The scandal of Enron and Arthur Anderson Essay

The dirt affecting Enron and Arthur Anderson forced US regulators to implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ( SOX ) to strengthenA investor assurance, corporate answerability and professional duties. UK followed suit as their Financial Reporting Council ( FRC ) published a Combine Code of Corporate Governance. An environment with invariably lifting audit fees since the prostration of Andersen has non explicitly changed the drivers of client satisfaction from those identified and tested in the yesteryear. Although the figure of ‘Big ‘ audit houses has declined the figure of publically traded houses has non changed well, yet the grade of influence in audit firmA choice has decreased. The diminution in dysfunctional audit processs has been mostly due to bettering international regulative criterions coupled with high-audit fees and a decrease inA big audit houses, makingA client satisfaction a moreA overpowering undertaking.

Post SOX both internal-control coverage and fiscal statement audit are compulsory, and performed by the same audit house, while confer withing services were temporarily barred after grand 2002 following Anderson ‘s strong belief in the Enron affair. Since so although ordinances have slightly eased as now audit houses provide non-audit services ( NAS ) , it isA uncertainA if the staying Large 4 houses have been able to keep sufficient degrees ofA clientA satisfactionA under such restrictive ordinances ( GAO, 2003a ) . As many of Anderson ‘s 2500 clients dispersed to the staying Large 4 houses, GAO surveyed aA sampleA of Fortune 1000 companies, all of whom used a Large 4A firmA as their hearer ( GAO, 2003b ) . While theA surveyA found mean auditorA tenureA to be 19 old ages, 30 % of the sample had auditorA tenureA of less than 2 old ages. 93 % of this shortA tenureA groupA wereA formerA Andersen clients ( GAO, 2003b ) . Most of these clients claimed to be dissatisfied with their current hearer.

We will write a custom essay sample on
The scandal of Enron and Arthur Anderson Essay
or any similar topic only for you
Order now

In modern market economic systems, concern incorporation led to the separation of ownership and control. Stockholders are normally non straight involved in the administrative or operational facets of a concern as such undertakings require the demand to use professional directors. These separations lead to information dissymmetry enabling self-interested directors to prosecute self public assistance at the disbursal of proprietors, necessarily directing towards ‘agency cost ‘ ( Jensen and Meckling, 1976 ) . An effectual system of corporate administration assures efficient monitoring and control behaviors focused at bettering the principal-agent relationships to assist cut down possible struggles of involvement ( Maniam etA al. , 2006 ) . Anderson et Al. ( 2004 ) discovered that corporate administration is positively associated with aA house ‘s operational efficiency and effectivity. InvestorsA acceptA higher premiums for houses with sound corporate administration ( McKinsey & A ; Company, 1999-2002 ; Steen, 2005 ) .A

The ill-famed dirts of WorldCom and EnronA ledA faculty members to extensively research corporate administration in the context of fiscal coverage, giving peculiar attending to the importance of AC features includingA independency, composing, compensation, fiscal expertness, size andA influenceA amongst others.A These features seem to hold a direct/indirectA relationshipA with audit quality. ACA independenceA is at the head of such research. Bronson et Al. ( 2009 ) argue that benefits of an audit commission ‘s independency are merely systematically achieved when it isA fullyA independent, which is in line with the SOX demand of 100 % A independentA AC ‘s. The implicit in premise being that “ IndependentA managers are better proctors ofA managementA than areA inside managers ” ( Bronson, Carcello, Hollingsworth and Nea 2009 ) .

Zhang, Zhou and Zhou ( 2007 ) further place that AC ‘s with less expertness ( accounting, fiscal and non fiscal ) are more likely to hold internal control failing ensuing in deceitful coverage or audit failures. As audit provides an independent cheque on the work of a house ‘s direction later reenforcing the assurance in fiscal coverage, scrutinizing can therefore be considered as a tool of corporate administration. Lee et Al. ( 2005 ) contend that hearers should besides look into and measure internal control processs which would guarantee effectual conformity, while heightening the function of corporate administration. Audits become valuable for a house when they significantly contribute towards corporate administration. Empirical research shows that the demand for independent audit as a device for corporate administration by houses in UK and US is a map of audit quality and the confidence provided by audit houses ( Cohen et al. , 2002 and Ghosh and Moon, 2005 ) .

However, corporate administration should besides hold a positive impact on the quality and effectivity of external auditing ( Abbott etA al. , 2007 ; Ashbaugh and Warfield, 2003 ) . It is the duty of AC ‘s toA appointA qualified independent hearers who theyA believeA wouldA performA aim and systematic monitoring, while besides certifying theA house ‘s fiscal statements for conformance with GAAP/ IFRS. Thus, corporate administration must play a important function in heightening theA credibilityA and utility of the fiscal statements for all stakeholder ‘s ( Bushman and Smith, 2001 ; Dewing and Russell, 2003 ; Maniam etA al. , 2006 ) . Contrastingly, when there is a deficiency of sound corporate administration, it would be hard toA preventA theA house ‘s direction from conflicting upon the involvements of theA organizationA and other stakeholder ‘s while the audit map may be unable to execute its monitoring andA assuranceA functions efficaciously ( Marnet, 2005 ; Rosner, 2003 ) . Surely the relationship between corporate administration and external auditing ( including hearer choice and shift ) is aA fundamentalA issue worthy ofA geographic expedition.

2.2 The function of fiscal coverage and audit quality

Independent scrutinizing can cut down the bureau costs associated with the contractual relationships between proprietors andA managementA or amongA variousA groups of stakeholder ‘s ( Fearnley and Hines, 2003 ) . Therefore, an hearer is non merely responsible toA substantiateA the equity and entirety of fiscal statements produced by the direction, but besides toA investigateA direction ‘s fiscal public presentation in footings of their supervisory dependability. This ability to observe net incomes direction enhances the utility of accounting Numberss for investor ‘s determination devising ( Imhoff, 2003 ) . Therefore, turn outing that an hearer performs two functions in fiscal coverage, that of information intermediary andA assuranceA supplier. Financial coverage criterions are similar toA publicA Torahs as they are invariably germinating. Refering the United Kingdom, research workers province that proposed changed to UK Company Law, increasing statute laws from the EU, post-EnronA reformA and passage to international fiscal coverage criterions import important and dearly-won execution challenge to UK companies, hearers, and regulators ( Fearnley and Hines, 2003 ) .

However, regulators stillA aspireA to stay occupied with the professional organic structure ‘s which suggests their willingness in go oning toA delegateA regulationA toA private sectorA organic structures andA supportA voluntary codifications of pattern wherever appropriate. Legislation and extended rulesA are consideredA as a catcher merely to be applied where all else fails ( Beattie, Fearnley and Brandt, 2004 ) . Fearnley & A ; Hines ( 2003 ) argues that the impact on the UK regulatoryA frameworkA of the SOX Act is still an unsolved issue. UK has about 50 % of itsA topA 100 companies listed in the US markets. This necessarily providesA compellingA reasonsA for US regulators to prosecute in theA oversightA of UK companies and audit houses. This is an unpopular perceptual experience for the UK regulators, EU committee and businessA community, particularly in theA lightA of many other regulative alterations in the UK ( Fearnley and Hines 2003 ) . However, irrespective of alterations in the regulative model research workers agree that mere conformity with such steps can non be sufficient in constructing investor assurance, A in fact, A they suggest thatA companiesA needA to better their overall administration construction.

Rezaee ( 2005 ) explains that a good balanced operation of seven interconnected mechanisms ( inadvertence, managerial, conformity, audit, advisory, confidence, and supervising maps ) canA produceA responsible corporate administration, dependable fiscal studies, and believable audit services. Arthur Levitt, the former president of the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) created a “ Blue Ribbon Panel ” in order to undertake theA severeA issue of net incomes direction. Researchers believe is net incomes direction isA indeedA so permeant ; some grounds behind hearer alterations may be motivated by a desire toA manageA net incomes. However, efficient use of an scrutinizing map is dependent uponA auditA quality. Though notA easilyA defined, but can be identified through auditor’sA industrialA expertness, A ethicalA unity andA degreeA of independency ( Francis, 2004 and Teoh, 1992 ) .

Many bookmans have categorized auditA qualityA in footings of size of the auditing house. TheyA suggestA that larger houses possess moreA industrialA experience, have greater resources and a higher grade of liberty enabling them to provideA qualifiedA service. Several empirical studiesA demonstrateA an investor’sA frequencyA toA attachA greaterA marketA value to accounting Numberss reported by clients of larger scrutinizing house, as they perceive their financialA disclosureA to hold greater information content ( Francis, 2004 ; Lennox, 2005 and Watkins etA al. , 2004 ) .A A company exchanging to a larger auditing house signals to theA marketA that their fiscal statements are now moreA dependable.A ThisA signalA may alsoA benefitA houses in theA formA ofA lowA costs in raisingA capitalA from equity/debt markets or decrease in bureau costs.

Alternatively, stockholder and direction may besides see the capableness of big scrutinizing houses in observing ‘tunnelling ‘ behavior, therefore preferring a switch to a little auditing house with relatively lower quality of audit monitoring ( Imhoff, 2003 and Lee etA al. , 2003 ) . Johnson et Al. ( 2002 ) follow term of office of the hearer with their clients toA reflectA the quality of audits. Longer the continuance of the relationship between the hearer and client, the easier it becomes for the hearer toA curbA earningsA client’sA behavior and other fiscal abnormalities as the hearer gets the clip toA analyseA their client ‘s internal control and accounting systems. Conversely, the term of office of an hearer may besides hold a negative association with audit quality, as long term hearers may give up their independency to maintain a healthy relationship with their client ( Ghosh and Mood, 2005 ) . Therefore, it is non surprising that the Combine Code of Corporate Governance lays out rigorous guidelines on auditorA tenureA to guarantee complete hearer independency and later audit quality ( FRC 2010 ) .

In order to separate quality in fiscal coverage, other research workers apply the figure of SEC probes or countenances as an index for audit quality ( Dye, 1993 and Kadous, 2000 ) or the regularity of issuingA uncleanA hearer sentiments ( Chow and Rice, 1982 ) . AuditorA switchA signals theA increaseA of the possibility of net incomes direction in fiscal coverage, which may ensue inA informationA dissymmetry ( Becker et al. 1998 and Nelson et Al. 2002 ) . Therefore, many researchersA concludeA that investors and marketsA usuallyA perceiveA a alteration in the hearer as a negative signal to in response to which market monetary value falls and cost ofA equityA rises. They argue that exchanging leads to more ‘noise ‘ in the fiscal coverage Numberss, therefore significantly cut downing the unity and utility of reported net incomes.

2.3 Prior surveies on factors impacting hearer alterations

Arguably theA choiceA of audit house is a important determination in aA corporation ‘s life rhythm as the implicit in grounds for such alterations are of tremendous concern for the populace, profession, stakeholder ‘s and fiscal markets ( Bedingfield and Loeb 1974 ) . The degree ofA agencyA costs andA disparityA in signalling inducements suggest that there is aA heterogeneousA demandA for audit services, characterised by DeAngelo ( 1981 ) as different degrees ofA auditA quality. Harmonizing to ( Davidson III ) A auditA shopping can be subdivided into two classs, foremost, A auditA shopping could be anA agencyA cost motivated by directions desire toA entrenchA an incumbent direction squad by exchanging to a lower quality/size hearer to profit from relaxed coverage demands[ 1 ], necessarily increasing asymmetric information profiting their motivations. The secondA categoryA ofA auditA shopping does notA involveA managementA desireA to pull strings net incomes, alternatively, is due to a interruption down in auditor/client relationship ensuing from excessively conservative accounting methods preferred by the hearer.

Recent literature has peculiarly focused on the nexus between audit sentiment and hearer alteration, particularly given the concerns over opinion-shopping that emerged in the competitory environment of the 1990s. Most of the bing empirical plants explicating theA decisionA to alter hearers have been archival surveies, which use statistical analysis toA investigateA theA associationA between theA switchA and notA switchA determination variable and related variables of involvement. While earlier surveies employed merely univariate trials to analyze individual variables of involvement ( Schwartz and Menon, 1985 ; Craswell, 1988 ; Gul etA al. , 1992 ) , the usage of multivariate logit theoretical accounts has now become the norm ( Williams, 1988 ; Ritson etA al. , 1997, Woo and Koh, 2001, Moizer, Porter and Mohamed, 2001, Hudaib and Cooke, 2005 ) . ResearchersA argueA based on eventuality theory that ‘auditor alterations are likely to be induced by combinations of cross factors ‘ ( Hudaib and Cooke, 2005 ) .

However, empirical surveies show assorted results.A The susceptibleness to auditor exchanging isA notablyA positively associated with fiscal hurt ( Schwartz and Menon, 1985, Hudaib and Cooke, 2002 ) , audit sentiment ( Chow and Rice, 1982 ) , growing ( Chaney etA al. , 1997 ) , breakdown in hearer client relationship ( DeAngelo, 1982 ) , A lengthA of hearer term of office ( Williams, 1988 ) , alteration in theA top levelA direction ( Hudaib and Cooke, 2002 ) andA receiptA ofA adverseA media promotion by the client company ( Williams, 1988 ) .A Conversely important negativeA associationA was foundA for top grade hearer ( Krishnan, etA al. , 1996, Hudaib and Cooke, 2002 ) , industry specialization ( Williams, 1988 ; Chaney etA al. , 1997, Ritson etA al. , 1997, Woo and Koh, 2001 ) andA sizeA ( Krishnan, etA al. , 1996, Chaney etA al. , 1997, Hudaib and Cooke, 2002 ) .

However, in other surveies research workers found noA significanceA for: A hurt ( Krishnan, etA al. , 1996 ) , growing ( Williams, 1988 ; Krishnan etA al. , 1996 ; Ritson etA al. , 1997, Woo and Koh, 2001 ) , top grade hearer ( Ritson etA al. , 1997 ) , size of the administration ( Woo and Koh, 2001 ) , industry specialization ( Krishnan etA al. , 1996 ) , top direction alteration ( Williams, 1988, Ritson etA al. , 1997 ) , A auditA fees ( Ritson etA al. , 1997, Woo and Koh, 2001, Hudaib and Cooke, 2002 ) orA levelA of non audit service proviso by the officeholder ( DeBerg etA al. , 1991 ) .A Reality of the affair is that the literature on hearer shift is interrelated due to the nature of this activity, as it involved several complex and at clip correlative explanatory variables. In order to efficaciously cover with bing literature which would ease the apprehension of this activity and ground behind it, each variable/factor with be discussed individually every bit much as possible.

The monetary value ofA auditA plays a important function in hearer choice, asA priorA research shows decrease of audit feesA motivateA some hearer alterations ( Johnson and Lys, 1990 ; Eichenseher and Shields 1983 ) .A Fearnley and Beattie ( 1995 ) in their survey of hearer alterations in UK listed companiesA declareA that about 50 % of respondentsA declareA theA levelA of audit fees to be a footing for hearer alteration out of which 45 % A assertA it to be the mostA influentialA ground. Clients benefit from a lessening in audit fees at least in the short term, although fee ‘s return toA normalA market degrees between 3 to 5 old ages ( Simon and Francis, 1988 ) termed by DeAngelo ( 1981 ) as ‘low balling ‘ . A simplisticA interpretationA of such findings can be attributed to the competitory nature of the scrutinizing market. ClientsA purchaseA auditA services from the lowest-cost provider and independent audit firmsA attainA competitory advantages through specialization ( Johnson and Lys 1990 ) .

Carcello et Al ( 1992 ) argues, in an progressively competitory environment, it isA vitalA to recognize the perceptual experiences of audit quality by both the hearers andA auditee’s.A After commanding for other factors related to audit fees, ( i.e. properties assigned to scrutinize quality ) client satisfaction with their audit service was found to be positively associated with fees. Simultaneously, lower cost audit reduces audit quality, later damaging the company ‘s long-term public presentation ( Behn etA al. , 1999 ) . Larger clients benefit from economic systems of graduated table ( dickering power ) which non merely assist overA feeA degrees, but besides in attainingA managementA desires i.e. net incomes use, therefore making aA self-interestA menace to objectiveness and independency ( Firth, 1985 ; and McKeown et al.,1991 ) . Therefore, it is non surprising that UK respondents perceive high fees from aA clientA to be damaging toA independenceA ( Firth, A 1980a ) .

Beattie, Brandt and Fearnley ( 1999 ) besides foundA auditA fee dependance to be the mostA significantA menace to UK concerns. Clients mayA incurA both indirect and direct cost during an hearer switch, AC’sA placeA immenseA significanceA on theA valueA for fees as compared to the grossA magnitudeA of audit fees ( Schroeder etA al. , 1986 ) . In order to find the effects of high audit fee ‘s DeAngelo ( 1981 ) classifies high-audit fees based on theA proportionA of fees paid to the audit house ‘s entire fees, whereas Hudaib and Cooke ( 2005 ) use the ratio of audit fees paid toA auditees ‘ entire assets as aA substituteA forA high-auditA fees. Research workers anticipate that a company with a high degree of assets would necessitate aA substantialA and expensiveA audit. Whereas, a highA ratioA of paid fees to administrations ‘ entire assets wouldA indicateA that the administration is paying higher than mean fees for the size of assets it owns. Francis and Simon ( 1988 ) A explainA thatA greater levelA of feesA reduces theA probabilityA of being issues a qualified audit sentiment, given that theA clientA would non digest a qualifiedA auditA under hard conditions when their hearers are having higher than mean audit fees.

Beattie and Fearnley ( 1998 ) have suggested that the most common ground for hearer switches in the UK isA dueA to the deficiency of hearer competence and professionalism.A In their researchA financialA managers of surveyed houses argued that their old hearers did non understand the concern, there was ; lack ofA internalA control, spreads in fiscal controls, improper revelation, incumbent mishandling of corporate finance advice andA flexibilityA on accounting policies. All these issues can about surely be termed underA auditA quality. In fact, over the past decennary the most commonA reasonA celebrated in literature for grounds related to hearer alterations has beenA auditA making. RecentA studiesA based around the subjects of grounds for alteration and sentiment shopping inspects the relationship between hearer alteration and audit sentiments. Therefore, it is non surprising to see literaturesA concentrationA on direction, which tends to seek hearers who are less likely toA produceA aA qualifiedA study since theA conceptA considerablyA amendss theA perceptionA of hearer independency ( Teoh 1992 ) .

Companies perhapsA switchA hearers to shop for either more relaxedA companyA resultA readings from their hearer or betterA auditA quality. After, the issue of a qualified study, an administration may alter theirA hearer to better theirA financialA imageA ( Smith, 1986 and Chow and Rice, 1982 ) .A It could be due to aA disagreementA which wouldA likely lead to the choice of a lowerA qualityA hearer ( Whisenant and Sankaraguruswamy 2000b, 2000d ) , or merely toA findA aA moreA lenient hearer to accomplish long term managerial ends ( DeAngelo, 1981 ) .A Issuance of aA qualifiedA sentiment has anA effectA on both theA house ‘s market monetary value andA director ‘s compensation bundles ( Chow and Rice, 1982 ) . If directors change hearers as a consequence of makings, this raises cardinal inquiries about the audit house ‘s ability to defy managementA pressureA and issue anA objectiveA audit study. In world, it is this ‘intimidation menace ‘ that jeopardises independency although theA threatA is notA discernible. What isA observableA areA actualA switches i.e. actualA dismissalA which are, in consequence, used as aA proxyA for state of affairss where switchingA is threatenedA ( Hudaib and Cooke, 2005 ) .

AA sampleA of surveies concentrating entirely onA opinionA shopping by look intoing theA relationA between exchanging and the subsequent audit sentiment found consistent consequences. Some surveies have found a positiveA associationA between reception ofA qualifiedA sentiment and hearer alteration in the twelvemonth predating alteration ( Hudaib and Cooke, 2002 ; Chow and Rice, 1982 ; Smith, 1986 ; and Krishnan etA al. , 1996 ) . Chow and Rice ( 1982 ) in their survey of Australian and U.S. companies found auditor alteration to be straight related to having aA qualifiedA study, although their study besides showed that exchanging firmsA dueA toA auditA sentiment were no more likely to have a cleanA opinionA in following old ages than non-switching houses. Similar surveies of companies in Hong Kong and Australia, Gul et Al. ( 1992 ) and Craswell ( 1988 ) severally, found consequences consistent with Chow and Rice ( 1982 ) . A positive association was besides found between the presence of ‘goingA concernA making ‘ and auditor alteration in hard-pressed UK quoted companies for the period 1977-1986 Citron and Taffler ( 1992 ) .

While comparingA preA and post-switch sentiments by analyzing struggles between theA firmA and its predecessor hearer, Smith ( 1986 ) in hisA sampleA of 139 houses that changed hearer on reception of a qualified sentiment suggests that merely five casesA indicateA the possibility ofA opinionA shopping. Similarly, other surveies conducted by Williams ( 1988 ) and Ritson et Al. ( 1997 ) besides did non happen any important consequences. Krishnan and Stephens ( 1995 ) find that houses which change hearers are likely to be treated as cautiously by both the predecessor and replacement hearers, while Knapp and Elikai ( 1988 ) in their survey of U.S. firmsA discloseA that that exchanging houses do non receiveA unqualifiedA or more favorable sentiments fromA newA auditors.A Smith ( 1986 ) and Krishnan ( 1994 ) , province that hearers are non switchedA dueA toA auditA sentiments, instead theA causeA is identifiedA as hearers refusal to be flexible in their auditing processs.

Evidence suggests that intimidationA threatA canA influenceA hearer ‘s sentiment, which is in contrast toA empiricalA work mentioned earlier. Disagreement over a reportingA policyA ensuing in a possible intimidationA threatA toA switchA may non onlyA influenceA hearer independency but conversely mayA forceA the hearer toA qualifyA ( Teoh, 1992 ; DeAngelo, 1982 ; and Krishnan et Al. 1996 ) . Therefore, the hearer has toA weighA the state of affairs between being independent and giving aA qualifiedA sentiment or theA likelihoodA of dismissal ( Hudaib and Cooke, 2005 ) . Krishnan ( 1994 ) found that exchanging houses received a more conservative intervention from their hearers than others. ThisA presenceA of ‘mutli-directionality ‘ between audit sentiment and exchanging dramatis personaes uncertainty on the ability of audit sentiment as aA motiveA forA firmsA altering their hearers. While rejecting theA hypothesisA of anA associationA between exchanging andA making, DeAngelo ( 1982 ) explains this ‘mutli-directionality ‘ reasoning thatA qualifiedA sentiments can do hearer exchanging and vice-versa. Krishnan et Al. ( 1996 ) subsequently confirms this statement, by utilizing a coincident equations model found grounds of a bipartisan causing between the inclination of theA clientA toA switchA hearers and that of the hearer to publish a qualified sentiment.

In peculiar when an incumbent hearer issues anA uncleanA sentiment, theA firmA is more likely toA instigateA a hunt for new hearers whose positions are in line with that of the direction. AS the reception of aA qualifiedA sentiment would take down theA priceA of aA house ‘s securities and impairs its ability to raise financess in the hereafter, theA organizationA in such instances would theoretically exchange from a high-quality hearer to aA low-qualityA hearer ( Klock 1994 ; Anderson et Al. 2004 ; Bedard and Johnstone 2004 ) . Nontheless, empirical consequences on whether administrations can carry through “ sentiment shopping ” through auditorA switchA are variedA as some surveies found no grounds of successful ‘opinion shopping ‘ after hearer switch in the US market ( Craswell, 1988 ; Krishnan, 1994 ; Schauer, 2002 ) . However, other research workers argue that there isA noticeableA disparityA in theA industrialA knowledgeA and scrutinizing resources between the incumbentA hearers and their successors.A Therefore, the direction must be able toA influenceA accounting Numberss if exchanging from high-quality hearers toA low-qualityA hearers ( Willenborg 1999 ; Nelson et Al. 2002 ; Kim and Kross 2005 ) . Given eachA researchA used different methodological analysiss, no consensus has yet emerged sing the relationship between exchanging and publishing qualified audit sentiments.

The SEC has expressed their concern over this issue while proposing that theA assessmentA of prior-yearA opinionA and exchanging would beA usefulA to faculty members, policy shapers and practicians. Very few surveies have examined the success ofA opinionA shopping by examiningA preA andA postA yearA opinionA and those that haveA professedA sentiment shopping to be unsuccessful ( Chow and Rice, 1982 ; Smith, 1986 ) . Auditor switch after the reception of aA qualifiedA sentiment representsA badA intelligence for the market, as the administration may be alleged to shop forA cleanA sentiment from a new hearer. DeFond and Subramanyam ( 1998 ) and Kim et Al. ( 2003 ) characterise thisA phenomenonA to the belief that an evident diminution in audit quality due toA opinionA shopping impairs theA credibilityA of fiscal coverage. As mentioned earlier, a desire for lowerA qualityA auditA toA assistA net incomes direction motivates clients to alter their hearers.

Harmonizing to Abarbanell and Lehavy ( 2003 ) net incomes direction implies the choice and reading of accounting policies and describing methods that mayA induceA partialityA in describing net incomes Numberss toA accomplishA certainA aims. In order to understate political costs Watts and Zimmerman ( 1990 ) suggest that larger houses conduct income diminishing accounting picks, while other surveies suggest direction of concerns use income cut downing discretional accumulations. The statement being that judicial proceeding concerns deter houses to pull off net incomes upwards due to the asymmetric los map on companies that overstate their net incomes upwards ( Watts and Zimmerman, 1990 ; and Kadous, 2000 ) . However, it is highly hard to mensurate audit quality, and many research workers have applied assorted methodological analysiss to their surveies to which they relate the quality of audit. DeAngelo ( 1981 ) defines audit quality as positively associated withA sizeA of the auditing house, as larger houses have a greater inducement to describe net incomes misstatements.

Empirical grounds experimenting the extent to which audit quality can be defined in footings of hearer size can be found inA severalA respected surveies including Warren ( 1980 ) , DeAngelo ( 1981 ) , Chow and Rice ( 1982 ) , Teoh and Wong ( 1993 ) and Krishnan et Al. ( 1996 ) A although the experiments found assorted results.A DeAngelo ( 1981 ) arguesA largeA audit houses have more resources, greater hazard exposure and inducements to avoid unfavorable judgment, hence, willA performA qualifiedA coverage in order to protect their repute. Becker et Al. ( 1998 ) studies, as discretional accumulations are greater for the clients of non-Big6 accounting house ‘s net incomes direction transpires more often in such houses. Conversely, Krishnan et Al. ( 1996 ) discovers that smaller companies in the US are less likely to be audited by Large 6 houses, attributable to the high premiums charged by the larger auditing houses which are 16 % to 19 % higher than non-Big 8 audit fees ( Simon and Francis 1988 ) .

While associating earningsA managementA ( audit quality ) with hearer size, Chaney and Philipich ( 2002 ) found that after the proclamation of a switch peculiarly from Big5/Big 4 to non-Big 5/Big 4 hearers, the market typically responded with a diminution in the company ‘s stock monetary value andA marketA return. This is because the investor would anticipate aA declineA in theA qualityA of reported earningsA information. Smaller companies audited by the Big6 houses have a greaterA propensityA to alter hearers following aA qualifiedA study, as compared to larger houses audited by Big6 houses ( Citron and Taffler, 1992 ) . Literature has notedA auditeeA size as anotherA crucialA explanatory variable. Krishnan et Al. ( 1996 ) recognises that the chance of a smaller company having a qualified hearer study andA subsequentlyA exchanging its hearer is much higher than a larger company. Firth ( 2002 ) farther justifies Krishnan etA Al. ( 1996 ) claims by turn outing the statistical significance between size ofA auditeeA andA making. Previous research suggests that fiscal hurt is another important factor in the issue ofA qualifiedA sentiment and hearer shift ( Schwartz and Menon 1985 ; Citron and Taffler, 1992 ) .

Highly levered companies are more likely to have a modified audit study in subsequent periods particularly if they shift from high quality to low quality audit houses ( Lennox, 2000 ) . Schwartz and Menon ( 1985 ) A discussA theA influenceA of financialA distressA on hearer switches in two different ways. First, fiscal hurt causes complex uncertainnesss in a concern andA are correlatedA with factors that support hearer exchanging such as ; direction alterations, describing differences, issue of a qualified sentiment, ‘insurance ‘ motivations andA auditA fees. Failing concerns are frequently plagued with such issues and, hence, are more susceptible toA makeA hearer alterations than healthy 1s. Second, assorted grounds for altering hearers may depend upon the fiscal status of an administration. FactorsA associatedA with exchanging hearers in financially hard-pressed companies may non the same as for the ‘non-distressed ‘ companies. Healthy administrations mayA switchA hearers to obtain extra service or competitory advantage through anA industryA specialised hearer.

In order to undertake such issues Hudaib and Cooke ( 2005 ) sort financialA conditionA into hard-pressed and non-distressed and integrate them as an explanatory variable. Chow and Rice ( 1982 ) A suggestA to integrate non-distressed companies inA variableA is toA controlA for the possible effects ofA auditeesA fiscal status on hearer switching.A In whichever wayA fiscal hurt may impact the auditor-client relationship, its being can hold some deductions for understanding the kineticss behind hearer exchanging. Schwartz and Menon ( 1985 ) besides suggest that neglecting houses have a inclination to makeA managementA alterations in an effort toA resuscitateA their administration, as externalA stakeholdersA identifyA direction failures as a primary factor in the company ‘s deteriorating fiscal condition.A New direction consequences inA variousA alterations in the weakness administration, A in an effort toA rescueA orA betterA the state of affairs, A these may besides include alterations in auditor.A NewA managementA may be dissatisfied with the quality andA costA of services provided by the past hearer ( Burton and Roberts, 1967 ) . New direction squad mayA viewA theA selectionA of describing methods as a agency for act uponing determinations of providers ofA capitalA by uncovering corporate public presentation in a more favorable visible radiation, with the aid of a new more indulgent hearer ( Schwartz and Menon 1985 ) .

Alternatively, new directors may simplyA preferA another hearer with whom they have had some old association ( Beattie and Fearnley, 1995 ) . Beattie and Fearnley ( 1998 ) reportA that 35 % of companiesA citedA top direction alterations as a ground for exchanging hearers. However, Chow and Rice ( 1982 ) found noA significanceA in this variable, while Schwartz and Menon ( 1985 ) found that neither top direction alteration neitherA auditA sentiment in neglecting companiesA ledA to a alteration in auditors.A Hudaib and Cooke ( 2005 ) examined the synergistic effects of distressed/non-distressed companies and MD change/no-MD alteration on the type of audit sentiment and found assorted consequences. Nevertheless, issue of a qualified sentiment may be triggered by fiscal hurt or a alteration in direction, or possibly even both. Whereas several of the factors that considered as causes of hearer shift may be found to be in neglecting companies or financially healthy houses, non allA bringA about a definite alteration in hearer. If the financialA conditionA is non explicitly controlled for, anA obviousA ” omitted variables ” job canA exist, since a correlativity of both a specious factor and a ‘true ‘ determiner with fiscal hurt could take to doing someA invalidA illations on why companies decide to alter hearers. This being the instance, there areA clearA restrictions to the generalizabillity of findings based onA experimentalA samples incorporating both neglecting and healthy houses.

Chapter 3

Research Methodology


Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out