Clients' Workplace Environment and Corporate Audits

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minjie Huang ◽  
Adi Masli ◽  
Felix Meschke ◽  
James P. Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Workplace Environment ◽  
Workplace Satisfaction ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Corporate Executives ◽  
Workplace Environments ◽  
Jel Classifications

SUMMARY We obtain a novel dataset of workplace satisfaction ratings submitted by about 100,000 employees working for large public U.S. companies. We document that lower workplace ratings are associated with higher audit fees and longer audit report lags. Lower workplace ratings also increase the likelihood of firms receiving modified going concern opinions. Our study shows that organizational workplace environments affect auditor risk assessments and auditing outcomes and provide insights for practicing auditors and corporate executives. Our interviews with practicing auditors at large U.S. accounting firms also provide insights as to how workplace quality affects the corporate audit. JEL Classifications: G3; J28; M14; M42.

Workplace Mindfulness in Accounting Practice: Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 167-185
Author(s):  
Yu-Tzu Chang ◽  
Dan N. Stone
Keyword(s):  
Job Performance ◽  
Work Outcomes ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Accounting Practice ◽  
Accounting Professionals ◽  
Practice Opportunities ◽  
Reducing Stress ◽  
Jel Classifications

SYNOPSIS Research suggests that individual, secular mindfulness can improve work outcomes, including reducing stress and increasing attention, wellness, and job performance. This paper discusses the construct and efficacy of mindfulness and explores opportunities for and challenges to integrating workplace mindfulness in professional accounting. Evidence from websites suggests that most large accounting firms promote workplace mindfulness to their clients and that some (e.g., EY and PWC) promote its practice among their accounting professionals. While a review of literature indicates support for some claimed benefits, workplace mindfulness is no panacea. Challenges to workplace mindfulness include the unwillingness of some accounting professionals to practice mindfulness and that some claimed benefits, e.g., improved leadership and teamwork, are not well-supported by research. The paper concludes by proposing a set of workplace mindfulness issues and practice opportunities and discussing impediments to and the limits of mindfulness in professional accounting. JEL Classifications: M40; M41; M42.

Auditors and the Principal-Principal Agency Conflict in Family Controlled Firms

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 31-55
Author(s):  
Chiraz Ben Ali ◽  
Sabri Boubaker ◽  
Michel Magnan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Controlling Shareholder ◽  
Voting Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
Agency Conflict ◽  
Jel Classifications

SUMMARY This paper examines whether multiple large shareholders (MLS) affect audit fees in firms where the largest controlling shareholder (LCS) is a family. Results show that there is a negative relationship between audit fees and the presence, number, and voting power of MLS. This is consistent with the view that auditors consider MLS as playing a monitoring role over the LCS, mitigating the potential for expropriation by the LCS. Therefore, our evidence suggests that auditors reduce their audit risk assessment and audit effort and ultimately audit fees in family controlled firms with MLS. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: G32; G34; M42; D86.

Long-Term Trends in Audit Fees

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishnagopal Menon ◽  
David D. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
Long Term Effect ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Model Coefficient ◽  
Long Term Trends ◽  
Wage Increases

The audit fees literature contains little by way of systematic evidence on long-term trends in audit fees. This study analyzes trends in audit fees from 1980 through 1997, adjusting for changes in client size, complexity, and risk. The sample is restricted to clients of Big 6 firms that voluntarily disclosed audit fees in the period 1980–1997. Evidence is found that audit fees increased in the 1980s but stayed flat in the 1990s. Most important, a significant increase is noted in 1988, the year in which the Auditing Standards Board issued the “expectation gap” standards. These results hold even after controlling for wage increases in accounting firms, suggesting an expansion of auditing effort. There is no evidence that auditors obtain any price premium from industry specialization. The 1989 Big 8 mergers appear to have had a short-term, but not long-term, effect on fees. Finally, the magnitude of the audit fee model coefficient for accounts receivable and inventory has declined over the period, presumably due to productivity improvements.

An Analysis of Cross-Sectional Differences in Big and Non-Big Public Accounting Firms' Audit Programs

2006 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Blokdijk ◽  
Fred Drieenhuizen ◽  
Dan A. Simunic ◽  
Michael T. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Big 5 ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Approach ◽  
Control Risk

A significant body of prior research has shown that audits by the Big 5 (now Big 4) public accounting firms are quality differentiated relative to non-Big 5 audits. This result can be derived analytically by assuming that Big 5 and non-Big 5 firms face different loss functions for “audit failures” and is consistent with a variety of empirical evidence from studies of audit fees, auditor changes, and the stock price reaction to audited earnings. However, there is no existing evidence (of which we are aware) concerning the underlying production differences between Big 5 and non-Big 5 audits. As a result, existing empirical evidence cannot distinguish between the possibility that Big 5 audits are simply perceived to be different (e.g., by investors) or actually differ in how they are produced. Our research objective is to identify the production characteristics of audit engagements that may explain the differences in expected audit quality between Big 5 and non-Big 5 firms. In this archival study, we examine the total audit effort and the allocation of effort to four audit phases—planning, (control) risk assessment, substantive testing, and completion—for a cross-section sample of 113 audits of Dutch companies in 1998/99 by 14 public accounting firms. We find that, after controlling for client characteristics: (1) both types of auditors exert about the same amount of total audit effort; (2) Big 5 auditors allocate relatively more effort to planning and (control) risk assessment, and relatively less to substantive testing and completion; and (3) client size, use of the business-risk-based audit approach, and reliance on client internal controls affect audit hours differently for the two auditor types. We conclude that the Big 5 firms actually produce a higher audit quality level, and that this quality difference is related to how audit hours are deployed in a more contextual and less procedural audit approach.

The Relation between Managerial Ability and Audit Fees and Going Concern Opinions

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gopal V. Krishnan ◽  
Changjiang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Managerial Ability ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Going Concern Opinion ◽  
Corporate Resources ◽  
Ability Measure

SUMMARY While prior research has examined the relation between firm-level attributes and auditors' decisions, there is little empirical evidence on whether managerial attributes are informative to auditors. We examine the relation between managerial ability, i.e., ability in transforming corporate resources to revenues, and audit fees and a going concern opinion. We use the managerial ability measure recently developed by Demerjian, Lev, and McVay (2012). We find that incremental to firm-level attributes, both audit fees and the likelihood of issuing a going concern opinion are decreasing in managerial ability. Collectively, our findings support the notion that managerial ability is relevant to auditors' decisions.

Determinants and Consequences of Firms' Derivative Accounting Decisions

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Spencer Pierce
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Accounting Standards ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Financial Accounting ◽  
Firm Risk ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Earnings Volatility ◽  
Hedge Accounting ◽  
Reported Earnings ◽  
Jel Classifications

ABSTRACTFinancial accounting standards require derivatives to be recognized at fair value with changes in value recognized immediately in earnings. However, if specified criteria are met, firms may use an alternative accounting treatment, hedge accounting, which is intended to better represent the underlying economics of firms' derivative use. Using FAS 161 disclosures, I examine determinants of hedge accounting use and the effects of hedge accounting on financial reporting and capital markets. I find variation in firms' hedge accounting use and provide evidence that compliance costs of applying hedge accounting affect firms' decision to use hedge accounting. Firms decrease their reported earnings volatility via derivatives that receive hedge accounting and could further decrease their earnings volatility if hedge accounting were applied to all their derivatives. Inconsistent with arguments given for using hedge accounting, I fail to find a decrease in investors' assessments of firm risk from using hedge accounting.JEL Classifications: M40; M41; G32.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document