IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v33y2016i1p341-377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is the Relationship Between Audit Partner Busyness and Audit Quality?

Author

Listed:
  • John Goodwin
  • Donghui Wu

Abstract

Contemporaneous studies generally find a negative relationship between audit partner busyness (APB), measured as the number of clients in an audit partner's portfolio, and audit quality. Their argument is that a busy partner does not devote sufficient time to properly audit his average client. Contrary to these studies, we argue that when busyness is optimally chosen by the partner, in equilibrium, there is no causal relationship between APB and audit quality. Using Australian data for the 1999–2010 period, we show that APB is not reliably linked to audit quality, consistent with this equilibrium theory. We argue that causality can be ascribed to the APB†audit quality relationship when accounting scandals exogenously shocked the Australian audit market during the 2002–04 period and APB likely deviated from optimum levels. Supporting this disequilibrium view, we find that higher APB reduces a partner's propensity to issue first†time going†concern opinions during this period. Our evidence highlights the importance of the equilibrium condition in testing empirical associations between audit outcomes and endogenous auditor attributes, and shows that the detrimental effect of APB on audit quality is not as pervasive as contemporaneous studies suggest.

Suggested Citation

  • John Goodwin & Donghui Wu, 2016. "What is the Relationship Between Audit Partner Busyness and Audit Quality?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 341-377, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:33:y:2016:i:1:p:341-377
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12129
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12129?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Singh, Harjinder & Sultana, Nigar & Islam, Ariful & Singh, Abhijeet, 2022. "Busy auditors, financial reporting timeliness and quality," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3).
    2. Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan & Solomon Opare & Zahir Ahmed, 2024. "Does Audit Committee Busyness Affect Financial Restatement? Evidence from Audit Committee Share Ownership," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 34(1), pages 29-54, March.
    3. Sarowar Hossain & Jeff Coulton & Jenny Jing Wang, 2023. "Client Importance and Audit Quality at the Individual Audit Partner, Office, and Firm Levels," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(2), pages 650-696, June.
    4. Kim, Hyonok & Fukukawa, Hironori & Routledge, James, 2020. "A comparison of management and auditor going concern risk disclosure: Evidence from regulatory change in Japan," Working Paper Series 234, Management Innovation Research Center, School of Business Administration, Hitotsubashi University Business School.
    5. Masoud Azizkhani & Sarowar Hossain & Mai Nguyen, 2023. "Effects of audit committee chair characteristics on auditor choice, audit fee and audit quality," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3675-3707, September.
    6. MohammadRezaei, Fakhroddin & Mohd-Saleh, Norman & Ahmed, Kamran, 2018. "Audit Firm Ranking, Audit Quality and Audit Fees: Examining Conflicting Price Discrimination Views," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 295-313.
    7. Tong, Lijing & Wu, Bin & Zhang, Min, 2022. "Do auditors’ early-life socioeconomic opportunities improve audit quality? Evidence from China," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    8. Dong, Bei & Nash, Jonathan & Xu, Le, 2022. "Indirect effects of regulatory change: Evidence from the acceleration of the 10-K filing deadline," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    9. Sarowar Hossain & Jenny Jing Wang, 2023. "Abnormal audit fees and audit quality: Australian evidence," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 48(3), pages 596-624, August.
    10. Jin Suk Heo & Soo Young Kwon & Hun‐Tong Tan, 2021. "Auditors' Responses to Workload Imbalance and the Impact on Audit Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 338-375, March.
    11. Mohammad Abedalrahman Alhmood & Hasnah Shaari & Redhwan Al-dhamari, 2022. "Audit Partner Characteristics and Real Earnings Management Practices in Jordan," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 185-200.
    12. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:450-461 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Rajat Deb & Mukesh Nepal & Sourav Chakraborty, 2023. "IFRS and Audit Quality: A Systematic Literature Review," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 48(1), pages 118-138, February.
    14. Murat Ocak & Bekir Emre Kurtulmuş & Emrah Arıoğlu, 2024. "Do Individual Auditors from More Religious Hometowns Enhance Audit Quality? Evidence from an Islamic Country," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 439-481, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Sakthi Mahenthiran & Berta Silva Palavecinos & Hanns De La Fuente-Mella, 2020. "The Effect of Board Links, Audit Partner Tenure, and Related Party Transactions on Misstatements: Evidence from Chile," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, 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:wly:coacre:v:33:y:2016:i:1:p:341-377. 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.