Non-CPAs and Office Audit Quality

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew G. Sherwood ◽  
Albert L. Nagy ◽  
Aleksandra B. Zimmerman
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
Growth Regulators ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
External Audit ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Jel Classifications

SYNOPSIS During the time surrounding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Big 4 firms either spun-off or downsized their consulting practices. However, in recent years, consulting service lines of the large accounting firms have seen a dramatic resurgence and growth. Regulators have taken notice of, and expressed concern over, this renewed focus on consulting. The accounting firms claim that such services enhance audit quality, mainly due to the prominent role of non-accounting specialists in today's external audit function. This study examines whether the availability of non-CPAs in U.S. Big 4 firm offices is associated with audit quality. We find that greater access to non-CPAs in the office is associated with higher audit quality and conclude that office audit quality is not just a function of audit-specific human resources but also the availability of non-CPAs to support audit engagement teams. JEL Classifications: M41; M42. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources identified in the study.

PCAOB Inspections and Large Accounting Firms

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan K. Church ◽  
Lori B. Shefchik
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Linear Trend ◽  
Dominant Role ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Second Tier ◽  
Over Time

SYNOPSIS The purpose of this paper is to analyze the PCAOB's inspection reports of large, annually inspected accounting firms. The inspection reports identify audit deficiencies that have implications for audit quality. By examining the inspection reports in detail, we can identify the nature and severity of audit deficiencies; we can track the total number of deficiencies over time; and we can pinpoint common, recurring audit deficiencies. We focus on large accounting firms because they play a dominant role in the marketplace (i.e., they audit public companies that comprise approximately 99 percent of U.S.-based issuer market capitalization). We document a significant, downward linear trend in the number of deficiencies from 2004 to 2009. We also identify common, recurring audit deficiencies, determine the financial statement accounts most often impacted by audit deficiencies, and isolate the primary emphasis of the financial statement impacted. Our findings generally are consistent comparing Big 4 and second-tier accounting firms, though a few differences emerge. In addition, we make comparisons with findings that have been documented for small, triennially inspected firms. Data Availability: The data are available from public sources.

Market Reaction to Auditor Switching from Big 4 to Third-Tier Small Accounting Firms

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsihui Chang ◽  
C. S. Agnes Cheng ◽  
Kenneth J. Reichelt
Keyword(s):  
Stock Market ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Reaction ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Auditor Switching ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
Second Tier

SUMMARY: After the demise of Arthur Andersen, the public accounting industry has witnessed a significant migration of public clients to second-tier (Grant Thornton and BDO Seidman) and smaller third-tier accounting firms. While prior literature documents that smaller auditors are perceived by the stock market as an inferior substitute for a Big 4 auditor, this perception appears to have changed in recent years. In this paper, we analyze market responses to auditor switching from Big 4 to smaller accounting firms during 2002 to 2006. We break our sample period into two separate periods (Periods 1 and 2) based on when regulatory changes occurred. These changes included Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 404 implementation, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspections, and a tightened Form 8-K filing deadline. We find a relatively more positive stock market reaction to clients switching from a Big 4 to a smaller third-tier auditor in Period 2. This relatively more positive reaction in Period 2 reflects companies seeking better services rather than a lower audit fee, when an audit quality drop is less likely. Overall, our results suggest that companies and investors have become more receptive to smaller accounting firms.

Comparing the Auditor Quality of Arthur Andersen to that of the Big 4

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross D. Fuerman
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Securities Litigation ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Auditor Quality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Arthur Andersen

This study compares the audit quality of Arthur Andersen with that of the Big 4 accounting firms. An expanded indicator of audit quality is developed based on the law of business misconduct literature and the legal process literature. A representation of audit quality is derived from an analysis of the legal actions initiated against these five large public accounting firms from 1996 to 2004. The legal action was partitioned into three year periods. In the first period, Arthur Andersen and the Big 4 evidenced no quality differential. In the second and third periods, the Big 4, in aggregate, rated higher on the audit quality indicator than did Andersen. The robustness of these findings is substantiated using multiple logistic regression and sensitivity analysis. When the individual firms are compared with Andersen, all four evidenced higher audit quality; three of the firms are significantly higher. This suggests that Andersen represents an outlier within the audit population. However, the analysis also indicates that overall audit quality declined in the period immediately following the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This suggests that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provisions directed toward remedying auditing deficiencies is justified and not an overreaction to a “few bad apples.”

Do Big 4 Auditors Provide Higher Audit Quality after Controlling for the Endogenous Choice of Auditor?

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Daniel Eshleman ◽  
Peng Guo
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Accounting Restatements ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Matching Procedure ◽  
Jel Classifications

SUMMARY: Recent research suggests that Big 4 auditors do not provide higher audit quality than other auditors, after controlling for the endogenous choice of auditor. We re-examine this issue using the incidence of accounting restatements as a measure of audit quality. Using a propensity-score matching procedure similar to that used by recent research to control for clients' endogenous choice of auditor, we find that clients of Big 4 audit firms are less likely to subsequently issue an accounting restatement than are clients of other auditors. In additional tests, we find weak evidence that clients of Big 4 auditors are less likely to issue accounting restatements than are clients of Mid-tier auditors (Grant Thornton and BDO Seidman). Taken together, the evidence suggests that Big 4 auditors do perform higher quality audits. JEL Classifications: M41, M42 Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources identified in the text.

Audit Quality and Specialist Tenure

2018 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 113-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Gaver ◽  
Steven Utke
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Client Characteristics ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Auditor Industry Specialization ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Jel Classifications

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.

Does board independence substitute for external audit quality? Evidence from an exogenous regulatory shock

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pornsit Jiraporn ◽  
Pandej Chintrakarn ◽  
Shenghui Tong ◽  
Sirimon Treepongkaruna
Keyword(s):  
Natural Experiment ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Board Independence ◽  
Difference In Difference ◽  
External Audit ◽  
Effective Governance ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Quality Evidence

Exploiting the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) as an exogenous regulatory shock, we investigate whether board independence substitutes for external audit quality. Based on over 14,000 observations across 18 years, our difference-in-difference estimates show that firms forced to raise board independence are far less likely to employ a Big 4 auditor. In particular, board independence lowers the propensity to use a Big 4 auditor by approximately 38%. Firms with stronger board independence enjoy more effective governance and therefore do not need as much external audit quality as those with less effective governance do. Based on a natural experiment, our empirical strategy is far less vulnerable to endogeneity and is thus considerably more likely to show a causal effect, rather than merely an association.

SOX 404, Auditor Effort, and the Prevention of Financial Report Misstatements

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 151-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuping Zhao ◽  
Jean C. Bedard ◽  
Rani Hoitash
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Lower Incidence ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Financial Report ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Jel Classifications

SUMMARY Prior research shows that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) Section 404(b) integrated audit is associated with a lower incidence of misstatements. We predict that under 404(b), the auditor's ability to detect misstatements increases relative to other internal control regimes when greater resources are exerted during the engagement. Supporting this prediction, we find that the benefits of 404(b) versus other regimes (including SOX 404(a)) in reducing misstatements increase with incremental audit effort (proxied by abnormal audit fees). We find no benefit of 404(b) in misstatement reduction when abnormal audit effort is low. This implies that the value of 404(b) testing is not uniform, but rather is greater when sufficient resources are available to thoroughly understand client controls. In contrast, we find no benefit of abnormal audit effort under other regulatory regimes. We further examine the conditions under which knowledge gained from auditor internal control testing is more valuable. We find that the benefits of increased audit effort under 404(b) do not vary across internal control regimes under AS2 versus AS5, and are more pronounced for engagements with shorter auditor tenure, non-Big 4 auditors, and industry-specialist auditors. JEL Classifications: M49. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources.

Office-Client Balance and Metro Area Audit Market Competition

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 113-141
Author(s):  
Michael L. Ettredge ◽  
Matthew G. Sherwood ◽  
Lili Sun
Keyword(s):  
Relative Abundance ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Metro Area ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Jel Classifications

SUMMARY We propose a new audit supplier competition construct, the Office-Client Balance (OCB), which consists of the relative abundance of competing audit offices and audit clients in a metropolitan (metro) area. From this construct, we derive a metro level audit competition proxy reflecting surpluses or shortfalls of total metro audit office numbers relative to the national metro OCB norm: the OCB_TOT. Consistent with the predictions of Porter's Five Forces theory, we find that OCB_TOT is associated with lower fees, more auditor turnover, and more (less) office exits (entrances) in metro audit markets. These findings validate OCB_TOT as a proxy for audit market competition. Our results indicate that greater metro level competition among auditors (more positive OCB_TOT) is associated with higher audit quality, proxied by fewer financial statement misstatements. Several additional analyses suggest that OCB_TOT is useful in explaining clients' choices of local (versus remote) audit offices and Big 4 (versus non-Big 4) offices. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources. JEL Classifications: G18; L10; M42.

A Reexamination of Audit Fees for Initial Audit Engagements in the Post-SOX Period

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Desir ◽  
Jeffrey R. Casterella ◽  
Julia Kokina
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Sample Period ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Client Relationships

SUMMARY: On August 16, 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued a concept release seeking comments on ways to enhance auditor independence. The Board notes that higher failure rates in new audit engagements might be linked to unrealistic pricing. The Board's concern is that a new auditor might be more susceptible to management pressure if initial-year audit fees are set artificially low. Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002, empirical evidence shows that auditors discounted their initial-year audit fees. This practice, known as lowballing, was expected to decrease significantly after the enactment of SOX. Indeed, findings in Huang, Raghunandan, and Rama (2009) seem to confirm that Big 4 auditors charged a fee premium on new auditor-client relationships in 2006. However, it is not clear if more recent post-SOX initial-year audits are free of lowballing. We investigate whether lowballing exists in new auditor-client relationships in an “extended” post-SOX environment for the years 2007 to 2010. Our results suggest that both Big 4 and non-Big 4 accounting firms discounted their initial-year audit fees during our sample period (2007–2010). These findings should be of interest to the PCAOB as it searches for ways to bolster auditor independence. Data Availability: Available from public sources.

Behind the Numbers: Insights into Large Audit Firm Sampling Policies

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brant E. Christensen ◽  
Randal J. Elder ◽  
Steven M. Glover
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
National Office ◽  
Current Sampling ◽  
Audit Sampling

SYNOPSIS Changes in the audit industry after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including mandatory audits of internal control over financial reporting and PCAOB oversight and inspection of audit work, have potentially changed the nature and extent of audit sampling in the largest accounting firms. However, little academic evidence exists on these firms' current audit sampling policies (Elder, Akresh, Glover, Higgs, and Liljegren 2013). As such, we administer an extensive, open-ended survey to the national office of the Big 4 and two other international accounting firms regarding their firm's audit sampling policies. We find variation among the largest auditing firms' policies in their use of statistical and nonstatistical sampling methods and in inputs used in the sampling applications that could result in different sample sizes. Sampling experts' internal reviews indicate that projecting and resolving identified misstatements is one of the biggest difficulties that audit engagement teams face when using sampling techniques. Finally, we present evidence that some firms have significantly changed their approach to revenue testing due to PCAOB inspections. This evidence provides important insights into current sampling policies and presents opportunities for future research. Data Availability: Please contact the authors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document