IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v8y2019i2p156.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Addition of Explicit Clarification of Auditor Independence Statement to the Auditor’s Report Matter to Equity Analysts?

Author

Listed:
  • Xia Zhang
  • Kwadwo Ofori-Mensah

Abstract

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) adopted a new auditing standard to enhance the relevance and usefulness of the auditor’s report. One of the changes introduced in the new reporting model is the addition of a statement that explicitly clarifies the auditor’s independence (AS 3101.09.g). We administer a survey to investigate whether explicitly clarifying the auditor’s independence in the auditor’s report affects equity analysts’ perceptions of auditor independence, perceptions of financial reporting reliability, and their judgment when it comes to making stock recommendations to clients. A total of 123 equity analysts are recruited via Qualtrics for the study. The findings of the survey provide evidence that corroborates the position of the PCAOB that explicit clarification of auditor independence provides relevant information useful to public users such as equity analysts. Our study is the first to evaluate equity analysts’ perceptions about auditor independence using the new PCAOB auditor reporting model regarding the explicit clarification of auditor independence in the auditor’s report. Our study contributes to research, practice, and policy.Â

Suggested Citation

  • Xia Zhang & Kwadwo Ofori-Mensah, 2019. "Does the Addition of Explicit Clarification of Auditor Independence Statement to the Auditor’s Report Matter to Equity Analysts?," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(2), pages 156-156, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/15345/9525
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/15345
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brant E. Christensen & Steven M. Glover & Thomas C. Omer & Marjorie K. Shelley, 2016. "Understanding Audit Quality: Insights from Audit Professionals and Investors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(4), pages 1648-1684, December.
    2. Richard A. Posner, 1974. "Theories of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 5(2), pages 335-358, Autumn.
    3. Paul J. Coram & Theodore J. Mock & Jerry L. Turner & Glen L. Gray, 2011. "The Communicative Value of the Auditor's Report," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(3), pages 235-252, September.
    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. Mahmoud Elmarzouky & Khaled Hussainey & Tarek Abdelfattah, 2022. "Do Key Audit Matters Signal Corporate Bankruptcy?," Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Faculty of Accounting and Management Information Systems, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 21(3), pages 315-334, September.

    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. Magnus Söderberg, 2008. "Uncertainty and regulatory outcome in the Swedish electricity distribution sector," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 79-94, February.
    2. Simshauser, Paul, 2024. "On static vs. dynamic line ratings in renewable energy zones," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    3. Lehr, William & Sicker, Douglas, 2017. "Communications Act 2021," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169478, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    4. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    5. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8527 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Cory Cassell & Emily Hunt & Gans Narayanamoorthy & Stephen P. Rowe, 2019. "A hidden risk of auditor industry specialization: evidence from the financial crisis," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 891-926, September.
    7. Oleh Pasko, 2018. "Theories of Regulation in the Context of Modern Practice of Accounting Regulation," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 2, pages 37-46, June.
    8. Elbert Dijkgraaf & Raymond Gradus, 2007. "Explaining Sunday Shop Policies," De Economist, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 207-219, June.
    9. Daniel J. Smith & Macy Scheck, 2023. "Examining the public interest rationale for regulating whiskey with the pure food and drugs act," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 85-122, July.
    10. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    11. Bruno Deffains & Dominique Demougin, 2023. "Capitation taxes and the regulation of professional services," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 167-193, April.
    12. Adam Samborski, 2022. "The Energy Company Business Model and the European Green Deal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, June.
    13. Jonathan Maurice, 2019. "When environmental accounting choices are not only opportunistic: the case of environmental accounting provisions [Quand les choix comptables liés à l’environnement ne sont pas qu’opportunistes : c," Post-Print hal-02128271, HAL.
    14. William M. Shobe & Dallas Burtraw, 2012. "Rethinking Environmental Federalism In A Warming World," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(04), pages 1-33.
    15. Krisztina Antal-Pomázi, 2020. "Corporate Interest in Antitrust Enforcement," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 10912816, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    16. Simshauser, P., 2020. "Merchant utilities and boundaries of the firm: vertical integration in energy-only markets," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2039, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Silvia Sacchetti, 2015. "Inclusive and Exclusive Social Preferences: A Deweyan Framework to Explain Governance Heterogeneity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(3), pages 473-485, February.
    18. Harold Mulherin, J., 2007. "Measuring the costs and benefits of regulation: Conceptual issues in securities markets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 421-437, June.
    19. J. Rosser & Marina Rosser, 2008. "A critique of the new comparative economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 21(1), pages 81-97, March.
    20. Kristina Peštović & Nikola Milicevic & Nenad Djokic & Ines Djokic, 2021. "Audit Service Quality Perceived by Customers: Formative Modelling Measurement Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
    21. Ming-Hua Liu & Dimitris Margaritis & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The impact of regulation on credit card market competition: evidence from Australia," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 47(3), pages 669-689, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:jfr:afr111:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:156. 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: Sciedu Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.