Economic bonding, auditor safeguard and audit quality: peer review evidence from individual auditors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.61.4064Abstract
In this paper, we examine whether the economic bond between an individual engagement partner and client threatens auditor independence and thus audit quality. We also investigate if auditor’s good economic position acts as a safeguard against this economic bond. Using a sample of peer reviewed individual audit engagements of 264 Finnish auditors we examine whether the client’s economic size is likely to affect audit quality as measured by the degree of compliance with audit standards (peer review). Furthermore, using taxable earned (salaries) and unearned (capital gains) income information of auditors we investigate if high income level of an auditor diminishes the risk of financial self-interest threat. Our results provide evidence that Finnish auditors show a very high independence although big client’s economic size (turnover) weakly affects audit quality. There is weak evidence that auditors are likely to show higher quality for larger clients. Our results also suggest that this financial self-interest threat can be safeguarded by auditor’s high unearned income level diluting the economic bond with the client. Unearned income acts here as a proxy for economic wealth.
References
AICPA Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews Effective for Peer Reviews. 2004.
The Auditing Board of The Central Chamber of Commerce . 2011 & 2015. [cited March 7, 2015] Available from Internet: http://www.tilintarkastuslautakunta.fi/Laadunvarmistus2>
Ball, R., and L. Shivakumar. 2005. Earnings quality in UK private firms: comparative loss recognition timeliness. Journal of Accounting and Economics 39 (1): 83–128.
Bedard, J. C., D. R. Reis, M. B. Curtis, and J. G. Jenkins. 2008. Risk Monitoring and Control in Audit Firms: A Research Synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 27 (1): 187–218.
Burrows, G., and C. Black. 1998. Profit sharing in Australian Big 6 accounting firms: An exploratory study. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23 (5/6): 517–530.
Casterella J.R., Jensen, K.L. and Knechel, W.R. 2009. Is Self-Regulated Peer Review Effective at Signaling Audit Quality? The Accounting Review 84(3): 713–735.
Chen, S., S. Y. J. Sun, and D. Wu. 2010. Client Importance, Institutional Improvements, and Audit Quality in China: An Office and Individual Auditor Level Analysis. The Accounting Review 85 (1): 127–158.
Chi, W., E. Douthett, and L. Lei. 2010. Client Importance and Auditor Independence: A Partnerlevel Analysis. Working paper presented at the 16th International Symposium on Audit Research, June 24–25, Singapore.
Chin, C.-L., and H.-Y. Chi. 2009. Reducing Restatements with Increased Industry Expertise. Contemporary Accounting Research 26 (3): 729–766.
Church, B. K., S. M. Davis, and S. A. McCracken. 2008. The Auditor’s Reporting Model: A Literature Overview and Research Synthesis. Accounting Horizons 22 (1): 69–90.
Colbert, G. and Murray, D. 1998. The Association Between Auditor Quality and Auditor size: An Analysis of Small CPA Firms. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 13(2): 135–150.
Craswell, D. Stokes, and J. Laughton. 2002. Auditor independence and fee dependence? Journal of Accounting and Economics 33 (2): 253–275.
DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 (3): 183–199.
DeFond, M. L., K. Raghunandan, and K. R. Subramanyam. 2002. Do nonaudit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going-concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (4): 1247–1274.
DeFond, M. L., and J. R. Francis. 2005. Audit Research after Sarbanes-Oxley. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 5–30.
Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC.
The Finnish Auditing Act 2007/459.
Francis, J. R., and M. D. Yu. 2009. Big Four Office Size and Audit Quality. The Accounting Review 84 (5): 1521–1552.
Frankel, R., M. Johnson, and K. Nelson. 2002. The Relation between Auditors’ Fees for Nonaudit Services and Earnings Quality. The Accounting Review 77 (Supplement): 77–104.
Gaver, J.J., and J.S. Paterson. 2007. The Influence of Large Clients on Office-Level Auditor Oversight: Evidence from the Property-Casualty Insurance Industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics 43(2-3): 299-320.
Hardies, K., D. Breesch, and J. Branson 2012. Auditor Independence Impairment: Bonding Between Clients and Individual Engagement Partners. 2012 Auditing Section Midyear Conference, Savannah, GA.
Knechel, W.R., G. V. Krishnan, M. Pevzner, L. B. Shefchik, and U. Velury. 2012. Audit Quality: Insights from the Academic Literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Forthcoming.
Hilary, G., and C. Lennox. 2005. The credibility of self-regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession’s peer review program. Journal of Accounting and Economics 40: 211–229.
Hope, O.-K., and J. C. Langli. 2010. Auditor Independence in a Private-Firm and Low Litigation Risk Setting. The Accounting Review 85 (2): 573–607.
Knechel, W. R., L. Niemi, and S. Sundgren (2008). Determinants of Auditor Choice: Evidence from a Small Client Market. International Journal of Auditing 12: 65–88.
Knechel, W. R., L. Niemi, and M. Zerni (2013). Empirical Evidence on the Implicit Determinants of Compensation in Big 4 Audit Partnerships. Journal of Accounting Research 51(2):349–387.
Knechel, R. W., and A. Vanstraelen. 2007. The Relationship between Auditor Tenure and Audit Quality Implied by Going Concern Opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 26 (1): 113–132.
Lennox, C. S. 1999. Non-audit fees, disclosure and audit quality. European Accounting Review 8 (2): 239–252.
Li, Chan. 2009. Does Client Importance Affect Auditor Independence at the Office Level? Empirical Evidence from Going-Concern Opinions. Contemporary Accounting Research 26 (1): 201–230.
Magee, R.P., and M.C. Tseng. 1990. Audit pricing and independence. The Accounting Review 65 (2): 315–336.
Miller, T. 1992. Do We Need to Consider the Individual Auditor when Discussing Auditor Independence? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 5 (2): 74–84.
Niemi, L. (2004). Auditor size and audit pricing: evidence from small audit firms. European accounting review 13:3: 541–560.
Reichelt, K. J., and D. Wang. 2010. National and Office-Specific Measures of Auditor Industry Expertise and Effects on Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting Research 48 (3): 647–686.
Reynolds, K. J., and J. R. Francis. 2001. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 30 (3): 375–400.
Shu, S. Z. 2000. Auditor Resignations: Clientele Effects and Legal Liability. Journal of Accounting and Economics 29 (2): 173–205.
Simunic, D. A. 2003. Audit Quality and Audit Firm Size: Revisited. Working paper presented at the 2004 Midyear Auditing Section Doctoral Consortium, January 15, Clearwater Beach.
Tepalagul, N. & Lin, L. 2015. Auditor Independence and Audit Quality: A Literature Review. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 30(1): 101–121.
Wallace, W. A. 1991. Peer Review Filings and Their Implications in Evaluating Self-Regulation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 10(1): 53–68.
Wallman, S. M. H. (1996). The future of accounting, part III: reliability and auditor independence. Accounting Horizons 10 (4): 76–97.
Watts, R., and J. Zimmerman. 1981. The markets for independence and independent auditors. Working paper, University of Rochester.
Watts, R., and J. Zimmerman. 1986 Positive Accounting Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weber, J., M. Willenborg, and J. Zhang. 2008. Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG. Journal of Accounting Research 46 (4): 941–972.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Archives of Business Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
