El efecto de la rotación de socio en la calidad de la auditoría

  1. Nieves Gómez Aguilar 1
  2. Estíbaliz Biedma López 1
  3. Emiliano Ruiz Barbadillo 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

Zeitschrift:
Revista de contabilidad = Spanish accounting review: [RC-SAR]

ISSN: 1138-4891

Datum der Publikation: 2018

Ausgabe: 21

Nummer: 1

Seiten: 7-18

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.1016/J.RCSAR.2017.03.001 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Andere Publikationen in: Revista de contabilidad = Spanish accounting review: [RC-SAR]

Zusammenfassung

Background: The new Spanish Audit Law (2015) includes stricter safeguards related to mandatory auditpartner and audit firm rotation than the former Law (2010). These safeguards imply a high cost for themarket, but evidence about their convenience for accounting information users is not conclusive.Objective: To provide evidence about the effect of mandatory audit partner and audit firm rotation onaudit quality. Specifically, this report analyzes if audit partner rotation has a positive influence on auditquality by itself or it must be strengthened by audit firm rotation.Method and sample: This study focuses on the observable audit partner and audit firm changes in the Spa-nish market. The sample consists of the big companies with financial distress symptoms. The issuance ofa going concern uncertainty acts as a proxy of audit quality. We analyze if financially distressed compa-nies which changed their audit partner or audit firm have a higher probability to receive a going concernqualification.Results: The results show that audit partner rotation doesn’t affect audit quality. Moreover, audit firmrotation by itself or together with audit partner rotation doesn’t influence audit quality.Conclusions: High cost safeguard measures have been imposed on the market but they have not demons-trated to be any effect on audit quality.

€ Finanzierung ansehen

Informationen zur Finanzierung

Este estudio cuenta con la financiación del Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación a través del proyecto ECO 2010-21627 y de la Junta de Andalucía por medio del proyecto P11-SEJ-08236.

Geldgeber

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (1978), Commission on Auditors’ Responsibilities: Report, Conclusions, and Recommendations. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.
  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (1992), Professional Standards, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.
  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (1997), Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards N.o. 82. New York.
  • Arruñada, B., Paz-Ares, C., Mandatory rotation of company auditors: A critical examination». International Review of Law and Economics 17 (1997), 31–61.
  • Bamber, E.M., Bamber, L.S., Discussion of Discretionary accruals, audit-firm tenure and audit-partner tenure: empirical evidence from Taiwan. Contemporary Accounting Research 26:2 (2009), 393–402.
  • Behn, B.K., Kaplan, S.E., Krumwiede, K.R., Further evidence on the auditor's going-concern report: The influence of management plans Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (2001), 13–28 No 1.
  • Blay, A.D., Geiger, M.A., Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research 30 (2013), 579–606 No 2.
  • Cameran, M., Merlotti, E. y Di Vincenzo, D. (2005): «The audit. Firm Rotation Rule: A Review of the Literature» Documento de Trabajo, Septiembre, SDA Bocconi [consultado 19 Sep 2006]. Disponible en: http://ssrn.com/abstract=825404.
  • Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R., Huss, H.F., Temporal changes in bankruptcy-related reporting Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 14 (1995), 133–143.
  • Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R., Huss, H.F., The eect of SAA 59: How treatment of the transition period influences results Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 16 (1997), 114–123.
  • Carcello, J.V., Nagy, A., Audit firm tenure and fraudulent financial reporting Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 23:2 (2004), 55–69.
  • Carcello, J., Neal, T., Audit committee composition and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review 75 (2000), 453–467.
  • Carson, E., Fargher, N.L., Geiger, M.A., Lennox, C.S., Raghunandan, K., Willekens, M., Audit reporting for going-concern uncertainty: A research synthesis auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 32 (2013), 353–384 Supplement 1.
  • Chen, C., Lin, C., Lin, Y., Audit partner tenure, audit firm tenure, and discretionary accruals: Does long auditor tenure impair earnings quality?. Contemporary Accounting Research 25:2 (2008), 415–445.
  • Chi, W., Huang, H., Discretionary accruals, audit-firm tenure and audit-partner tenure: Empirical evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics 1:1 (2005), 65–92.
  • Choi, J.-H., Kim, J.-B., Zang, Y., Do abnormally highaudit fees impair audit quality? Auditing. A Journal of Practice &Theory 29 (2010), 115–140 No 2.
  • Chow, C.W., Rice, S.J., Qualified audit opinions and auditor switching. The Accounting Review 57:2 (1982), 326–335.
  • Copley, P.A., Doucet, M.S., The impact of competition on the quality of governmental audits Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 12 (Spring), 1993, 88–98.
  • Craswell, A.T., Francis, J.R., Taylor, S.L., Auditor brand-name reputations and Industry specialization. Journal of Accounting Research 20 (1995), 297–322.
  • Craswell, A.T., Stokes, D.J., Laughton, J., Auditor independence and fee dependence. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33:2 (2002), 253–275.
  • De Angelo, L., Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 (1981), 183–199.
  • De Fond, M.L., Raghunandan, K., Subramanyam, K.R., Do nonaudit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research 40:4 (2002), 1247–1274.
  • De Fuentes, C., Pucheta-Martínez, M.C., Auditor independence, joint determination of audit and non-audit fees and the incidence of qualified audit reports. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración 43 (2009), 63–92.
  • Deis, D.R., Giroux, G., Determinants of audit quality in the public sector. The Accounting Review 67 (1992), 462–479.
  • Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R.W., Leftwich, R.W., Predicting audit qualifications with financial and market variables. The Accounting Review 62 (1987), 431–454 No 3.
  • Dopuch, N., King, R.R., Schwartz, R., An experimental investigation of retentionand rotation requirements. Journal of Accounting Research 39:1 (2001), 93–118.
  • Elitzur, R.R., Falk, H., Auctions for audit services and low-balling. Auditing 15:Supplement (1996), 41–59.
  • Ettredge, M., LI, C. y Emeigh, E. (2011): Auditor Independence During the ‘Great Recession’ of 2007-2009. Documento de trabajo. [consultado 11 Nov 2013]. Disponible en SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstrac t=1838485.
  • Fargher, N., Lee, H.Y., Mande, V., The effect of audit partner tenure on client managers’ accounting discretion». Managerial Auditing Journal 23:2 (2008), 161–186.
  • FEE (2004), Study on Mandatory Rotation of Audit Firms. Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens [consultado 28 Jun 2017], Disponible en: https://www.accountancyeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/FEE_Study_on_Mandatory_Rotation_of_Audit_Firms_04102112005561253.pdf.
  • Firth, M., Rui, O.M., Wu, X., How do various forms of auditor rotation affect audit quality? Evidence from China. The International Journal of Accounting, 47(1), 2012, p109.
  • Francis, J., What do we know about audit quality?. British Accounting Review 36:4 (2004), 345–368.
  • General Accounting Office (GAO) (2003), Public accounting firms: Required study on the potential effects of mandatory audit firm rotation. Report to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.
  • Geiger, M., Raghunandan, K., Bankruptcies, audit reports and the reform act Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (2001), 187–196 No 1.
  • Geiger, M., Raghunandan, K., Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures Auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory 21:1 (2002), 68–78.
  • Geiger, M., Rama, D.V., Audit fees, nonaudit fees, and auditor reporting on stressed companies auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 22 (2003), 53–69 No 2.
  • Gietzmann, M., Sen, P.K., Improving auditor independence through selective mandatory rotation. International Journal of Auditing 6 (2002), 183–210.
  • Gómez Aguilar, N., El informe de auditoría y su efecto sobre la decisión del cambio de auditor. 2003, Instituto de Contabilidad y Auditoría de Cuentas, Madrid.
  • Gujarati, D.N., Econometría básica. 1997, McGraw-Hill, Santafé de Bogotá.
  • Hope, O.-K., Langli, J.C., Auditor Independence in a Private Firm and Low Litigation Risk Setting. The Accounting Review 85 (2010), 573–605 No. 2.
  • Hopwood, W., Mckeown, J., Mutchler, J., A reexamination of auditor versus model accuracy within the context of the going concern opinion decision. Contemporary Accounting Research, 1994, 409–431 No. 2.
  • ICAC (Instituto de Contabilidad y Auditoría de Cuentas) (1993): Norma Técnica de Auditoría sobre la aplicación del principio de empresa en funcionamiento. Resolución de 31 de mayo de 1993, del Instituto de Contabilidad y Auditoría de Cuentas, Madrid.
  • ICAEW (2002), Mandatory Rotation of Audit Firms (ICAEW: London) [consultado 2 Oct 2007]. Disponible en: http://www.icaew.co.uk/publicassets/00/00/03/64/0000036465.PDF.
  • Código Olivencia (1998), El gobierno de las sociedades cotizadas–código de buen gobierno. Comisión Especial para el Estudio de un Código Ético de los Consejos de Administración de las Sociedades; Madrid.
  • International Federation of accountants. (2012), Código de Ética para Profesionales de la Contabilidad. Texto en español.
  • Jamous, H., Peliolle, B., Changes in the French university hospital system. Jackson, J.A., (eds.) Professions and professionalization, 1970, Cambridge University Press, Londres, 109–152.
  • Johnson, V., Kurana, I., Reynolds, K., Audit-firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemporary Accounting Research 19:4 (2002), 637–660.
  • Kida, T., An investigation into auditors’ continuity and related qualification judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 1980, p506 N.° 2.
  • Knapp, M., Factors that audit committees use as surrogates for audit quality auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory 10:1 (1991), 35–52.
  • Krishnan, J., Auditor switching and conservatism. The Accounting Review 69 (1994), 200–215.
  • Krishnan, J., Krishnan, J., The role of economic trade-offs in the audit opinion decision: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 11:4 (1996), 565–586.
  • Krishnan, J., Stephens, R.G., Evidence on opinion shopping from audit opinion conservatism. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 17 (1995), 179–201.
  • Lennox, C.S., Do companies successfully engage in opinion-shopping? Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics 29 (2000), 321–337.
  • Lennox, C.S., Wu., X., Zhang, Y.T., Does mandatory rotation of audit partners improve audit quality?. The Accounting Review 89:5 (2014), 1775–1803.
  • Mckeown, J.C., Mutchler, J.F., Hopwood, W., Towards an explanation of auditor failure to modify the audit opinion of bankrupt companies Auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory, Supplement, 1991.
  • Menon, K., Schwatz, K., An empirical investigation of audit qualification decisions in the presence of going concern uncertainties. Contemporary Accounting Research 3 (1987), 302–315.
  • Mutchler, J.F., A multivariate analysis of the auditor's going-concern opinion decision. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (1985), 668–682 N° 2.
  • Mutchler, J.F., Hopwood, W., Mckeown, J., The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors in audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (1997), 295–310 No 2.
  • O'leary, C., Compulsory rotation of audit firms for public companies. Accountancy Ireland 28 (1996), 20–22 N.° 2.
  • Petersen, M.A., Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies 22 (2009), 435–480 No 1.
  • Petty, R., Cuganesan, S., Auditor rotation: framing the debate. Australian Accountant, May 1996, 40–41.
  • Raghunandan, K., Barry, L., Evans, J.H. III, An empirical investigation of problem audits. Research in Accounting Regulation 1:1 (1994), 33–58.
  • Raghunandan, K., Rama, D.V., Audit reports for companies in financial distress: Before and after SAS No. 59 Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 14 (1995), 50–63 No 1.
  • Ramsay, I. (2001): “Independence of Australian company auditors. Review of Current Australian Requirements and Proposals for Reform” Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation, October. http://ssrn.com/abstract = 298122 (28/08/06).
  • Reynolds, J.K., Francis, J.R., Does size matter? The influence of large clients onoffice-level auditor reporting decisions». Journal of Accounting and Economics 30:3 (2001), 375–400.
  • Ruiz Barbadillo, E., Gómez Aguilar, N., de Fuentes Barbera, C., García Benau, M.A., Audit quality and the going-concern decision making process: Spanish evidence». The European Accounting Review 13 (2004), 597–620.
  • Ruiz Barbadillo, E., Gómez Aguilar, N., Carrera Pena, N., Evidencia empírica sobre el efecto de la duración del contrato en la calidad de la auditoría: Análisis de las medidas de retención y rotación obligatoria de auditores». Investigaciones Económicas 30 (2006), 283–316 No 2.
  • Sarbanes-Oxley ACT of 2002. Public company accounting reform and investor protection act. SEC Filings.
  • Shockley, R., Perceptions of auditors independence: An Empirical Analysis. The Accounting Review 56:4 (1981), 785–800.
  • Wilkerson, J., Selecting experimental and comparison samples for use in studies of auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting Research, primavera, 1987, 161–167.
  • Ye, P., Carson, E., Simnett, R., Threats to auditor independence: The impact of relationship and economic bonds» auditing. A Journal of Practice &Theory 30:1 (2011), 121–148.
  • Zeff, S.A., How the U.S. accounting profession got where it is today: Part II. Accounting Horizons 17:4 (2003), 267–286.
  • Zmijewski, M., Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (1984), 59–82.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet