To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
2 results

Audit Office Experience with SOX 404(b) Filers and SOX 404 Audit Quality

The Accounting Review 2019 94(4), 1-43
ABSTRACT We measure two dimensions of SOX 404 audit quality: (1) whether auditors identify and report material weaknesses (MWs) in a timely fashion, and (2) on identifying MWs, whether auditors identify misstatements arising from MWs in a timely fashion. We find that audit practice-offices with a large base of SOX 404(b) clients and those with a long history of conducting control evaluations for that client are more likely (1) to identify and report MWs in a timely manner (i.e., before resulting restatements come to light), and conditional on identifying MWs, (2) to detect MW-related misstatements in a timely manner (i.e., before the misstatements become restatements). Audit office industry expertise also matters, but only to timely MW reporting. Our results inform on the drivers of variation in SOX 404 audit quality, and highlight the key role that auditors play in identifying internal control weaknesses and assessing their impact on financial statement reliability.

State Liability Regimes within the United States and Auditor Reporting

The Accounting Review 2016 91(6), 1545-1575
ABSTRACT We examine how state liability regimes within the United States affect auditor reporting decisions. We exploit variation across state-level common law in two aspects of auditor liability: the extent to which auditors can be held liable by third parties for negligence, and rules for apportioning liability across multiple defendants. We find that auditors are more likely to issue a modified going-concern (GC) report to financially distressed clients from high-liability states than to those from low-liability states. We sharpen inferences using a natural experiment that examines the causal effects of two exogenous shocks to auditor third-party liability standards, which dramatically restricted auditors' liability in New Jersey in 1995 and in California in 1992. Results from difference-in-differences tests imply that auditors' propensity to issue a modified opinion for client firms in New Jersey and California decreases significantly after the decline in auditors' litigation exposure, relative to control firms from other jurisdictions. These findings add to our understanding of how litigation risk affects auditor behavior and highlight an important source of variation in litigation risk within the U.S. that has seldom been studied to date.