IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jappol/v14y1995i3p179-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence on opinion shopping from audit opinion conservatism

Author

Listed:
  • Krishnan, Jagan
  • Stephens, Ray G.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishnan, Jagan & Stephens, Ray G., 1995. "Evidence on opinion shopping from audit opinion conservatism," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 179-201.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jappol:v:14:y:1995:i:3:p:179-201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0278-4254(95)00020-F
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Beatriz García Osma & Belén Gill de Albornoz Noguer & Elena De las Heras Cristobal, 2016. "Opinion shopping: Partner versus firm-level evidence," Working Papers. Serie EC 2016-02, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    2. Benito Arrunada, 2000. "Audit quality: attributes, private safeguards and the role of regulation," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 205-224.
    3. Xingqiang Du & Liang Xiao & Yingjie Du, 2023. "Does CEO–Auditor Dialect Connectedness Trigger Audit Opinion Shopping? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(2), pages 391-426, May.
    4. Li-Jen He & Jianxiong Chen, 2021. "Does Mandatory Audit Partner Rotation Influence Auditor Selection Strategies?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Reynolds, J. Kenneth & Francis, Jere R., 2000. "Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 375-400, December.
    6. Gómez Aguilar, Nieves & Biedma López, Estíbaliz & Ruiz Barbadillo, Emiliano, 2018. "El efecto de la rotación de socio en la calidad de la auditoría," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 7-18.
    7. Kenneth B. Schwartz & Billy S. Soo, 1996. "The Association Between Auditor Changes and Reporting Lags," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 353-370, March.
    8. Emiliano Ruiz Barbadillo & Nieves Gómez Aguilar & Nieves Carrera Pena, 2006. "Evidencia empírica sobre el efecto de la duración del contrato en la calidad de la auditoría: análisis de las medidas de retención y rotación obligatoria de auditores," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 30(2), pages 283-316, May.
    9. Feng Chen & Songlan Peng & Shuang Xue & Zhifeng Yang & Feiteng Ye, 2016. "Do Audit Clients Successfully Engage in Opinion Shopping? Partner‐Level Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 79-112, March.
    10. Clive Lennox, 1999. "Non-audit fees, disclosure and audit quality," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 239-252.
    11. Efstathios KIRKOS, 2012. "Predicting Auditor Switches By Applying Data Mining," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 7(3(21)/ Fa), pages 246-261.
    12. Wendy Green & Robert Czernkowski & Yi Wang, 2009. "Special treatment regulation in China: potential unintended consequences," Asian Review of Accounting, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 17(3), pages 198-211, September.
    13. Lennox, Clive, 2000. "Do companies successfully engage in opinion-shopping? Evidence from the UK," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 321-337, June.
    14. Zvi Singer & Jing Zhang, 2022. "Do companies try to conceal financial misstatements through auditor shopping?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1-2), pages 140-180, January.
    15. Craswell, Allen & Stokes, Donald J. & Laughton, Janet, 2002. "Auditor independence and fee dependence," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 253-275, June.
    16. Park, Gitae & Lee, Ho-Young, 2018. "Opportunistic behaviors of credit rating agencies and bond issuers," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 39-59.
    17. John Dunn & David Hillier & Andrew Marshall, 1999. "The market reaction to auditor resignations," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 95-108.
    18. Choi, Sunhwa & Choi, Youn-Sik & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Lee, Woo-Jong, 2015. "The impact of mandatory versus voluntary auditor switches on stock liquidity: Some Korean evidence," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 100-116.
    19. Tang Yuejun, 2011. "Audit fees, motivation of avoiding loss and opinion shopping," China Finance Review International, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 1(3), pages 241-261, July.
    20. Guang-Zheng Chen, 2020. "Related Party Transactions and Opinion Shopping," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9.
    21. Anna Alon & Oksana Kim, 2022. "Protectionism through legislative layering: Implications for auditors and investors," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(3), pages 363-383, September.
    22. Peter J. Carey & Marshall A. Geiger & Brendan T. O’Connell, 2008. "Costs Associated With Going‐Concern‐Modified Audit Opinions: An Analysis of the Australian Audit Market," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 44(1), pages 61-81, March.
    23. Kalelkar, Rachana, 2016. "Audit committee diligence around initial audit engagement," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 59-67.
    24. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José A. Gonzalo, 2019. "Trusting/Distrusting Auditors’ Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.

    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:eee:jappol:v:14:y:1995:i:3:p:179-201. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccpubpol .

    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.