IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/abacus/v60y2024i2p399-418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Regulatory Approach of James R. Doty: PCAOB Chair 2011–2018

Author

Listed:
  • John D. Keyser

Abstract

James R. Doty was the chair of the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) from February 2011 to January 2018. Extant research investigates the outcomes of the PCAOB's regulatory approach without examining what that approach is. This article examines two approaches to regulation: merit and disclosure. For example, the PCAOB inspection process, which focuses on remediation of deficiencies, is a form of merit regulation. A disclosure approach to regulation would focus instead on more timely disclosure of inspection findings to audit committees, investors, and other users of financial statements. The article explores the impact of Doty's regulatory approach on the direction of the PCAOB during his tenure. Under Doty, the PCAOB's approach shifted towards a more disclosure based regulatory approach and away from a merit based regulatory approach. The article is based on extensive documentary evidence as well as interviews with James Doty.

Suggested Citation

  • John D. Keyser, 2024. "The Regulatory Approach of James R. Doty: PCAOB Chair 2011–2018," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 60(2), pages 399-418, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:abacus:v:60:y:2024:i:2:p:399-418
    DOI: 10.1111/abac.12301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12301
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/abac.12301?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samsonova-Taddei, Anna & Humphrey, Christopher, 2015. "Risk and the construction of a European audit policy agenda: The case of auditor liability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 55-72.
    2. Ronald J Colombo, 2013. "Merit Regulation via the Suitability Rules," World Economic Review, World Economics Association, vol. 2013(2), pages 1-54, February.
    3. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    4. Canning, Mary & O’Dwyer, Brendan, 2013. "The dynamics of a regulatory space realignment: Strategic responses in a local context," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 169-194.
    5. Steven M. Glover & Mark H. Taylor & Yi‐Jing Wu & Ken T. Trotman, 2019. "Mind the Gap: Why Do Experts Have Differences of Opinion Regarding the Sufficiency of Audit Evidence Supporting Complex Fair Value Measurements?†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1417-1460, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ma, Jin & Coram, Paul & Troshani, Indrit, 2024. "The effect of key audit matters and management disclosures on auditors’ judgements and decisions: An exploratory study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    2. Canning, Mary & O'Dwyer, Brendan, 2016. "Institutional work and regulatory change in the accounting profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-21.
    3. Greg Richins & Ken T. Trotman & Di Yang, 2024. "The effects of prevalence induced concept change on audit scepticism judgements," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 64(4), pages 4429-4446, December.
    4. Kettunen, Jaana, 2017. "Interlingual translation of the International Financial Reporting Standards as institutional work," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 38-54.
    5. Ege, Matthew & Knechel, W. Robert & Lamoreaux, Phillip T. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2020. "A multi-method analysis of the PCAOB’s relationship with the audit profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    6. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2024. "Costs and benefits of a risk-based PCAOB inspection regime," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Löhlein, Lukas & Müßig, Anke, 2020. "At the boundaries of institutional theorizing: Individual entrepreneurship in episodes of regulatory change," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    8. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    9. Löhlein, Lukas, 2016. "From peer review to PCAOB inspections: Regulating for audit quality in the U.S," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 28-47.
    10. Löhlein, Lukas, 2016. "From peer review to PCAOB inspections: regulating for audit quality in the U.S," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67147, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    13. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    14. Timothy A. Seidel & Chad A. Simon & Nathaniel M. Stephens, 2020. "Management bias across multiple accounting estimates," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 1-53, March.
    15. Vera-Muñoz, Sandra C., 2015. "Commentary on “The effect of an audit judgment rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates” (Kang, Trotman, and Trotman)," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 77-80.
    16. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    17. Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz & Patel, Chris & Ying, Sammy & Pan, Peipei, 2020. "The relevance of professional skepticism to finance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    18. Ejiogu, Amanze & Ambituuni, Ambisisi & Ejiogu, Chibuzo, 2021. "Accounting for accounting’s role in the neoliberalization processes of social housing in England: A Bourdieusian perspective," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    19. Carlin Dowling & W. Robert Knechel & Robyn Moroney, 2018. "Public Oversight of Audit Firms: The Slippery Slope of Enforcing Regulation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 353-380, September.
    20. Ritzer-Angerer Petra, 2020. "Was bedeuten die Vertrauensguteigenschaften der Jahresabschlussprüfung für die Regulierung der Wirtschaftsprüferhaftung?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 69(2), pages 89-119, August.

    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:bla:abacus:v:60:y:2024:i:2:p:399-418. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0001-3072 .

    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.