Public Company Audit Research Articles

The Real Effects of PCAOB Inspection Reports on the M&A Deals of Non-Big 4 Accounting Firms

ABSTRACT Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are an important way for non-Big 4 accounting firms to grow their businesses. Non-Big 4 firms also account for the vast majority of PCAOB inspections. Consistent with negative inspection reports signaling low quality at inspected firms, we find that non-Big 4 accounting firms conduct fewer M&A deals after they receive negative inspection reports. Additional analyses support our hypothesized signaling mechanism: (1) the chilling effect of inspection reports on M&A activity is stronger when the inspected firm’s business is focused on public company audits, (2) the effect is stronger when stakeholders at the target firm know less about the acquirer because the acquirer is located in a different city, and (3) clients at the target firm switch to new firms rather than move over to the acquirer if the acquirer received a negative inspection report prior to the M&A date. JEL Classifications: D82; G34; G38; M42; M48.

Audit Partner Characteristics and Their Impacts on Audit Quality: Evidence from around the World

Public company audits are not homogenous. Varying audit partner attributes, including gender, age, location, and expertise, play important roles in explaining audit outcome disparities. The extant literature underscores the influence of firm-level and office-level differences, in areas such as size, culture, and industry expertise, in shaping audit outcomes. Commonwealth countries, such as the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Continental European countries, along with Asian economic entities, mandate the disclosure of audit partner names. Consequently, significant research efforts have been devoted to investigating the impact of audit partner characteristics on audit outcomes in these jurisdictions. With the adoption of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Rule 3211, mandating disclosure of audit engagement partner details for U.S.-registered public accounting firms on Form AP, there has been a surge in U.S. firm research exploring the significance of audit partner characteristics on audit outcomes in recent years. This paper outlines research that considers audit partner attributes’ influence on audit partner selection and audit quality across different economic entities. This entry contributes by synthesizing findings from recent research across diverse economic contexts, including the recently available insights from U.S.-based audits. The analysis of this entry not only provides insights into the current state of audit partner research but also delineates avenues for future research on this topic.

Competitive Strategies for Small Audit Firms

Synopsis The research problem We examine whether small audit firms adopt niche strategies to compete in the public company audit market. To that end, we focus on auditors servicing clients from one industry only (which we label as a nationwide single-industry focus) and test its association with audit quality and pricing. Motivation Prior research on auditor competition has mainly focused on the large (mainly Big Four) audit firms. While large and small audit firm markets are two distinct markets, little is known about competitive strategies of small audit firms in the public company audit market. The test hypotheses Our first hypothesis is that small audit firms adopting a single-industry focused strategy supply higher audit quality compared with audit firms that do not adopt a single-industry focused strategy or a simple industry specialization strategy, ceteris paribus. Our second hypothesis is that small audit firms adopting a single-industry focused strategy engage in discount pricing compared with audit firms that do not adopt a single-industry focused strategy or a simple industry specialization strategy, ceteris paribus. Target population The U.S. commercial banking sector covering the period 2004–2020. Adopted methodology Multivariate analyses adopting linear and probit models. Analyses To test our first hypothesis, we run a bank audit quality model using loan loss provisions as the dependent variable for our main analyses. Subsequent analyses adopt restatement, going concern, and internal control weaknesses models. To test our second hypothesis, we rely on a bank audit fee model. All models include relevant controls established in previous research and those for self-selection. Findings The evidence suggests that small audit firms adopting a nationwide single-industry focus are able to provide higher audit quality (compared with other rivals, even industry specialists) while at the same time charging lower audit fees implying cost efficiencies that are passed on to the client due to their focused expertise.

The Economics of Audit Production: What Matters for Audit Quality? An Empirical Analysis of the Role of Midlevel Managers within the Audit Firm

ABSTRACT As audits of public companies are labor intensive, require a variety of team members, and involve year-round work, practitioners and academics have increasingly focused on identifying audit production factors that drive audit quality. Using proprietary data, we analyze the cost-benefit tradeoffs of two audit production characteristics, client expertise and the relative amount of auditing done during the early phases of the audit, and find that both are associated with more effective audits and higher fees. We analyze whether the influence of these characteristics varies across audit team members. We find that middle manager production characteristics explain audit effectiveness and higher fees and relatively more so than those of lead/review partners. These results extend the literature and practitioner discussions about drivers of audit quality by highlighting the importance of middle management, which, to our knowledge, has largely been overlooked by the archival audit literature and regulatory guidance on audit quality indicators. Data Availability: This paper exploits proprietary PCAOB data. Data descriptions are available in the text. JEL Classifications: D20; D22; J24; L23; M11; M4; M42; M48.

Analisis Konsep Good Corporate Governance Dalam Perspektif Syariah Untuk Mengatasi Permasalahan Penerapan Corporate Governance Perbankan Di Indonesia

Good Corporate Governance is the most well-known principle in the world for maintaining the integrity of world organizations. Almost all international locations in all countries adhere to the foundation of building responsibility and openness. Unfortunately, in its application, GCG does not explain the values ​​of stakeholders. The study aims to reconstruct GCG (OECD version) and look for a more appropriate Sharia Concept. Of course, this will provide a solution to the problem itself. After analyzing the values ​​and character of SET, we built a modern GCG positioned on Islamic concepts. These concepts are; One; deeper sympathy from stakeholders, second; principles regarding stakeholder rights: third, equality in stakeholder behavior, fourth, the principle of openness, finally, regarding corporate accountability.Weak GCG practices in Indonesia are caused by the low level of protection for investors, law enforcement, transparency and ineffective public company audit committees. This condition strongly encourages the need for effective and efficient global corporate governance. Islamic Corporate Governance The Islamic perspective lies in the Islamic Company Theory which has greater concern for wider stakeholders which include God, humans and nature. The difference in goals between conventional Corporate Governance and Sharia GCG which tends to adhere to Sharia Enterprise Theory (SET). SET equates material and spiritual values. This shows that Sharia GCG does not only achieve material benefits, but also spiritual values. SET also equates egoistic values ​​with altruistic values, which in Islamic law are realized in the form of worship.

The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Auditors’ Remote Work during COVID-19

SUMMARY The COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented challenges to the audits of public companies. Audit firms, in response, dedicated significant resources to maintain high-quality audit procedures. We leverage a difference-in-differences design to examine the effects of the pandemic on audit outcomes. Despite audit firm efforts, we find evidence of a decline in audit quality in the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, in the early days of the pandemic, the SEC made available a unique one-time, 45-day extension to file the audited annual report. In this time period, we observe a significant increase in the likelihood of delayed filings, including those attributed to the auditors’ work. Our study informs regulators and audit firms about the broad impact of an unprecedented stressor on the audit process and on the efficacy of remote work. JEL Classifications: M4; M41; M42.

Audit partner facial traits, gender, and career outcomes

A long line of psychology research suggests that people develop underlying behavioral trait expectations based on facial characteristics, and that these appearance-based trait inferences can influence judgments and decisions. In this study, we examine the relation between audit partners' appearances and their career outcomes. Using independent ratings of audit partners’ facial traits, we find that partners whose appearance violates common gender stereotypes have less prestigious client portfolios. Specifically, we find a negative relation between appearing “competent” and the career outcomes of females and a negative relation between appearing “warm” and the career outcomes of males. Subsequent analyses suggest that these relations are concentrated among non-Big 4 audit partners. We further consider the relation between facial traits and career outcomes and find evidence that males (but not females) whose appearance violates gender stereotypes are less likely to work for Big 4 audit firms. Together, our findings provide insights into the relations between appearance, gender, and career outcomes for public company auditors in the United States.

The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆

This study examines whether recent mergers between small and midsize accounting firms influence competition by increasing the number of firms that can compete with larger rivals in the U.S. public company audit market. I find that in-market mergers generate efficiencies that are reflected in a post-merger reduction in audit hours but not in reduced audit quality. For both in-market and out-of-market mergers, clients switching to post-merger firms are more likely to be accelerated filers and are significantly larger in terms of several proxies for size and complexity. Lastly, I find that an increase in market-level merger activity is associated with lower profitability of Big 4 firms operating in the same market but only in the smaller client segment. These findings suggest that recent mergers have actually increased competition in some segments of the audit market despite already high concentration and concerns about a lack of sufficient competition.

Auditor health and audit outcomes before COVID-19

This study examines whether influenza-like illnesses (ILIs), a potential threat to the conduct of public company audits, are associated with audit outcomes. Because the peak months of flu season overlap with audit busy season, audit offices most at risk of ILIs may be adversely affected. The demanding nature of audit busy season and the culture of audit firms may compel employees to go to work sick, a phenomenon known as presenteeism. When auditors go to work with flu-like symptoms, cognitive functioning is impaired, resulting in brain fog. This impairment may influence auditors’ ability to exercise judgment and professional skepticism, leading to adverse outcomes. Using data collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) we find that the filing of audit reports is delayed and audit quality suffers in audit offices most at risk of influenza-like-illnesses. The observed effects of health impairments on company outputs have broad implications for both the audit profession and workplaces as a whole.

Accounting Quality

Corporate scandals such as Enron, WorldCom, and others have increased the sensitivity of the public toward the ethical misconduct of firms. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) is independent of the accounting profession, and they are not considered a government entity. The PCAOB is a non-profit corporation given the mandate to oversee public company auditors. Two members of the five-member board must be Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), to make sure that PCAOB has the required level of expertise. Due to significant changes to audit engagement practices because of new regulatory pressures such Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), studies have been done to determine if it has improved audit quality. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and PCAOB are a few of the regulatory and professional bodies that set independence rules and monitor compliance in the United States. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), established a framework for designing, implementing, and assessing internal controls.

Delegated leadership at public accounting firms

Public accounting firms are owned by all equity partners, but day-to-day management is generally delegated to a team of leaders. Using data from China, this study examines which equity partners are selected to the firm's national leadership team, and whether firmwide audit quality is related to leadership attributes. We find that a partner is more likely to be selected as a leader if the partner is more experienced in public company auditing and has attracted more new clients to the firm. Firmwide audit quality is higher when leaders are more experienced in public company audits or have a past record of larger audit adjustments, and is lower when leaders have attracted more high-risk new clients to the firm. Leadership attributes exhibit a relatively strong (weak) association with audit quality at the headquarters (branch offices). Moreover, audit quality is higher when a firm has more leaders in an audit-quality role.

Empirical Study on the Impact of Key Audit Disclosure on Stock Price in Audit Reports

In order to meet the needs of capital market reform and development for high-quality accounting information and improve the information content of public company audit report, the financial statement audit business of capital market related subjects needs to be reformed. On December 23,2016, the reform of new auditing standards has been started in China，and 12 guidelines such as China CPA Auditing Standards No.1504- Communicating Key Auditing Matters in Auditing Reports were published. In order to steadily advance the reform of the audit report, the new audit report guidelines have taken a step-by-step implementation program, of which the first A+H stock listed companies were implemented on January 1,2017. This paper mainly studies the following two aspects: whether the disclosure of key audit matters will affect people's investment decision, and then affect the stock price fluctuation of listed companies；whether the disclosure of key audit matters in the audit report of state-owned banks and non-state-owned banks has different influence on the stock price. This paper takes the A-share listed banks , by collecting the enterprises 2013-2018 annual audit reports and the closing prices of the stock during the report day, to carries on the research and makes the hypothesis, and finally use the empirical verification, draw a conclusion.

Redressing the fundamental conflict of interest in public company audits

The goal of various audit industry reforms is to better align the interests of the auditor with external stakeholders. These proposed reforms ignore the fundamental conflict of interest—‘the client’ hires, fires and determines the compensation for the auditor. This problem is fundamental in that ‘the client’ is normally the management or board of the firm who, on occasion, have reason to want to take advantage of the inherent imprecision in accounting for their benefit and subtlety pressure the auditor to achieve this. My evidence‐based proposal takes advantage of the well‐known aversion of managers and boards to government intervention. It incentivizes management and boards to demand rigorous audits by requiring regulatory bodies impose their choice of auditor on public companies that meet well‐specified criteria that indicate poor‐quality reporting (e.g., restatement of financial statements). This proposed reform retains the ‘on average’ benefits that extant research shows the current system of private sector auditing provides while stimulating greater managerial and director self‐interest in high‐quality financial reporting.

How Many Simultaneous Audit Committee Memberships Are Too Many?

SUMMARY Recent research by D. Sharma, V. Sharma, Tanyi, and Cheng (2020) provides new insight into directors serving on multiple public company audit committees. Specifically, they investigate how an individual audit committee director serving on multiple audit committees is related to companies' cost of equity capital. Their evidence suggests that serving on multiple audit committees is viewed positively by investors up to a certain point, but beyond that point investors become concerned. This turning point, on average, is 3.5 audit committees for retired directors and 1.5 audit committees for directors in full-time employment. These results have implications for numerous stakeholders including investors, proxy advisors, boards, nominating committees, stock exchanges, and policymakers. They also have implications for future research.

Beyond the top seven firms: Gender diversity of audit firm partners and their undergraduate accounting faculty

For the past few decades, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) trend data show that women comprise the majority of accounting graduates from universities, yet the partner levels in accounting firms do not reflect this trend. In this paper, the authors leverage the disclosure of the engagement partner names for each public company audit on Form AP filed with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to explore the gender diversity and educational roots of the audit partners associated with audit firms that generated less than $1 billion revenue in 2019. Using role model theory, the paper explores whether there is a relation between the number of female professors in a school and the number of female students from that school who progress to the partner level. The results show that smaller audit firms have, on par, similar levels of gender diversity among audit partners as the largest accounting firms. The results further show a positive relation between females holding chair positions in accounting departments over extended time periods and female graduates progressing to partner on audit engagements. However, there is no association evident between the number of tenured female full professors and the female graduates who subsequently become audit partners at smaller accounting firms. These results highlight that female faculty holding power positions and female partners in the audit profession remain more rare than common. The need to increase gender diversity for both accounting faculty and professionals suggests that professional networking across academe and industry remains critical.

The Effects of Straddling: Evidence From Audit Partners Auditing Both Public Companies and Nonprofit Organizations

Recent research in other disciplines suggests that range (i.e., a broad base of experience in more than one domain) may lead to higher performance under certain conditions. We apply this idea in the context of auditing, examining how audit partner range impacts audit outcomes and how industry overlap might moderate those effects in the setting of public company and nonprofit organization audits. Specifically, we consider audit partners straddling these two economic sectors, i.e. auditing clients in both sectors, as they are subject to a variety of auditing standards and regulatory regimes. Approximately six (ten) percent of individual partners conducting public company (nonprofit organization) audits are “straddlers.” Analyzing audit outcomes from 2015 to 2018, we find that overall, straddling has a negative impact on audit outcomes as measured by restatements for public company clients, material weakness reporting for nonprofit clients, and audit report lag for all clients. However, for public companies, we find that straddling clients within the same industry improves restatement likelihood and going concern reporting while moderating the negative effect of straddling on audit report lag. In nonprofit audits, the negative effects of straddling are exacerbated in going concern reporting with industry overlap but moderated in internal control reporting and audit report lag. These findings extend our understanding of the role of audit partner experience across economic sectors and auditing standards.

Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?

Despite issuing extensive guidance related to the evaluation of accounting estimates, the PCAOB continues to identify deficiencies related to the audit of estimates through their inspections process. We examine whether PCAOB inspections lead to more accurate audited accounting estimates, defined as those that more closely match economic reality, by examining a significant estimate within the banking industry. We find that in contrast with the PCAOB's goal of more accurate and unbiased estimates, allowance for loan losses (ALL) estimates become less accurate and more conservative with higher levels of ALL‐related inspection findings for public company audits. We find no evidence of auditor response to PCAOB inspection findings for private‐company audits, which are not subject to PCAOB inspection. Overall, our findings cast doubt on the efficacy of PCAOB inspections in improving estimate accuracy and suggest that firms are managing inspection risk to the potential detriment of audit quality.

How U.S. audit committees oversee internal control over financial reporting

On the basis of a survey of U.S. public company audit committee members, we provide detailed insights into the process underlying audit committee oversight of internal control over financial reporting (ICFR), and we explore cross‐sectional variations in audit committee ICFR oversight. We find that audit committees spend the most time in the monitoring activities and control environment areas and the least time in the information and communication and control activities (related to revenue) areas. Further, our exploratory regression analysis reveals that audit committee member age and internal audit experience, company size and regulated industry are positively associated with the extent of overall audit committee ICFR oversight, whereas audit committee member certified public accountant (CPA) certification is negatively related to ICFR oversight. Finally, we provide many specific examples of ICFR oversight process elements that appear to be more substantive, extensive and proactive versus more ceremonial, limited and reactive.

Public Company Auditing Around the Securities Exchange Act

We explore the landscape of public company auditing around the introduction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1934. Using a broad sample of historical annual reports spanning several decades, we document that most public companies obtained audits even before the SEC’s audit mandate, which limited the mandate’s impact on audit rates. We further document that these companies selected their auditors based on characteristics reflecting independence and competence, even before the SEC’s mandate. While changes in audit rates and auditor choices were limited, we observe significant changes in the content of audit statements around the introduction of the SEC. These changes, however, appear to reflect concurrent standardization efforts initiated and driven by private-sector actors rather than the SEC. Finally, we do not find any significant impact of the SEC’s audit mandate on capital-market outcomes. Collectively, our descriptive evidence suggests that the introduction of the SEC, while widely viewed as a sea-change in public company auditing, had a limited impact on companies’ reliance on audits and investors’ trust in companies’ reports, at least initially.

PCAOB Inspections and the Differential Audit Quality Effect for Big 4 and Non–Big 4 US Auditors*

ABSTRACTIn this study, we investigate whether the increase in regulatory scrutiny epitomized by the initial PCAOB inspection impacted audit quality differentially for Big 4 and non–Big 4 auditors to better understand the consequences of PCAOB inspections for different audit firm types. Because of competing views on the effect of PCAOB inspections, the relation between PCAOB inspections and the audit quality differential between Big 4 and other auditors is an empirical issue. Empirically, we take the endogenous choice of auditor as a given and utilize a difference‐in‐differences specification that takes into account the staggered timing of the initial PCAOB inspection for different‐sized auditors in the United States. Our results suggest that the initial PCAOB inspection improved audit quality more for Big 4 auditors than for other annually inspected or triennially inspected non–Big 4 auditors. We also examine annually and triennially inspected non–Big 4 auditors separately, and find that the pre‐post Big 4/non–Big 4 differential audit quality effect is more pronounced for the triennially inspected non–Big 4 firms. In the larger context of the highly concentrated US audit market, our findings that PCAOB inspections accentuate the Big 4/non–Big 4 audit quality differential are of potential interest to public company audit clients contemplating an auditor change, investors interested in learning about the consequences of PCAOB inspections, regulators concerned about the Big 4 dominance of the US audit market, and academics investigating audit quality differences.