IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/raaexx/v20y2013i2p199-222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The association between institutional ownership and audit properties

Author

Listed:
  • Sam Han
  • Tony Kang
  • Lynn Rees

Abstract

We are interested in channels through which institutional ownership affects corporate governance and in particular whether financial statement audit is one of them. We hypothesize that institutional investors can influence corporate policy to employ governance mechanisms that reduce their monitoring costs. Our evidence shows that firms are more likely to hire a Big 4 auditor (our proxy for audit quality) when long-term institutional ownership is high, suggesting that long-term institutional investors view high-quality audits as a viable means of improving corporate governance while reducing their direct monitoring costs. We find no association between auditor choice and short-term institutional ownership. Next, we find that auditors charge higher fees (our proxy for audit risk) when short-term institutional ownership is high, consistent with short-term investors creating greater incentives for managers to act myopically. We find no association between audit fees and long-term institutional ownership. Taken together, our evidence suggests that long-term institutional investors demand higher quality audits to enhance corporate monitoring, and that short-term institutional ownership is positively associated with higher audit risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Sam Han & Tony Kang & Lynn Rees, 2013. "The association between institutional ownership and audit properties," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 199-222, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:raaexx:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:199-222
    DOI: 10.1080/16081625.2012.748449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/16081625.2012.748449
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/16081625.2012.748449?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. King, Tao-Hsien Dolly & Wen, Min-Ming, 2011. "Shareholder governance, bondholder governance, and managerial risk-taking," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 512-531, March.
    2. Jan Barton, 2005. "Who Cares about Auditor Reputation?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 549-586, 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. Hamdi Ben-Nasr, 2015. "Government Ownership and Dividend Policy: Evidence from Newly Privatised Firms," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5-6), pages 665-704, June.
    2. Jeong-Bon Kim & Mikhail Pevzner & Xiangang Xin, 2019. "Foreign institutional ownership and auditor choice: Evidence from worldwide institutional ownership," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, February.
    3. Pei-Gi Shu & Tsung-Kang Chen & Wen-Jye Hung, 2015. "Audit duration quality and client credit risk," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 137-162, June.

    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. Xueyan Dong & Jingyu Gao & Sunny Li Sun & Kangtao Ye, 2021. "Doing extreme by doing good," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 291-315, March.
    2. Melinda Timea FÜLÖP & Mirela-Oana PINTEA, 2014. "Effects Of The New Regulation And Corporate Governance Of The Audit Profession," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 4, pages 545-554, July.
    3. Khine Kyaw & Sirimon Treepongkaruna & Pornsit Jiraporn, 2021. "Stakeholder engagement and firms' innovation: Evidence from LGBT‐supportive policies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1285-1298, July.
    4. Mehdi Nekhili & Fahim Javed & Haithem Nagati, 2022. "Audit Partner Gender, Leadership and Ethics: The Case of Earnings Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 233-260, May.
    5. Lennox, Clive & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2010. "Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of audit firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 84-103, February.
    6. Ghosh, Chinmoy & Huang, Di & Nguyen, Nam H. & Phan, Hieu V., 2023. "CEO tournament incentives and corporate debt contracting," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Hilary, Gilles & Lennox, Clive, 2005. "The credibility of self-regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession's peer review program," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-3), pages 211-229, December.
    9. Ans Kolk & Paolo Perego, 2010. "Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: an international investigation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 182-198, March.
    10. Andrew Carrothers & Seungjin Han & Jiaping Qiu, 2012. "CEO Pay with Perks," Department of Economics Working Papers 2012-05, McMaster University.
    11. Kam-Wah Lai & Ferdinand A. Gul, 2021. "Do failed auditors receive lower audit fees from continuing engagements?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1159-1190, April.
    12. Casey, Ryan J. & Kaplan, Steven E. & Pinello, Arianna Spina, 2015. "Do auditors constrain benchmark beating behavior to a greater extent in the fourth versus interim quarters?," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-10.
    13. Joseph Weber & Michael Willenborg & Jieying Zhang, 2008. "Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 941-972, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Gupta, Kartick & Krishnamurti, Chandrasekhar, 2018. "Do macroeconomic conditions and oil prices influence corporate risk-taking?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 65-86.
    16. Cao, Viet Nga & Pham, Anh Viet, 2021. "Behavioral spillover between firms with shared auditors: The monitoring role of capital market investors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    17. Ryan Krause & Michael C. Withers, 2022. "Propulsions Toward What Capes? Testing Normative Theory Through a Panorama of Consequences," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 317-333, November.
    18. Felix J. Lopez-Iturriaga & Emilio Lopez-Millan, 2015. "Institutional Framework, Corporate Ownership Structure, and R&D Investment: An International Analysis," HSE Working papers WP BRP 36/MAN/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    19. Nelson, Karen K. & Price, Richard A. & Rountree, Brian R., 2008. "The market reaction to Arthur Andersen's role in the Enron scandal: Loss of reputation or confounding effects?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2-3), pages 279-293, December.
    20. Ken Y. Chen & Jian Zhou, 2007. "Audit Committee, Board Characteristics, and Auditor Switch Decisions by Andersen's Clients," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1085-1117, December.

    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:raaexx:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:199-222. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/raae20 .

    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.