IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jaecon/v49y2010i1-2p104-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How should the auditors be audited? Comparing the PCAOB Inspections with the AICPA Peer Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • DeFond, Mark L.

Abstract

In their investigation of the new PCAOB Inspections, Lennox and Pittman [Lennox, C., Pittman, J., 2009. Auditing the auditors: evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of the audit firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, forthcoming] address one of the most important and controversial features of the recent shift from self-regulation to government regulation in the US audit markets. In this paper I attempt to place their investigations into the broader auditing and regulatory literature, critique what we learn and do not learn from their analysis, and make suggestions for future related research.

Suggested Citation

  • DeFond, Mark L., 2010. "How should the auditors be audited? Comparing the PCAOB Inspections with the AICPA Peer Reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 104-108, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:49:y:2010:i:1-2:p:104-108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-4101(09)00027-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Weber & Michael Willenborg & Jieying Zhang, 2008. "Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 941-972, September.
    2. Gilles Hilary & Clive Lennox, 2005. "The Credibility of Self-Regulation: Evidence from the Accounting Profession's Peer Review," Post-Print hal-00482306, HAL.
    3. Hilary, Gilles & Lennox, Clive, 2005. "The credibility of self-regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession's peer review program," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-3), pages 211-229, December.
    4. Leuz, Christian & Triantis, Alexander & Yue Wang, Tracy, 2008. "Why do firms go dark? Causes and economic consequences of voluntary SEC deregistrations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 181-208, August.
    5. Peltzman, Sam, 1976. "Toward a More General Theory of Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 211-240, August.
    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. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    2. Lennox, Clive & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2010. "Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of audit firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 84-103, February.
    3. Giuseppe Iuliano & Gaetano Matonti, 2015. "Do big 4 audit companies detect earnings management and report it in the audit opinion? Empirical evidence from italian non-listed firms," ESPERIENZE D'IMPRESA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 5-43.
    4. Aobdia, Daniel & Shroff, Nemit, 2017. "Regulatory oversight and auditor market share," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 262-287.
    5. DeFond, Mark L. & Lennox, Clive S., 2011. "The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 21-40, June.
    6. Chang, Wen-Ching & Chen, Jui-Pin, 2020. "Auditor sanction and reputation damage: Evidence from changes in non-client-company directorships," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    7. Dischinger, Matthias & Riedel, Nadine, 2011. "Corporate taxes and the location of intangible assets within multinational firms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 691-707, August.
    8. Cave, Jonathan & Marsden, Christopher, 2008. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodies in the Internet: self-regulation as a threat and a promise," MPRA Paper 83193, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Silvester Van Koten & Andreas Ortmann, 2016. "Self-Regulatory Organizations under the Shadow of Governmental Oversight: An Experimental Investigation," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments in Organizational Economics, volume 19, pages 85-104, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. Matthias Dischinger & Nadine Riedel, 2008. "Corporate Taxes, Profit Shifting and the Location of Intangibles within Multinational Firms," Working Papers 060, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    11. John C. Coates IV, 2007. "The Goals and Promise of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 91-116, Winter.
    12. 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.
    13. Carcello, Joseph V. & Hollingsworth, Carl & Mastrolia, Stacy A., 2011. "The effect of PCAOB inspections on Big 4 audit quality," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 85-96.
    14. Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2013. "Audit office size, audit quality and audit pricing: evidence from small- and medium-sized enterprises," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 31-55, February.
    15. Alan Kilgore & Renee Radich & Graeme Harrison, 2011. "The Relative Importance of Audit Quality Attributes," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(3), pages 253-265, September.
    16. Abernathy, John L. & Barnes, Michael & Stefaniak, Chad, 2013. "A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 30-60.
    17. Luzi Hail & Ahmed Tahoun & Clare Wang, 2018. "Corporate Scandals and Regulation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 617-671, May.
    18. Devan Mescall & Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2017. "Does the Accounting Profession Discipline Its Members Differently After Public Scrutiny?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 285-309, May.
    19. Yuan, Shuai & Zhang, Wuxue & Zhu, Kaiwen, 2023. "Place attachment, audit pricing and audit quality," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2).
    20. Silvester Van Koten, 2015. "Self-Regulatory Organizations Under the Shadow of Governmental Oversight: Blossom Or Perish?," RSCAS Working Papers 2015/84, European University Institute.

    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:eee:jaecon:v:49:y:2010:i:1-2:p:104-108. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jae .

    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.