The Relative Importance of Auditor Characteristics Versus Client Factors in Explaining Audit Quality

被引:34
作者
Cameran, Mara [1 ]
Campa, Domenico [2 ]
Francis, Jere R. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Bocconi Univ, Milan, Italy
[2] Int Univ Monaco, INSEEC Res Grp, Le Stella, Monaco
[3] Maastricht Univ, Maastricht, Netherlands
[4] Univ Technol Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
accounting firms; audit offices; engagement partners; earnings quality; going concern reports; restatements; OFFICE SIZE; EARNINGS; PERFORMANCE; TEAMS; PERSONALITY; EXPERIENCE; LEADERSHIP; EXPERTISE; MANAGERS; SHAPLEY;
D O I
10.1177/0148558X20953059
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
The U.K. listed firms are used to investigate whether auditor attributes (fixed effects for audit firms, audit offices, and audit partners) add incrementally to baseline models with client controls in explaining audit quality. We document that accounting firm fixed effects add significantly to baseline models. To the extent an accounting firm can standardize its audits, there should be no differences across engagements. However, we find significant interoffice differences, and also significant inter-partner differences within offices.R(2)analyses, hierarchical linear models, LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regressions, andR(2)decomposition analyses all show that partners are the most important auditor-related characteristic. To better understand the cause of partner variation, we test a set of partner demographic variables (in lieu of partner fixed effects), but we find that they explain little variation, once we control for firm and office differences. We conclude that partner variation is important in explaining audit quality, but understanding the causes requires going beyond existing publicly available demographic data.
引用
收藏
页码:751 / 776
页数:26
相关论文
共 70 条
[1]   Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections [J].
Aobdia, Daniel .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 2019, 67 (01) :144-174
[2]   Capital Market Consequences of Audit Partner Quality [J].
Aobdia, Daniel ;
Lin, Chan-Jane ;
Petacchi, Reining .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2015, 90 (06) :2143-2176
[3]   Auditor industry specialization and earnings quality [J].
Balsam, S ;
Krishnan, J ;
Yang, JS .
AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY, 2003, 22 (02) :71-97
[4]   THE BIG 5 PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB-PERFORMANCE - A METAANALYSIS [J].
BARRICK, MR ;
MOUNT, MK .
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1991, 44 (01) :1-26
[5]   Risk monitoring and control in audit firms: A research synthesis [J].
Bedard, Jean C. ;
Deis, Donald R. ;
Curtis, Mary B. ;
Jenkins, J. Gregory .
AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY, 2008, 27 (01) :187-218
[6]   Managing with style: The effect of managers on firm policies [J].
Bertrand, M ;
Schoar, A .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2003, 118 (04) :1169-1208
[7]  
Bills J. L., 2010, Journal of Accounting Research, V13, P1
[8]   The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Auditor Expertise and Human Capital Development [J].
Bol, Jasmijn C. ;
Estep, Cassandra ;
Moers, Frank ;
Peecher, Mark E. .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 2018, 56 (04) :1205-1252
[9]   What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis [J].
Burke, C. Shawn ;
Stagl, Kevin C. ;
Klein, Cameron ;
Goodwin, Gerald F. ;
Salas, Eduardo ;
Halpin, Stanley M. .
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY, 2006, 17 (03) :288-307
[10]   The Effect of Audit Experience on Audit Fees and Audit Quality [J].
Cahan, Steven ;
Sun, Jerry .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AUDITING AND FINANCE, 2015, 30 (01) :78-100