scholarly journals Influence of Auditor Office Size on Earnings Prediction

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Lawson ◽  
Robert J. Boldin
2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Callen ◽  
Xiaohua Fang ◽  
Baohua Xin ◽  
Wenjun Zhang

SUMMARY This study examines the association between the office size of engagement auditors and their clients' future stock price crash risk, a consequence of managerial bad news hoarding. Using a sample of U.S. public firms with Big 4 auditors, we find robust evidence that local audit office size is significantly and negatively related to future stock price crash risk. The evidence is consistent with the view that large audit offices effectively detect and deter bad news hoarding activities in comparison with their smaller counterparts. We further explore two possible explanations for these findings, the Auditor Incentive Channel and the Auditor Competency Channel. Our empirical tests offer support for both channels. JEL Classifications: G12; G34; M49.


2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Goncharov ◽  
Allan Hodgson ◽  
Suntharee Lhaopadchan ◽  
Sonia Sanabria

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrei Aparecido de Albuquerque ◽  
Mauricio Ribeiro do Valle

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 129-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Whitworth ◽  
Tamara A. Lambert

SUMMARY: Recent changes in the audit and financial reporting environment have resulted in longer audit report lags and have increased the importance of identifying factors associated with a timely audit. We examine timeliness implications of office-specific attributes of the audit firm. Specifically, we examine whether office-specific industry expertise, office size, and the importance of the client to the local office are associated with audit delay (i.e., the time between fiscal year-end and the audit report date). We explore the sensitivity of our results to various measures and consider the impact of earnings quality. We examine two types of industry expertise and whether the aforementioned audit firm attributes are associated with a propensity to issue an early earnings announcement. We find that office-specific industry expertise is negatively associated with audit delay (for all but the largest quartile of firm offices) while office size and client importance are both positively associated with audit delay; however, the most important clients are associated with a more timely audit. Office-specific industry expertise is positively associated with the propensity to announce earnings substantially early and such expertise garnered via a product-specialist strategy is positively associated with audit delay relative to a low-cost specialist strategy. Our study provides further support for the importance of office-specific characteristics on audit and financial reporting outcomes and provides evidence of the benefit of office-specific industry expertise.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Ciftci ◽  
Raj Mashruwala ◽  
Dan Weiss

ABSTRACT Recent work in management accounting offers several novel insights into firms' cost behavior. This study explores whether financial analysts appropriately incorporate information on two types of cost behavior in predicting earnings—cost variability and cost stickiness. Since analysts' utilization of information is not directly observable, we model the process of earnings prediction to generate empirically testable hypotheses. The results indicate that analysts “converge to the average” in recognizing both cost variability and cost stickiness, resulting in substantial and systematic earnings forecast errors. Particularly, we find a clear pattern—inappropriate incorporation of available information on cost behavior in earnings forecasts leads to larger errors in unfavorable scenarios than in favorable ones. Overall, enhancing analysts' awareness of the expense side is likely to improve their earnings forecasts, mainly when sales turn to the worse. JEL Classifications: M41; M46; G12.


Author(s):  
Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah ◽  
Saeed Akbar ◽  
Sardar Ahmad ◽  
Andrew W. Stark

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Hag Choi ◽  
Chansog (Francis) Kim ◽  
Jeong-Bon Kim ◽  
Yoonseok Zang

SUMMARY: Using a large sample of U.S. audit client firms over the period 2000–2005, this paper investigates whether and how the size of a local practice office within an audit firm (hereafter, office size) is a significant, engagement-specific factor determining audit quality and audit fees over and beyond audit firm size at the national level and auditor industry leadership at the city or office level. For our empirical tests, audit quality is measured by unsigned abnormal accruals, and the office size is measured in two different ways: one based on the number of audit clients in each office and the other based on a total of audit fees earned by each office. Our results show that the office size has significantly positive relations with both audit quality and audit fees, even after controlling for national-level audit firm size and office-level industry expertise. These positive relations support the view that large local offices provide higher-quality audits compared with small local offices, and that such quality differences are priced in the market for audit services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document