Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Partner cross-contagion in audit offices and client reporting quality

Partner cross-contagion in audit offices and client reporting quality The purpose of this study is to examine if partner cross-contagion in audit offices is associated with client reporting quality. To this end, the authors test if the presence in an audit office of a partner with a highly aggressive style is associated with the reporting quality of other partners’ clients. Partners with a highly aggressive style are identified by their tendency to approve favorable client reporting. The authors add to the existing literature that provides limited and equivocal evidence on audit office cross-contagion.Design/methodology/approachPartner style is determined in an estimation period from 2010 to 2014. Aggressive style is identified when partners tend to approve favorable client reporting, which is shown by a positive value for their clients’ median discretionary accruals. Partners are considered to exhibit a highly aggressive style if they have positive median client discretionary accruals within the 90th percentile. Cross-contagion analysis is then conducted in a test period from 2015 to 2019 by determining if the presence in an office of a partner with a highly aggressive style is associated with the reporting quality of other partners’ clients. Two measures of client reporting quality used. These are the accuracy of current-period accruals in predicting period-ahead cash flows and earnings management related to benchmark beating.FindingsThis study finds partner cross-contagion of highly aggressive style in Big 4 offices that is associated with lower client reporting quality for non-Metals and Mining industry clients. This cross-contagion only occurs when the contagious partner has a very high level of aggressive style. This study finds Big 4 partners are susceptible to aggressive style cross-contagion regardless of their own idiosyncratic style. The results of this study show more cross-contagion in small Big 4 offices and mitigation of cross-contagion for economically important clients. Cross-contagion in non-Big 4 offices is observed for Metals and Mining industry clients.Originality/valueBy determining style from partners’ past clients’ discretionary accruals, this study extends prior cross-contagion research that relies on restatements to identify style. This study examines several other cross-contagion issues not addressed in prior studies. These include differences in cross-contagion for Big 4 and non-Big 4 offices and for large and small Big 4 offices, partners’ susceptibility to cross-contagion and the influence of client importance. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Managerial Auditing Journal Emerald Publishing

Partner cross-contagion in audit offices and client reporting quality

Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/partner-cross-contagion-in-audit-offices-and-client-reporting-quality-8EJ0bMYAf0
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
0268-6902
eISSN
0268-6902
DOI
10.1108/maj-11-2021-3375
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine if partner cross-contagion in audit offices is associated with client reporting quality. To this end, the authors test if the presence in an audit office of a partner with a highly aggressive style is associated with the reporting quality of other partners’ clients. Partners with a highly aggressive style are identified by their tendency to approve favorable client reporting. The authors add to the existing literature that provides limited and equivocal evidence on audit office cross-contagion.Design/methodology/approachPartner style is determined in an estimation period from 2010 to 2014. Aggressive style is identified when partners tend to approve favorable client reporting, which is shown by a positive value for their clients’ median discretionary accruals. Partners are considered to exhibit a highly aggressive style if they have positive median client discretionary accruals within the 90th percentile. Cross-contagion analysis is then conducted in a test period from 2015 to 2019 by determining if the presence in an office of a partner with a highly aggressive style is associated with the reporting quality of other partners’ clients. Two measures of client reporting quality used. These are the accuracy of current-period accruals in predicting period-ahead cash flows and earnings management related to benchmark beating.FindingsThis study finds partner cross-contagion of highly aggressive style in Big 4 offices that is associated with lower client reporting quality for non-Metals and Mining industry clients. This cross-contagion only occurs when the contagious partner has a very high level of aggressive style. This study finds Big 4 partners are susceptible to aggressive style cross-contagion regardless of their own idiosyncratic style. The results of this study show more cross-contagion in small Big 4 offices and mitigation of cross-contagion for economically important clients. Cross-contagion in non-Big 4 offices is observed for Metals and Mining industry clients.Originality/valueBy determining style from partners’ past clients’ discretionary accruals, this study extends prior cross-contagion research that relies on restatements to identify style. This study examines several other cross-contagion issues not addressed in prior studies. These include differences in cross-contagion for Big 4 and non-Big 4 offices and for large and small Big 4 offices, partners’ susceptibility to cross-contagion and the influence of client importance.

Journal

Managerial Auditing Journal – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jan 3, 2023

Keywords: Audit; Partner; Style; Cross-contagion; M42

References

  • Accruals and the prediction of future cash flows
    Barth, M.E.; Cram, D.P.; Nelson, K.K.
  • Auditors’ joint engagements and audit quality: evidence from Italian private companies
    Bianchi, P.A.
  • Social networks analysis in accounting and finance
    Bianchi, P.A.; Causholli, M.; Minutti-Meza, M.; Sulcaj, V.
  • Learning from the behavior of others: conformity, fads, and informational Cascades
    Bikhchandani, S.; Hirshleifer, D.; Welch, I.
  • Resolving audit engagement challenges through communication
    Bobek, D.D.; Daugherty, B.E.; Radtke, R.R.
  • Do the big 4 and second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality?
    Boone, J.P.; Khurana, I.; Raman, K.K.
  • Audit quality and the trade-off between accretive stock repurchases and accrual-based earnings management
    Burnett, B.M.; Cripe, B.M.; Martin, G.W.; McAllister, B.P.
  • The relative importance of auditor characteristics versus client factors in explaining audit quality
    Cameran, M.; Campa, D.; Francis, J.R.
  • Audit partner tenure and audit quality
    Carey, P.; Simnett, R.
  • Audit Market Structure and Competition in Australia: 2012–2018
    Carson, E.
  • Trends in auditor reporting in Australia: a synthesis and opportunities for research
    Carson, E.; Fargher, N.; Zhang, Y.
  • How big-4 firms improve audit quality
    Che, L.; Hope, O.K.; Langli, J.C.
  • Do firms that have a common signing auditor exhibit higher earnings comparability?
    Chen, J.Z.; Chen, M.H.; Chin, C.L.; Lobo, G.J.
  • Audit office size, audit quality, and audit pricing
    Choi, J.H.; Kim, C.; Kim, J.B.; Zang, Y.
  • Real effects of auditor conservatism
    Chy, M.; Hope, O.K.
  • Detecting earnings management
    Dechow, P.M.; Sloan, R.G.; Sweeney, A.P.
  • A review of archival auditing research
    DeFond, M.; Zhang, J.
  • Do client characteristics really drive the big N audit quality effect? New evidence from propensity score matching
    DeFond, M.L.; Erkens, D.H.; Zhang, J.
  • Earnings management to exceed thresholds
    Degeorge, F.; Patel, J.; Zeckhauser, R.
  • Does the mandatory adoption of IFRS improve the association between accruals and cash flows? Evidence from accounting estimates
    Downes, J.F.; Kang, T.; Kim, S.; Lee, C.
  • Do big 4 auditors provide higher audit quality after controlling for the endogenous choice of auditor?
    Eshleman, J.D.; Guo, P.
  • The contagion effect of low-quality audits
    Francis, J.R.; Michas, P.N.
  • Big 4 office size and audit quality
    Francis, J.R.; Yu, M.D.
  • Auditor style and financial statement comparability
    Francis, J.R.; Pinnuck, M.L.; Watanabe, O.
  • Relation between external audit fees, audit committee characteristics and internal audit
    Goodwin-Stewart, J.; Kent, P.
  • The use of internal audit by Australian companies
    Goodwin-Stewart, J.; Kent, P.
  • Do individual auditors affect audit quality? Evidence from archival data
    Gul, F.A.; Wu, D.; Yang, Z.
  • Diversity of signing auditors and audit quality
    He, C.; Li, C.K.; Monroe, G.S.; Si, Y.
  • Teamwork experience and the contagion of audit misbehaviour
    Hu, B.; Su, L.; Wu, D.
  • Audit partners' co-working experience and audit outcomes
    Huang, T.C.; Chen, C.; Kaplan, S.E.; Lin, Y.H.
  • The conceptual framework for financial reporting
  • Restatements: do they affect auditor reputation for quality?
    Irani, A.J.; Tate, S.L.; Xu, L.
  • Big N auditors and audit quality: new evidence from quasi-experiments
    Jiang, J.; Wang, I.Y.; Wang, K.P.
  • Earnings management during import relief investigations
    Jones, J.J.
  • Does the identity of engagement partners matter? An analysis of audit partner reporting decisions
    Knechel, R.W.; Vanstraelen, A.; Zerni, M.
  • Performance matched discretionary accrual measures
    Kothari, S.P.; Leone, A.J.; Wasley, C.E.
  • Can big 4 versus non-big 4 differences in audit- quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics?
    Lawrence, A.; Minutti-Meza, M.; Zhang, P.
  • Audit partner assignments and audit quality in the United States
    Lee, H.S.; Nagy, A.L.; Zimmerman, A.B.
  • A review of the archival literature on audit partners
    Lennox, C.S.; Wu, X.
  • The effect of engagement auditors on financial statement comparability
    Li, L.C.; Qi, B.L.; Zhang, J.Y.
  • The contagion effect of low-quality audits at the level of individual auditors
    Li, L.; Qi, B.; Tian, G.; Zhang, G.
  • Auditor conservatism and investment efficiency
    Lu, T.; Sapra, H.
  • The value of financial statement verification in debt financing: evidence from private US firms
    Minnis, M.
  • The empirical relationship between ownership characteristics and audit fees
    Mitra, S.; Hossain, M.; Deis, D.R.
  • Judgment and decision making research in auditing: a task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective
    Nelson, M.; Tan, H.T.
  • Investor reaction to the audit engagement partner disclosure rule
    Park, H.
  • Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing approaches
    Petersen, M.A.
  • The importance of audit partners’ risk tolerance to audit quality
    Pittman, J.; Stein, S.E.; Valentine, D.F.
  • The effect of auditor style on reporting quality: evidence from Germany
    Porumb, V.A.; de Jong, A.; Huijgen, C.; Marra, T.; Van Dalen, J.
  • Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions
    Reynolds, J.K.; Francis, J.
  • Audit firms as networks of offices
    Seavey, S.E.; Imhof, M.J.; Westfall, T.J.
  • Client-identified auditor’s initial negotiation tactics: a social-identity perspective
    Svanberg, J.; Öhman, P.; Neidermeyer, P.E.
  • Do clients avoid ‘contaminated’ offices? The economic consequences of low-quality audits
    Swanquist, Q.T.; Whited, R.L.
  • Group judgment and decision making in auditing: past and future research
    Trotman, K.T.; Bauer, T.D.; Humphreys, K.A.
  • CEO domination, growth opportunities, and their impact on audit fees
    Tsui, J.S.L.; Jaggi, B.; Gul, F.A.
  • Auditors’ propensity and accuracy in issuing going‐concern modified audit opinions for charities
    Yang, Y.; Simnett, R.; Carson, E.
  • Governance structures, ethnicity, and audit fees of Malaysian listed firms
    Yatim, P.; Haniffa, R.; Kent, P.; Clarkson, P.
  • Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models
    Zmijewski, M.E.