IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/arapps/v17y2009i3p198-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Special treatment regulation in China: potential unintended consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy Green
  • Robert Czernkowski
  • Yi Wang

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to trace the behaviour of Chinese companies receiving a special treatment (ST) designation in order to determine the extent to which the application of this regulation may have led companies to engage in activities conducive to the removal of the ST designation. In particular, the paper examines evidence of opinion shopping or earnings manipulation by these companies. Design/methodology/approach - Empirical analysis of annual report databases for Chinese‐listed companies, including statistical significance testing relating to ST companies. Findings - Most ST companies have removed the ST status by the third year after the initial ST designation. Compared to non‐ST companies, ST companies losing the ST status are more likely to engage in practices indicating earnings manipulation. Also, compared to non‐ST companies, ST companies are more likely to change auditors after an initial or second year of ST designation. However, while this behaviour suggests opinion shopping, auditor switching for the ST companies is not associated with losses becoming profits nor with improved audit opinions. Research limitations/implications - The results reported in this paper must be considered in light of the limitations inherent in empirical analyses. That is, the relationships identified in this paper are indicative of potential earnings management or audit opinion shopping; however, the study cannot provide the actual reasons for these empirical results. Practical implications - The results suggest the ST regulation did not lead to unintended consequences in terms of auditor switching by ST companies to improve either their reported earnings or their audit opinion. Originality/value - The ST status is unique to China and this paper is the first to report on potential reporting and audit quality implications of this regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:arapps:v:17:y:2009:i:3:p:198-211
    DOI: 10.1108/13217340910991910
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13217340910991910/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13217340910991910/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/13217340910991910?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tong Lu, 2006. "Does Opinion Shopping Impair Auditor Independence and Audit Quality?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 561-583, June.
    2. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yi Jiang & Stewart Jones, 2018. "Corporate distress prediction in China: a machine learning approach," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(4), pages 1063-1109, December.
    2. Kooli, Maher & Zhou, Xiaozhou, 2020. "IPO flipping activity in China and its implications," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    3. Jian Xu & Yue Shang & Weizhen Yu & Feng Liu, 2019. "Intellectual Capital, Technological Innovation and Firm Performance: Evidence from China’s Manufacturing Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    4. CAO, Ning & McGUINNESS, Paul B. & XI, Chao, 2021. "Does securities enforcement improve disclosure quality? An examination of Chinese listed companies' restatement activities," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José A. Gonzalo, 2019. "Trusting/Distrusting Auditors’ Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Clive Lennox, 1999. "Non-audit fees, disclosure and audit quality," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 239-252.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles-Bosch, Josep Maria & Castillo-Merino, David & Martinez-Blasco, Monica, 2017. "An Assessment of the Provisions of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 on Non-audit Services and Audit Firm Tenure: Evidence from Spain," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 251-261.
    11. Smith, Deborah Drummond & Gleason, Kimberly C. & Kannan, Yezen H., 2021. "Auditor liability and excess cash holdings: Evidence from audit fees of foreign incorporated firms," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. José Ramón Sánchez-Serrano & David Alaminos & Francisco García-Lagos & Angela M. Callejón-Gil, 2020. "Predicting Audit Opinion in Consolidated Financial Statements with Artificial Neural Networks," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Lam, Kevin C.K. & Sami, Heibatollah & Zhou, Haiyan, 2013. "Changes in the value relevance of accounting information over time: Evidence from the emerging market of China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 123-135.
    14. Abdullah, Azrul Bin, 2018. "Company-specific characteristics and the choice of hedge accounting for derivatives reporting: Malaysian case," SocArXiv npa6v, Center for Open Science.
    15. Steve Fortin & Ahmad Hammami & Michel Magnan, 2021. "Re‐exploring Fair Value Accounting and Value Relevance: An Examination of Underlying Securities," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 57(2), pages 220-250, June.
    16. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    17. Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan & Solomon Opare & Zahir Ahmed, 2024. "Does Audit Committee Busyness Affect Financial Restatement? Evidence from Audit Committee Share Ownership," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 34(1), pages 29-54, March.
    18. Chang, Yu-Shan & Chiang, Chia-Yu & Liu, Li-Lin (Sunny) & Xie, Xinmei (Lucy), 2019. "Audit partner independence and business affiliation: evidence from Taiwan," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Kristian D. Allee & Daniel D. Wangerin, 2018. "Auditor monitoring and verification in financial contracts: evidence from earnouts and SFAS 141(R)," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1629-1664, December.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auditing; Regulation; China;
    All these keywords.

    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:eme:arapps:v:17:y:2009:i:3:p:198-211. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.