IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v35y2018i1p277-313.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Awareness of SEC Enforcement and Auditor Reporting Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Mark L. Defond
  • Jere R. Francis
  • Nicholas J. Hallman

Abstract

We find that non‐Big 4 audit offices with greater awareness of SEC enforcement are more likely to issue first‐time going‐concern reports to distressed clients; where SEC “awareness” is measured using (i) audit office proximity to SEC regional offices, and (ii) proximity to specific SEC enforcement actions against auditors. We also show that these non‐Big 4 audit offices issue more going‐concern opinions to clients who do not subsequently fail, indicating a conservative bias that reduces the informativeness of audit reports. This conservative reporting bias is also associated with higher audit fees and higher auditor switching rates. These findings are important because non‐Big 4 firms now audit 39 percent of SEC registrants and issue 88 percent of going‐concern audit reports. For Big 4 offices, we find some evidence that awareness of SEC enforcement may improve reporting accuracy by reducing Type II errors (failing to issue a going‐concern report to a company that fails), although the number of cases is small. Les auteurs observent que les bureaux d'audit n'appartenant pas aux Quatre Grands qui possèdent une meilleure connaissance des mécanismes d'application mis en œuvre par la SEC sont davantage susceptibles d'exprimer une première réserve quant à la continuité de l'exploitation à l’égard de clients en difficultés financières — la « connaissance » de ces mécanismes étant mesurée selon i) la proximité du bureau d'audit avec les bureaux régionaux de la SEC et ii) la proximité des bureaux d'audit avec la mise en œuvre de mesures d'application par la SEC à l'encontre d'auditeurs. Les auteurs constatent également que ces bureaux d'audit n'appartenant pas aux Quatre Grands expriment davantage de réserves quant à la continuité de l'exploitation à l’égard de clients qui ne déposent pas leur bilan par la suite, ce qui indique un parti pris de prudence qui réduit la valeur informative des rapports d'audit. Ce parti pris de prudence est également associé à des honoraires d'audit plus élevés et à des taux supérieurs de changements d'auditeurs. Ces constatations sont importantes puisque les cabinets n'appartenant pas aux Quatre Grands se chargent maintenant de l'audit de 39 pour cent des entités inscrites auprès de la SEC et sont responsables de 88 pour cent des réserves exprimées quant à la continuité de l'exploitation. Pour ce qui est des bureaux appartenant aux Quatre Grands, les auteurs relèvent certains données attestant que la connaissance des mécanismes d'application mis en œuvre par la SEC peut améliorer l'exactitude des rapports produits en réduisant les erreurs de type II (consistant à ne pas exprimer de réserve quant à la continuité de l'exploitation à l’égard d'une société qui dépose subséquemment son bilan), bien que le nombre de ces cas soit limité.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark L. Defond & Jere R. Francis & Nicholas J. Hallman, 2018. "Awareness of SEC Enforcement and Auditor Reporting Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 277-313, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:35:y:2018:i:1:p:277-313
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12352
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12352?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. Tianjiao Zhao & Xiang Xiao & Qinghui Dai, 2021. "Transportation Infrastructure Construction and High-Quality Development of Enterprises: Evidence from the Quasi-Natural Experiment of High-Speed Railway Opening in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Ya-Fang Wang, 2020. "New Insights on Audit Quality," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), Democritus University of Thrace (DUTH), Kavala Campus, Greece, vol. 13(1), pages 21-28, April.
    3. Hallman, Nicholas J. & Kartapanis, Antonis & Schmidt, Jaime J., 2022. "How do auditors respond to competition? Evidence from the bidding process," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).
    4. Feng Guo & Chenxi Lin & Adi Masli & Michael S. Wilkins, 2021. "Auditor Responses to Shareholder Activism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 63-95, March.
    5. Xiong, Jiacai & Ouyang, Caiyue & Tong, Jamie Yixing & Zhang, Feida Frank, 2021. "Fraud commitment in a smaller world: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Manal Alidarous, 2024. "Driving Venture Capital Interest: The Influence of the Big 4 Audit Firms on IPOs," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-31, July.
    7. Desai, Vikram & Bucaro, Anthony C. & Kim, Joung W. & Srivastava, Rajendra & Desai, Renu, 2023. "Toward a better expert system for auditor going concern opinions using Bayesian network inflation factors," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Bills, Kenneth L. & Cobabe, Matthew & Pittman, Jeffrey & Stein, Sarah E., 2020. "To share or not to share: The importance of peer firm similarity to auditor choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Dan Dacian Cuzdriorean, 2018. "Auditing Research: A Review Of Recent Research Advances," Eurasian Journal of Economics and Finance, Eurasian Publications, vol. 6(4), pages 14-26.
    10. Yu, Chun-Chan & Huang, Hua-Wei & Yang, Ya-Chih & Xie, Anxuan, 2022. "Do over-conservative going concern audit opinions exist? Evidence from the prediction model approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    11. C. S. Agnes Cheng & Yuan Huang & Sun & Yumiao Yu, 2021. "Geographic location of audit committee chairs and accruals quality: evidence from China," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1215-1246, November.
    12. Lill, Jeremy B., 2020. "When the Boss is far away and there is shared pay: The effect of monitoring distance and compensation interdependence on performance misreporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Katherine A. Gunny & Judith M. Hermis, 2020. "How Busyness Influences SEC Compliance Activities: Evidence from the Filing Review Process and Comment Letters," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 7-32, March.
    14. Jenna J. Burke & Rani Hoitash & Udi Hoitash, 2020. "The Use and Characteristics of Foreign Component Auditors in U.S. Multinational Audits: Insights from Form AP Disclosures," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2398-2437, December.
    15. Manal Alidarous, 2024. "Can the Presence of Big 4 Auditors in IPO Prospectus Reduce Failure Risk?," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-29, June.

    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:35:y:2018:i:1:p:277-313. 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.