IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcjaxx/v8y2020i3p331-348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Professional liability insurance contracts for auditors: differential pricing and the audit quality effect

Author

Listed:
  • Jun Wang
  • Ying Qiu
  • Xi Wu

Abstract

In recent years, the Chinese government and the public accounting profession have advocated the audit practitioners’ use of professional liability insurance (PLI). As a tool to divert audit firms’ business risk, PLI contracts could decrease auditors’ diligence in conducting audits, which might harm audit quality. Insurance companies might perceive the transfer of audit risks, thus having an incentive to monitor risky audit firms to mitigate potential economic losses related to audit failures. We use proprietary PLI contract data and find that insurance companies charge smaller audit firms a significantly higher price and show a lower tendency to offer favourable indemnity clauses. The difference-in-differences analysis reveals that the magnitude of audit adjustments significantly increases after small audit firms purchase PLI and the effect is dominated by income-decreasing audit adjustments. Our evidence supports the notion that insurance contracts play a governance role for audit intermediaries with a higher risk profile.

Suggested Citation

  • Jun Wang & Ying Qiu & Xi Wu, 2020. "Professional liability insurance contracts for auditors: differential pricing and the audit quality effect," China Journal of Accounting Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 331-348, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcjaxx:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:331-348
    DOI: 10.1080/21697213.2020.1889775
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21697213.2020.1889775
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21697213.2020.1889775?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rcjaxx:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:331-348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcja .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.