Auditor Resignations and Auditor Industry Specialization

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Cenker ◽  
Albert L. Nagy

SYNOPSIS: The increase of Big 4 auditor resignations in the newly regulated auditing environment creates a rich setting to examine the supply-side effects of auditor industry specialization. The authors estimate logistic regressions to examine whether audit firms consider industry specialization at both the local and national levels when deciding on whether to retain or resign from audit clients. The results show a negative relation between auditor industry specialization and auditor resignations when the auditor is a joint specialist (i.e., a specialist at both the national and local levels) and when the auditor is a local specialist only (i.e., a local specialist but not a national specialist). The national specialization alone variable (i.e., the auditor is a national specialist but not a local specialist) is not significant for our primary analysis; however, additional analyses reveal that the significance of this variable varies when incorporating alternative measurements for auditor specialization in the models. Thus, the overall evidence of the national specialization effect on the auditor’s resignation decision is mixed and inconclusive at this point. Based on the additional analyses, the joint and the local specialization effects generally appear to be robust. As such, we conclude that auditors perceive their firms’ industry expertise, particularly at the local level, as reducing both clientele mismatch and litigation risks, and hence improving audit quality.

2018 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 113-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Gaver ◽  
Steven Utke

ABSTRACT We argue that the association between auditor industry specialization and audit quality depends on how long the auditor has been a specialist. We measure audit quality using absolute discretionary accruals, income-increasing discretionary accruals, and book-tax differences. Our results, based on a sample of Big 4 audit clients from 2003–2015, indicate that auditors who have only recently gained the specialist designation produce a level of audit quality that does not surpass that produced by non-specialist auditors, and is generally lower than the audit quality produced by seasoned specialists. We estimate that the seasoning process takes two to three years. In contrast to prior research that finds no effect of specialization after propensity score matching, we find that seasoned specialists generally produce higher-quality audits than other auditors even after matching. This suggests that the audit quality effect associated with seasoned industry specialist auditors is not due to differences in client characteristics. JEL Classifications: M42. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified in the text.


2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Robert Knechel ◽  
Vic Naiker ◽  
Gail Pacheco

Numerous capital market studies have investigated the stock market's reaction to firms switching to and from brand name auditors (Big 8/6/5/4 auditors). However, audit firm brand name is only one possible indication of the quality of an auditor. This study contributes to the existing literature on auditor switching, by examining how the market reacts to auditor switches to or from audit firms that are considered to be industry specialists. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that firms switching between Big 4 auditors experience significant positive abnormal returns when the successor auditor is an industry specialist, and they experience significant negative abnormal returns when the successor auditor is not a specialist. We also find that these market reactions are more likely to be due to changes in perceived audit quality rather than differential costs of using specialist auditors. In supplemental analysis of switches involving non-Big 4 auditors, we find that firms that switch from a specialist Big 4 auditor to a non-Big 4 auditor suffer the largest negative market reaction. Surprisingly, we also observe that the market reacts most positively when a company switches from a non-Big 4 auditor to a Big 4 auditor who is not a specialist. These results suggest that the market does perceive audit quality differences based on industry specialization to be relevant to the valuation of a company's market value.


Author(s):  
Zgarni Inaam ◽  
Hlioui Khmoussi ◽  
Zehri Fatma

In this study, we test the effect of the implementation of the financial security law (n° 2005-96) and the audit quality (Big 4 auditors, auditor industry specialization and audit tenure) on constraining the extent of real and accruals based earnings management in the Tunisian context. Using 319 firm-year observations during the period 2000-2010, our results suggest that auditor industry specialization and Big 4 auditors associated with lower levels of accruals earnings management. We also find that the Big 4 auditors enhance the extent of real earnings management (REM). Further, we document that longer auditor tenure is not associated with greater real and accruals earnings management. Finally, our findings suggest that the adoption of the financial securities law of 2005 is not effective on reducing earnings management in the Tunisian context.


2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Balsam ◽  
Jagan Krishnan ◽  
Joon S. Yang

This study examines the association between measures of earnings quality and auditor industry specialization. Prior work has examined the association between auditor brand name and earnings quality, using auditor brand name to proxy for audit quality. Recent work has hypothesized that auditor industry specialization also contributes to audit quality. Extending this literature, we compare the absolute level of discretionary accruals (DAC) and earnings response coefficients (ERC) of firms audited by industry specialists with those of firms not audited by industry specialists. We restrict our study to clients of Big 6 (and later Big 5) auditors to control for brand name. Because industry specialization is unobservable, we use multiple proxies for it. After controlling for variables established in prior work to be related to DAC and the ERC, we find clients of industry specialist auditors have lower DAC and higher ERC than clients of nonspecialist auditors. This finding is consistent with clients of industry specialists having higher earnings quality than clients of nonspecialists.


2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott E. Seavey ◽  
Michael J Imhof ◽  
Tiffany J. Westfall

SUMMARY Prior audit research suggests that most, if not all, audit quality can be explained at the office level. However, the question remains of whether office-level audit quality is contingent on how individual offices relate to the firm as a whole. Motivated by theories of knowledge management, organizational learning, and networks, we posit that individual offices are connected to their audit network through partner knowledge sharing and oversight, which impact office-level audit quality. We interview Big 4 audit partners and learn that knowledge sharing between partners in different offices is common and intended to aid in the provision of audit services. Using network connectedness to proxy for knowledge sharing and oversight between offices of the same firm, we document that more connected offices are associated with fewer client restatements and lower discretionary accruals. We additionally find that network effects are magnified when accounting treatments are more complex and require greater auditor judgement.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-362
Author(s):  
Karim Hegazy ◽  
Mohamed Hegazy

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the implications of audit industry specialization on auditor’s retention and growth within an emerging economy. Factors such as whether the firm is a Big 4, a firm with international affiliation, a local firm and the type of industry were studied to analyse the reasons behind audit firm retention and growth.Design/methodology/approachThis research is based on a field study related to audit firms providing services to listed companies in an emerging economy. The sample includes the top 100 publicly held companies’ in the Egyptian stock market during 2006-2011 for which their annual reports are analysed to determine the audit firms’ retention and growth. An assessment of the continuity of the auditors and the increase in the number of audit clients were also measured.FindingsThe results confirm that industry specialization has an important effect on the auditor’s retention, especially for industries where capital investment is significant such as buildings, construction, financial services, housing and real estate. Big 4 audit firms retained their clients because of their industry specialization and brand name. Evidence was found that good knowledge of accounting and auditing standards resulted in audit firms with international affiliation competing with the Big 4 for clients’ retention and growth.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the existing literature, as it is among the first to provide empirical evidence on auditor retention, growth and auditor’s dominance in an emerging economy such as Egypt.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 685-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samer K. Khalil ◽  
Jeffrey R. Cohen ◽  
Kenneth B. Schwartz

SYNOPSIS This paper investigates whether client engagement risks lengthen the client acceptance phase for audit firms and result in a longer auditor search period for their clients. Using a sample of auditor resignations over the period 2003–2008, we document that the auditor search period is longer for firms associated with client business risk (financial distress) and audit risk (internal control weaknesses or management integrity issues), while it is shorter for firms representing reduced auditor business risk (auditor industry specialization). These findings highlight the importance of client risk assessment and explain audit firms' response to perceived client risks.


2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 575-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mishari M. Alfraih

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of audit quality on the value relevance of earnings and book value. Because joint audit is mandated for all Kuwait Stock Exchange-listed firms, it is hypothesized that the higher the quality of the audit team (as measured by the number of Big 4 audit firms in the joint audit team), the higher the value relevance of earnings and book values for equity valuation. Design/methodology/approach Consistent with prior research, the value relevance of earnings and book value is measured by the adjusted R2 derived from the Ohlson’s 1995 regression model. The number of Big 4 audit firms represented on the firm’s audit team is used as a proxy for audit quality. Three tiers of audit quality exist, namely, two non-Big 4 audit firms, one Big 4 and one non-Big 4 audit firms or two Big 4 audit firms. To address this paper’s objective, the association between audit quality and the value relevance of earnings and book value were examined using four approaches. The final sample consists of 1,836 firm-year observations and covers fiscal years from a 12-year period (2002-2013). Findings Taken together, the four approaches used collectively provide empirical evidence that audit quality positively and significantly affects the value relevance of accounting measures to market participants. Importantly, the results reveal significant variations in the value relevance of earnings and book value jointly across the three possible auditor combinations. Research limitations/implications Although using auditor size as a proxy for audit quality is well established in the auditing literature, a limitation of that proxy is that it measures audit quality dichotomously, which implicitly assumes a homogeneous level of audit quality within each group. Practical implications The findings show the importance of high-quality and rigorous external audits in improving the value relevance of accounting information. Originality/value This study contributes to the extent literature on audit quality by exploring the role of audit quality in a unique institutional setting that imposes mandatory joint audits. Although prior studies have investigated the effect of joint audit pair choice on earnings management and audit fee premium, this study is the first to investigate the effect of joint audit pair choice on the value relevance of accounting information.


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Harjinder Singh ◽  
Rick Newby ◽  
Inderpal Singh

Prior research has linked audit quality with large audit firms. Consequently, a dichotomous variable, Big N/non-Big N has traditionally proxied for audit quality. Applying a different measure of audit quality than audit fee, this study investigates whether a single dummy variable for Big N is an appropriate proxy for audit quality in explaining differences in the existence of clients’ internal audit (IA) function. Results indicate that the existence of clients’ IA function is not consistent among Big 4 firms. This has important research implications for the universal use of a Big N dummy variable as a measure for audit quality.


2017 ◽  
Vol 91 (9/10) ◽  
pp. 268-273
Author(s):  
Isabella Grabner ◽  
Judith Künneke ◽  
Frank Moers

The main priority of the audit industry is to maintain and improve audit quality. While audit quality has been an important topic in both accounting academia and practice, there is still a lack of understanding of what drives audit quality. Given that people are the most valuable asset an audit firm has, we focus on examining the labor inputs as a driver of audit quality. Specifically, we argue that a key threat for audit quality that so far has been largely neglected is the loss of talent across the hierarchy. A well-known problem for audit firms is that they invest enormous resources in new professionals only to have many with talent leave (Patten, 1995; Vera-Muñoz, Ho & Chow, 2006; ACCA & ACRA, 2012). A recent survey by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants finds that only about 38% are satisfied with their career and only 35% plan to stay beyond three years, with no significant differences across Big 4 and midtier firms (ACCA and ACRA, 2012).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document