IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/accper/v12y2013i2p141-164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has SOX Enhanced Non–Big 4 Auditors' Ability to Deal with Client Pressure?

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer L. Kao
  • Yan Li
  • Wenjun Zhang

Abstract

We investigate whether non–Big 4 auditors have enhanced their ability to resist client pressure over accrual reporting following the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX). Regressing abnormal accruals on proxies for economic bonding, we find that changes in the association, defined as (Post–Pre), are significantly negative, implying an improvement in auditor independence after SOX. Among non–Big 4 auditors, only Tier 3 auditors compromised reporting objectivity before SOX, but neither Tier 2 nor Tier 3 auditors yielded to client pressure after SOX. Evidence that these two groups of non–Big 4 auditors differ in the way they cope with client pressure in a loose regulatory regime highlights the importance of assessing the efficacy of SOX separately for subsets of auditors and contributes to an understanding of the underresearched, but inherently important, segment of the audit market served by non–Big 4 auditors. Further analysis indicates that the low pre‐SOX audit quality observed in the full sample is driven by non–PCAOB registrants. Résumé Les auteures se demandent si les auditeurs n'appartenant pas aux Quatre Grands ont amélioré leur capacité de résister aux pressions exercées par les clients pour la comptabilisation de régularisations à la suite de l'adoption de la Loi Sarbanes‐Oxley (SOX). En procédant à une analyse de régression des régularisations anormales sur des variables substitutives à la dépendance économique par rapport au client, les auteures constatent que les changements de nature du lien, défini comme étant antérieur ou postérieur à l'adoption de la SOX, sont particulièrement négatifs, ce qui suppose une amélioration dans l'indépendance de l'auditeur après l'adoption de la SOX. Parmi les auditeurs n'appartenant pas aux Quatre Grands, seuls les auditeurs de troisième échelon avaient compromis l'objectivité de l'information avant l'adoption de la SOX, mais ni les auditeurs de deuxième échelon ni les auditeurs de troisième échelon n'ont cédé aux pressions des clients après l'adoption de la SOX. Les données observées quant à la différence qu'affichent les deux groupes d'auditeurs n'appartenant pas aux Quatre Grands dans la façon de réagir aux pressions des clients dans le cadre d'un régime de réglementation indulgent mettent en relief l'importance d'une évaluation distincte de l'efficacité de la SOX pour les sous‐ensembles d'auditeurs et contribuent à une meilleure compréhension d'un segment du marché de l'audit négligé par les chercheurs, et pourtant d'une importance fondamentale : celui du marché servi par les auditeurs n'appartenant pas aux Quatre Grands. Une analyse plus poussée indique que la faible qualité de l'audit avant l'adoption de la SOX observée dans l'ensemble de l'échantillon est le fait des cabinets non inscrits au PCAOB.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer L. Kao & Yan Li & Wenjun Zhang, 2013. "Has SOX Enhanced Non–Big 4 Auditors' Ability to Deal with Client Pressure?," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 141-164, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:accper:v:12:y:2013:i:2:p:141-164
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3838.12012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12012
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3838.12012?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francis, Jennifer & LaFond, Ryan & Olsson, Per & Schipper, Katherine, 2005. "The market pricing of accruals quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 295-327, June.
    2. Francis, J & Philbrick, D & Schipper, K, 1994. "Shareholder Litigation And Corporate Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 137-164.
    3. David F. Larcker & Scott A. Richardson, 2004. "Fees Paid to Audit Firms, Accrual Choices, and Corporate Governance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 625-658, June.
    4. Connie L. Becker & Mark L. Defond & James Jiambalvo & K.R. Subramanyam, 1998. "The Effect of Audit Quality on Earnings Management," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, March.
    5. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Jere R. Francis & Dechun Wang, 2008. "The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality around the World," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 157-191, March.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Paul Hribar & D. Craig Nichols, 2007. "The Use of Unsigned Earnings Quality Measures in Tests of Earnings Management," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 1017-1053, December.
    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. Daniela Hohenfels & Reiner Quick, 2020. "Non-audit services and audit quality: evidence from Germany," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 959-1007, October.
    2. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Dang, Man & Puwanenthiren, Premkanth & Truong, Cameron & Henry, Darren & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2022. "Audit quality and seasoned equity offerings methods," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Li, Chan & Raman, K.K. & Sun, Lili & Wu, Da, 2017. "The effect of ambiguity in an auditing standard on auditor independence: Evidence from nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-51.
    7. 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.
    8. Baig , Ahmed & Blau , Ben & Hao, Jie, 2020. "Accounting Information Quality and the Clustering of Stock Prices," American Business Review, Pompea College of Business, University of New Haven, vol. 23(2), pages 182-210, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Le, Ha Thi Thu & Tran, Ha Giang & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2021. "Audit quality, accruals quality and the cost of equity in an emerging market: Evidence from Vietnam," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    11. .Reiner Quick & Matthias Sattler, 2011. "Beeinträchtigen Beratungsleistungen die Urteilsfreiheit des Abschlussprüfers? Zum Einfluss von Beratungshonoraren auf diskretionäre Periodenabgrenzungen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 63(4), pages 310-343, June.
    12. Christian Leuz & Peter D. Wysocki, 2016. "The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 525-622, May.
    13. Matthew Notbohm & Katherine Campbell & Adam R. Smedema & Tianming Zhang, 2019. "Management’s personal ideology and financial reporting quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 521-571, February.
    14. Chee Lim & David Ding & Charlie Charoenwong, 2013. "Non-audit fees, institutional monitoring, and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 343-384, August.
    15. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    16. Chang, Yu-Shan & Chiang, Chia-Yu & Liu, Li-Lin (Sunny) & Xie, Xinmei (Lucy), 2019. "Audit partner independence and business affiliation: evidence from Taiwan," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Alzoubi, Ebraheem Saleem Salem, 2018. "Audit quality, debt financing, and earnings management: Evidence from Jordan," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 69-84.
    18. 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).
    19. Nezlobin, Alexander & Sloan, Richard G. & Giedt, Jenny Zha, 2022. "Construct validity in accruals quality research," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112165, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. 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.

    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:wly:accper:v:12:y:2013:i:2:p:141-164. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3838 .

    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.