IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v155y2019i2d10.1007_s10551-017-3496-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Auditors Reflect the True Image of the Company Contrary to the Clients’ Interests? An Artificial Intelligence Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Agustín J. Sánchez-Medina

    (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)

  • Félix Blázquez-Santana

    (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)

  • Jesús B. Alonso

    (University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)

Abstract

In recent years, after various scandals, the role of auditors has been called into question, even casting doubt on whether their reports reliably reflect the true financial situation of the auditee, especially when this situation is not good. Normative changes in the way auditors have to rate certain questions provide a good opportunity to study this problem. These changes have acquired great relevance among the factors involved in studying audit quality. Thus, the present study analyzed the effect of the normative change that took place in Spain in December 2010, related to opinions modified for going-concern uncertainties. Until that date, the auditor’s uncertainty about the company’s going-concern status led to a qualified opinion. However, under the new regulation, it became an opinion that included an explanatory paragraph stating the reasons for concern, which was considered less serious. In all, 152 small- and medium-sized enterprises that had begun bankruptcy proceedings were studied. Expert systems were used for their analysis, based on classification trees assembled through boosting and bagging. In addition, the logistic regression was used as baseline to compare previous methods. The main result obtained was that a change in the norm that catalogs the going-concern issue as less serious made auditors more likely to report this situation, thus questioning the audit quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Agustín J. Sánchez-Medina & Félix Blázquez-Santana & Jesús B. Alonso, 2019. "Do Auditors Reflect the True Image of the Company Contrary to the Clients’ Interests? An Artificial Intelligence Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 529-545, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:155:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-017-3496-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-017-3496-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-017-3496-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-017-3496-4?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. Anne-Katrin Wickboldt & Jacob Bercovitch & Selwyn Piramuthu, 1999. "Dynamics of International Mediation: Analysis Using Machine Learning Methods," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 17(1), pages 49-68, February.
    2. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    3. Bates, Timothy, 2005. "Analysis of young, small firms that have closed: delineating successful from unsuccessful closures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 343-358, May.
    4. Yang Xu & Elizabeth Carson & Neil Fargher & Liwei Jiang, 2013. "Responses by Australian auditors to the global financial crisis," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 53(1), pages 301-338, March.
    5. Jong†Hag Choi & Jeong†Bon Kim & Xiaohong Liu & Dan A. Simunic, 2008. "Audit Pricing, Legal Liability Regimes, and Big 4 Premiums: Theory and Cross†country Evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 55-99, March.
    6. Alfaro, Esteban & Gamez, Matias & García, Noelia, 2013. "adabag: An R Package for Classification with Boosting and Bagging," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 54(i02).
    7. 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.
    8. Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R. & Rajgopal, Shiva, 2005. "The economic implications of corporate financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-3), pages 3-73, December.
    9. Mo, Phyllis L.L. & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2015. "Auditors' going Concern Reporting in the pre- and post-bankruptcy Law Eras: Chinese Affiliates of Big 4 Versus Local Auditors," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-30.
    10. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    11. Jennifer C. Ireland, 2003. "An Empirical Investigation of Determinants of Audit Reports in the UK," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7‐8), pages 975-1016, September.
    12. Mark L. DeFond & K. Raghunandan & K.R. Subramanyam, 2002. "Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1247-1274, September.
    13. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    14. Boone, Jeff P. & Khurana, Inder K. & Raman, K.K., 2010. "Do the Big 4 and the Second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality?," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 330-352, July.
    15. Edward I. Altman & Gabriele Sabato, 2013. "MODELING CREDIT RISK FOR SMEs: EVIDENCE FROM THE US MARKET," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Oliviero Roggi & Edward I Altman (ed.), Managing and Measuring Risk Emerging Global Standards and Regulations After the Financial Crisis, chapter 9, pages 251-279, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Chan Li, 2009. "Does Client Importance Affect Auditor Independence at the Office Level? Empirical Evidence from Going†Concern Opinions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 201-230, March.
    17. Jennifer C. Ireland, 2003. "An Empirical Investigation of Determinants of Audit Reports in the UK," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30, pages 975-1016.
    18. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    19. Christian Lechner & Michael Dowling, 2003. "Firm networks: external relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 1-26, January.
    20. 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.
    21. WILLIAM HOPWOOD & JAMES C. McKEOWN & JANE F. MUTCHLER, 1994. "A Reexamination of Auditor versus Model Accuracy within the Context of the Going†Concern Opinion Decision," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 409-431, March.
    22. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    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. Maria Ishaque, 2021. "Managing Conflict of Interests in Professional Accounting Firms: A Research Synthesis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 537-555, March.

    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. Ku He & Xiaofei Pan & Gary Tian, 2017. "Legal Liability, Government Intervention, and Auditor Behavior: Evidence from Structural Reform of Audit Firms in China," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 61-95, January.
    2. Dusica STEVCEVSKA SRBINOSKA, 2022. "Audit modifications in emerging markets: The Macedonian Stock Exchange," Romanian Journal of Economics, Institute of National Economy, vol. 55(2(64)), pages 43-69, December.
    3. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    4. Geiger, Marshall A. & Basioudis, Ilias G. & DeLange, Paul, 2022. "The effect of non-audit fees and industry specialization on the prevalence and accuracy of auditor’s going-concern reporting decisions," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    5. Maria Tsipouridou & Charalambos Spathis, 2014. "Audit opinion and earnings management: Evidence from Greece," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 38-54, March.
    6. Inder K. Khurana & Nathan G. Lundstrom & K. K. Raman, 2021. "PCAOB Inspections and the Differential Audit Quality Effect for Big 4 and Non–Big 4 US Auditors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 376-411, March.
    7. Tsipouridou, Maria & Spathis, Charalambos, 2012. "Earnings management and the role of auditors in an unusual IFRS context: The case of Greece," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 62-78.
    8. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    9. Sanoran, Kanyarat (Lek), 2018. "Auditors’ going concern reporting accuracy during and after the global financial crisis," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 164-178.
    10. Nathan R. Berglund, 2020. "Do Client Bankruptcies Preceded by Clean Audit Opinions Damage Auditor Reputation?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1914-1951, September.
    11. Alhababsah, Salem & Alhaj-Ismail, Alaa, 2023. "Does shared tenure between audit committee chair and engagement partner affect audit outcomes? Evidence from the UK," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    12. Chen, Long & Krishnan, Gopal V. & Yu, Wei, 2018. "The relation between audit fee cuts during the global financial crisis and earnings quality and audit quality," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 14-31.
    13. Yihan Guo & Deborah Delaney & Ammad Ahmed, 2020. "Is an Auditor's Propensity to Issue Going Concern Opinions a Valid Measure of Audit Quality?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 30(2), pages 144-153, June.
    14. Kaplan, Steven E. & Williams, David D., 2012. "The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 322-341.
    15. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    16. Xingqiang Du, 2019. "Does CEO-Auditor Dialect Sharing Impair Pre-IPO Audit Quality? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 699-735, May.
    17. Cao, June & Ee, Mong Shan & Hasan, Iftekhar & Huang, He, 2024. "Asymmetric reactions of abnormal audit fees jump to credit rating changes," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    18. Mohamed Khalil & Aydin Ozkan, 2016. "Board Independence, Audit Quality and Earnings Management: Evidence from Egypt," Journal of Emerging Market Finance, Institute for Financial Management and Research, vol. 15(1), pages 84-118, April.
    19. Limei Che & Ole-Kristian Hope & John Christian Langli, 2020. "How Big-4 Firms Improve Audit Quality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4552-4572, October.
    20. 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.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:155:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-017-3496-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.