more likely to receive a MAO compared to those of nonspecialists. However, concurring auditor specialists alone are not associated with higher audit quality, in terms of either smaller accruals or a higher MAO likelihood. Thus, we conclude that industry expertise is not homogeneous across individual auditors within the same audit firm in Taiwan. Data Availability: Data are available from the sources identified in the text.

scholarly journals Audit Quality And Accrual Quality: Do Big 4 Auditors Indeed Enhance Accrual Quality Of ‘Powerful’ Clients?

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 343-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sorah Park
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Accrual Quality ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Accounting Scandals ◽  
Quality Of Accounting Information ◽  
Audit Reports

External auditors are considered ‘watchdogs’ which closely monitor corporate financial reporting process and provide guidelines for investors and financial institutions. However, recent accounting scandals in Korea indicate that external auditors may cater their audit reports to their clients’ needs. Based on a sample of listed companies on the Korea Stock Exchange from 2001 to 2010, this study finds the evidence consistent with such conjecture. First, large business conglomerates in Korea (so called ‘chaebols’) audited by Big 4 have lower accrual quality than the others, indicating that Big 4 auditors may not serve as watchdogs to enhance accrual quality of ‘powerful’ clients. However, powerful clients who pay greater non-audit service fees to Big 4 auditors have higher accrual quality than the others. This result suggests that non-audit services provided by Big 4 may not necessarily harm the quality of accounting information, contrary to the traditional view in the literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document