Author
Abstract
The authors of this provocative study apply commonly used audit quality surrogate measures to a large and unique set of financial and other data on statutory audits of small private companies in Sweden. The paper has received unparalleled attention by the financial press and the PCAOB for its presumed support for regulatory intervention in standards for U.S. public company audits. In this Discussant Comment, I review the paper's content, analyze its predictive validity, and discuss its multiple implications plus, following Conference instructions, I provide constructive suggestions for improvements. Based on predictive validity analysis, I conclude that engagement partner assignment strategy is an important and acknowledged omitted variable that affects the study's internal validity via both the independent variable (partner's prior performance measure) and the dependent variable (borrower's cost of debt capital). The omission also affects construct validities and, if audit firms are applying a plausible assignment strategy, then interpretation of the study's main results would be reversed. Finally, the lack of a standards intervention noted by the authors and the extreme size and other differences between audits of Swedish private companies and U.S. public companies impair external validity and generalization to the U.S. intervention. As to improvements, I suggest that the authors (i) ask Swedish lenders to validate their presumed use of partner performance ratings in determining a borrower's interest rate, and (ii) ask Swedish Big 4 audit firms to provide a few internal partner performance ratings for comparison with the external performance measures used in the study. This two†pronged, multimethod approach might confirm or deny critical assumptions underlying the present study and may substantively inform standards setters, evidence†based standards, and fellow researchers about the validity of commonly applied surrogates for audit quality and the study's stated conclusion.
Suggested Citation
William R. Kinney, 2015.
"Discussion of “Does the Identity of Engagement Partner Matter? An Analysis of Audit Partner Reporting Decisionsâ€,"
Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 1479-1488, December.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:coacre:v:32:y:2015:i:4:p:1479-1488
DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12166
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Guangming Gong & Liang Xiao & Si Xu & Xun Gong, 2019.
"Do Bond Investors Care About Engagement Auditors’ Negative Experiences? Evidence from China,"
Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 779-806, September.
- Marcus M. Doxey & James G. Lawson & Thomas J. Lopez & Quinn T. Swanquist, 2021.
"Do Investors Care Who Did the Audit? Evidence from Form AP,"
Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1741-1782, December.
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:coacre:v:32:y:2015:i:4:p:1479-1488. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.