IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/euract/v17y2008i4p641-666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discretionary Accruals and Auditor Behaviour in Code-Law Contexts: An Application to Failing Spanish Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Arnedo Ajona
  • Fermin Lizarraga Dallo
  • Santiago Sanchez Alegria

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between earnings management and auditor behaviour in the pre-bankrupt client segment of the Spanish audit market. As proxies for auditor behaviour, we use type of audit firm (Big N/non-Big N) and type of audit report. In contrast to the USA, audit reports in Spain often include modifications other than a going-concern opinion. This allows us to study the relationship in more detail than is possible with US data. The results of our study show that discretionary accruals are negatively related to going-concern opinions but are positively related to reports modified for reasons other than going-concern problems. However, unlike Butler et al. (Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37, pp. 139-165, 2004) the negative relationship is explained not by liquidity survival tactics but by auditor conservatism. We find this conservatism not only in the value of discretionary accruals but also in the qualifications that accompany a going concern. In these cases GAAP violations have a much greater income effect and a stronger relationship with the reversal of manipulation accumulated over the years than with the manipulation introduced during the last year. Finally, our results suggest that Big N differentiation in a code-law country is context-specific and depends on the business risk parameter of the 'audit risk model'. In particular, for high-risk firms, Big N auditors show a significantly lower level of discretionary accruals and a greater propensity to issue a going-concern opinion.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Arnedo Ajona & Fermin Lizarraga Dallo & Santiago Sanchez Alegria, 2008. "Discretionary Accruals and Auditor Behaviour in Code-Law Contexts: An Application to Failing Spanish Firms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 641-666.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:17:y:2008:i:4:p:641-666
    DOI: 10.1080/09638180802172479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09638180802172479
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09638180802172479?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Muñoz-Izquierdo, Nora & Segovia-Vargas, María Jesús & Camacho-Miñano, María-del-Mar & Pascual-Ezama, David, 2019. "Explaining the causes of business failure using audit report disclosures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 403-414.
    2. Jeroen van Raak & Erik Peek & Roger Meuwissen & Caren Schelleman, 2020. "The effect of audit market structure on audit quality and audit pricing in the private‐client market," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3-4), pages 456-488, March.
    3. Anne Stafford & Basilio Acerete & Pam Stapleton, 2010. "Making concessions: Political, commercial and regulatory tensions in accounting for European roads PPPs," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 473-493.
    4. Katsuhiko Muramiya & Tomomi Takada, 2010. "Auditor Conservatism, Abnormal Accruals, and Going Concern Opinions," Discussion Papers 2010-64, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    5. Ann Vanstraelen & Caren Schelleman, 2017. "Auditing private companies: what do we know?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 565-584, July.
    6. Ammar Abid & Muhammad Shaique & Muhammad Anwar ul Haq, 2018. "Do Big Four Auditors Always Provide Higher Audit Quality? Evidence from Pakistan," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-22, June.
    7. Gong, Di & Huizinga, Harry & Li, Tianshi & Zhu, Jigao, 2023. "Goodhart’s law in China: Bank branching regulation and window dressing," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    8. Cristina Fuentes & Manuel Illueca & Maria Pucheta-Martinez, 2015. "External investigations and disciplinary sanctions against auditors: the impact on audit quality," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 313-347, August.

    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:taf:euract:v:17:y:2008:i:4:p:641-666. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REAR20 .

    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.