IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/operea/v21y2021i3d10.1007_s12351-019-00491-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal dynamic auditing based on game theory

Author

Listed:
  • Nikolaos Anastasopoulos

    (Hellenic Open University)

  • Dimitrios Asteriou

    (Oxford Brookes University)

Abstract

A dynamic model based on game-theory is proposed to address the problem of fraud detection in auditing under non-linear payoff functions. Non-linearity is introduced by incorporating learning and sympathy effects in the audit process. It is proven that the audit/fraud detection game between two new engagement parties has a unique mixed strategy equilibrium, between an experienced auditor and a client has a unique pure strategy equilibrium, whereas in the long-run the game converges to a pure strategy equilibrium. In addition to this, to ensure an acceptable level of quality in the audit process, a closed form formula used to estimate the optimal auditor’s replacement time is extracted. The validity of the proposed scheme is tested on empirical data and modeling results comply with the International Standard of Auditing that requires the key audit partner to be rotated after a predefined period.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikolaos Anastasopoulos & Dimitrios Asteriou, 2021. "Optimal dynamic auditing based on game theory," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 1887-1912, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:operea:v:21:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s12351-019-00491-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s12351-019-00491-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12351-019-00491-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12351-019-00491-3?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. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David, 1998. "Learning in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 631-639, May.
    2. Anastasopoulos, Nikolaos P. & Anastasopoulos, Markos P., 2012. "The evolutionary dynamics of audit," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 469-476.
    3. Jenkins, David S. & Velury, Uma, 2008. "Does auditor tenure influence the reporting of conservative earnings?," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 115-132.
    4. Sattar A. Mansi & William F. Maxwell & Darius P. Miller, 2004. "Does Auditor Quality and Tenure Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 755-793, September.
    5. Evelyn Patterson & James Noel, 2003. "Audit Strategies and Multiple Fraud Opportunities of Misreporting and Defalcation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 519-549, September.
    6. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles, Josep Ma, 2015. "Audit firm tenure and independence: A comprehensive investigation of audit qualifications in Spain," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 82-93.
    7. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 1998. "The Theory of Learning in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061945, April.
    8. Cook, J. & Hatherly, D. & Nadeau, L. & Thomas, L. C., 1997. "Does cooperation in auditing matter? A comparison of a non-cooperative and a cooperative game model of auditing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 470-482, December.
    9. Ann Vanstraelen, 2000. "Impact of renewable long-term audit mandates on audit quality," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 419-442.
    10. Paul J. Beck & Martin G. H. Wu, 2006. "Learning by Doing and Audit Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 1-30, March.
    11. Neil Fargher & Ho-Young Lee & Vivek Mande, 2008. "The effect of audit partner tenure on client managers' accounting discretion," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(2), pages 161-186, January.
    12. Prajit K. Dutta, 1999. "Strategies and Games: Theory and Practice," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262041693, April.
    13. Stanley, Jonathan D. & Todd DeZoort, F., 2007. "Audit firm tenure and financial restatements: An analysis of industry specialization and fee effects," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 131-159.
    14. Andrew B. Jackson & Michael Moldrich & Peter Roebuck, 2008. "Mandatory audit firm rotation and audit quality," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(5), pages 420-437, May.
    15. Laitinen, Erkki K. & Laitinen, Teija, 2015. "A probability tree model of audit quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(2), pages 665-677.
    16. Corbella, Silvano & Florio, Cristina & Gotti, Giorgio & Mastrolia, Stacy A., 2015. "Audit firm rotation, audit fees and audit quality: The experience of Italian public companies," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 46-66.
    17. Li, Dan, 2010. "Does auditor tenure affect accounting conservatism? Further evidence," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 226-241, June.
    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. Anastasopoulos, Nikolaos P. & Anastasopoulos, Markos P., 2012. "The evolutionary dynamics of audit," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 469-476.
    2. Florio, Cristina, 2024. "A structured literature review of empirical research on mandatory auditor rotation," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Persefoni Polychronidou & George Drogalas & Ioannis Tampakoudis, 2020. "Mandatory rotation of audit firms and auditors in Greece," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 17(2), pages 141-154, September.
    5. Patrick Velte & Carl-Christian Freidank, 2015. "The link between in- and external rotation of the auditor and the quality of financial accounting and external audit," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 225-246, October.
    6. Patrick Velte, 2012. "External rotation of the auditor," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 81-91, September.
    7. Firth, Michael & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2012. "How Do Various Forms of Auditor Rotation Affect Audit Quality? Evidence from China," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 109-138.
    8. TINA M. Jose Vega & Dennis M. López, 2012. "Evaluating The Effect Of Industry Specialist Duration On Audit Quality And Audit Fees," Working Papers 0023, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    9. Dassiou, X. & Glycopantis, D., 2019. "The importance of reputation in the auditing of companies: A game theory analysis," Working Papers 19/01, Department of Economics, City University London.
    10. Jeong-Bon Kim & Byron Song & Judy Tsui, 2013. "Auditor size, tenure, and bank loan pricing," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 75-99, January.
    11. Chi, Wuchun & Wang, Chenchin, 2010. "Accounting conservatism in a setting of Information Asymmetry between majority and minority shareholders," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 465-489, December.
    12. Brian Bratten & Monika Causholli & Thomas C. Omer, 2019. "Audit Firm Tenure, Bank Complexity, and Financial Reporting Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 295-325, March.
    13. Seyed Mahmoud Hosseinniakani & Helena Inacio & Rui Mota, 2014. "A Review on Audit Quality Factors," International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, vol. 4(2), pages 243-254, April.
    14. Corbella, Silvano & Florio, Cristina & Gotti, Giorgio & Mastrolia, Stacy A., 2015. "Audit firm rotation, audit fees and audit quality: The experience of Italian public companies," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 46-66.
    15. Casterella, Jeffrey R. & Johnston, Derek, 2013. "Can the academic literature contribute to the debate over mandatory audit firm rotation?," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 108-116.
    16. Galbiati, Marco & Soramäki, Kimmo, 2011. "An agent-based model of payment systems," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 859-875, June.
    17. Ianni, A., 2002. "Reinforcement learning and the power law of practice: some analytical results," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 203, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    18. ,, 2011. "Manipulative auction design," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(2), May.
    19. Benaïm, Michel & Hofbauer, Josef & Hopkins, Ed, 2009. "Learning in games with unstable equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1694-1709, July.
    20. Dieter Balkenborg & Rosemarie Nagel, 2016. "An Experiment on Forward vs. Backward Induction: How Fairness and Level k Reasoning Matter," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 378-408, August.

    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:spr:operea:v:21:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s12351-019-00491-3. 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.