Quality audit

Abstract: This study examines the relation between audit quality and earnings management. Consistent with prior research, we treat audit quality as a dichotomous variable and assume that Big Six auditors are of higher quality than non-Big Six auditors. Earnings management is captured by discretionary accruals that are estimated using a cross-sectional version of the Jones 1991 model. Prior literature suggests that auditors are more likely to object to management's accounting choices that increase earnings (as opposed to decrease earnings) and that auditors are more likely to be sued when they are associated with financial statements that overstate earnings (as compared to understate earnings). Therefore, we hypothesize that clients of non-Big Six auditors report discretionary accruals that increase income relatively more than the discretionary accruals reported by clients of Big Six auditors. This hypothesis is supported by evidence from a sample of 10,379 Big Six and 2,179 non-Big Six firm years. Specifically, clients of non-Big Six auditors report discretionary accruals that are, on average, 1.5-2.1 percent of total assets higher than the discretionary accruals reported by clients of Big Six auditors. Also, consistent with earnings management, we find that the mean and median of the absolute value of discretionary accruals are greater for firms with non-Big Six auditors. This result also indicates that lower audit quality is associated with more “accounting flexibility”.

Abstract: We define higher audit quality as greater assurance of high financial reporting quality. Researchers use many proxies for audit quality, with little guidance on choosing among them. We provide a framework for systematically evaluating their unique strengths and weaknesses. Because it is inextricably intertwined with financial reporting quality, audit quality also depends on firms’ innate characteristics and financial reporting systems. Our review of the models commonly used to disentangle these constructs suggests the need for better conceptual guidance. Finally, we urge more research on the role of auditor and client competency in driving audit quality.

Abstract: This paper reviews empirical research over the past 25 years, mainly from the United States, in order to assess what we currently know about audit quality with respect to publicly listed companies. The evidence indicates that outright audit failure rates are infrequent, far less than 1% annually, and audit fees are quite small, less than 0.1% of aggregate client sales. This suggests there may be an acceptable level of audit quality at a relatively low cost. There is also evidence of voluntary differential audit quality (above the legal minimum) along a number of dimensions such as firm size, industry specialization, office characteristics, and cross-country differences in legal systems and auditor liability exposure. The evidence is very positive although there is some indication that audit quality may have declined in the 1990s, in which case there could be merit in recent reforms such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the US. However, we do not know from research the optimal level of audit quality and therefore whether we currently have ‘too little’ or ‘too much’ auditing? Despite this lacuna we are entering an era of more mandated auditing in response to high-profile corporate governance failures including the Enron–Andersen affair. Finally, while recent reforms have scaled back the scope of non-audit services due to independence concerns, a case can be made that audit quality will always be somewhat suspect if other services are provided that are perceived to potentially compromise the auditor's objectivity and skepticism. For this reason public confidence in audit quality may be increased by proscribing all non-audit services for audit clients. Recommendations are also proposed with respect to legal liability reform and changes in partner compensation arrangements.