IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/67147.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

From peer review to PCAOB inspections: regulating for audit quality in the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Löhlein, Lukas

Abstract

This study reviews the existing literature on the U.S. peer review system and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection system to assess our knowledge of audit regulation. The traditional self-regulatory system of the accounting profession came to an end, in 2002, when the PCAOB was established to oversee the audit firms of publicly traded companies. This paper contributes to the controversial debate about self-regulation versus independent regulation by analyzing, categorizing, and comparing the research findings on the peer review system and the PCAOB system along three dimensions: the validity of peer reviews and PCAOB inspections, the recognition of reviews and inspections by decision-makers (e.g., investors, bankers, committees), and the effect of reviews and inspections on audit quality. Synthesizing the research on the regulatory regimes suggests that the notion of external quality control, both through peer reviews and government inspections, is positively linked with an improvement of audit quality. At the same time, the analysis indicates that external users do not seem to recognise peer review and PCAOB reports as very useful instruments for decision-making, which is in line with an identified rather skeptical perception of the audit profession on reviews and inspections. Overall, this study reveals that although the academic literature on peer review and PCAOB inspection is extensive it has not produced definitive conclusions concerning various aspects of audit regulation. This paper shows how this blurred picture is due to conflicting research findings, the dominance of the quantitative research paradigm, and unchallenged assumptions within the literature, and concludes by proposing research opportunities for the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Löhlein, Lukas, 2016. "From peer review to PCAOB inspections: regulating for audit quality in the U.S," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67147, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:67147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67147/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anantharaman, Divya, 2012. "Comparing self-regulation and statutory regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 55-77.
    2. Paul Gillis & Richard Petty & Roy Suddaby, 2014. "The transnational regulation of accounting: insights, gaps and an agenda for future research," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 27(6), pages 894-902, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Abernathy, John L. & Barnes, Michael & Stefaniak, Chad, 2013. "A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 30-60.
    5. Canning, Mary & O’Dwyer, Brendan, 2013. "The dynamics of a regulatory space realignment: Strategic responses in a local context," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 169-194.
    6. Suddaby, Roy & Cooper, David J. & Greenwood, Royston, 2007. "Transnational regulation of professional services: Governance dynamics of field level organizational change," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 333-362.
    7. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    8. Caramanis, Constantinos & Dedoulis, Emmanouil & Leventis, Stergios, 2015. "Transplanting Anglo-American accounting oversight boards to a diverse institutional context," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 12-31.
    9. Gilles Hilary & Clive Lennox, 2005. "The Credibility of Self-Regulation: Evidence from the Accounting Profession's Peer Review," Post-Print hal-00482306, HAL.
    10. DeFond, Mark L., 2010. "How should the auditors be audited? Comparing the PCAOB Inspections with the AICPA Peer Reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 104-108, February.
    11. 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.
    12. John C. Coates IV, 2007. "The Goals and Promise of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 91-116, Winter.
    13. Wainberg, James S. & Kida, Thomas & David Piercey, M. & Smith, James F., 2013. "The impact of anecdotal data in regulatory audit firm inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 621-636.
    14. Fogarty, Timothy J., 1996. "The imagery and reality of peer review in the U.S.: Insights from institutional theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 243-267.
    15. Carcello, Joseph V. & Hollingsworth, Carl & Mastrolia, Stacy A., 2011. "The effect of PCAOB inspections on Big 4 audit quality," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 85-96.
    16. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    17. Christopher Humphrey, 2008. "Auditing research: a review across the disciplinary divide," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(2), pages 170-203, February.
    18. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Paul Gillis & Richard Petty & Roy Suddaby, 2014. "The transnational regulation of accounting: insights, gaps and an agenda for future research," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(5), pages 894-902.
    21. Jan Barton, 2005. "Who Cares about Auditor Reputation?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 549-586, September.
    22. Malsch, Bertrand & Gendron, Yves, 2011. "Reining in auditors: On the dynamics of power surrounding an “innovation” in the regulatory space," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 456-476.
    23. Power, Michael K., 2003. "Auditing and the production of legitimacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 379-394, May.
    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. Canning, Mary & O'Dwyer, Brendan, 2016. "Institutional work and regulatory change in the accounting profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-21.
    2. Knechel, W. Robert & Park, Hyun Jong, 2022. "Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    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. Löhlein, Lukas, 2016. "From peer review to PCAOB inspections: Regulating for audit quality in the U.S," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 28-47.
    2. Canning, Mary & O'Dwyer, Brendan, 2016. "Institutional work and regulatory change in the accounting profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-21.
    3. Ege, Matthew & Knechel, W. Robert & Lamoreaux, Phillip T. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2020. "A multi-method analysis of the PCAOB’s relationship with the audit profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    5. Abernathy, John L. & Barnes, Michael & Stefaniak, Chad, 2013. "A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 30-60.
    6. Maroun, Warren & Atkins, Jill, 2014. "Section 45 of the Auditing Profession Act: Blowing the whistle for audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 248-263.
    7. Cristina Fuentes & Manuel Illueca & Maria Pucheta-Martinez, 2015. "External investigations and disciplinary sanctions against auditors: the impact on audit quality," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 313-347, August.
    8. Carlin Dowling & W. Robert Knechel & Robyn Moroney, 2018. "Public Oversight of Audit Firms: The Slippery Slope of Enforcing Regulation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 353-380, September.
    9. Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2013. "Audit office size, audit quality and audit pricing: evidence from small- and medium-sized enterprises," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 31-55, February.
    10. Aobdia, Daniel & Shroff, Nemit, 2017. "Regulatory oversight and auditor market share," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 262-287.
    11. Anantharaman, Divya, 2012. "Comparing self-regulation and statutory regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 55-77.
    12. Prabashi Dharmasiri & Soon-Yeow Phang & Ashna Prasad & John Webster, 2022. "Consequences of Ethical and Audit Violations: Evidence from the PCAOB Settled Disciplinary Orders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 179-203, August.
    13. Justin Logie & Warren Maroun, 2021. "Evaluating Audit Quality Using the Results of Inspection Processes Performed by an Independent Regulator," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(2), pages 128-149, June.
    14. Maroun, Warren & Solomon, Jill, 2014. "Whistle-blowing by external auditors: Seeking legitimacy for the South African Audit Profession?," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 109-121.
    15. Maroun, Warren, 2015. "Reportable irregularities and audit quality: Insights from South Africa," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 19-33.
    16. Beattie, Vivien & Fearnley, Stella & Hines, Tony, 2010. "Factors Affecting Audit Quality in the 2007 UK Regulatory Environment: Perceptions of Chief Financial Officers, Audit Committee Chairs and Audit Engagement Partners," SIRE Discussion Papers 2012-29, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    17. 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.
    18. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:384-398 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Devan Mescall & Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2017. "Does the Accounting Profession Discipline Its Members Differently After Public Scrutiny?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 285-309, May.
    20. Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2017. "Is the Public Oversight of Auditors Effective? The Impact of Sanctions on Loss of Clients, Salary and Audit Reporting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 787-818, October.
    21. Johnson, Elizabeth & Reichelt, Kenneth J. & Soileau, Jared S., 2018. "No news is bad news: Do PCAOB part II reports have an effect on annually inspected firms’ audit fees and audit quality?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 106-126.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public company accounting oversight board (PCAOB); inspection; peer review; quality assurance; self-regulation; accounting history; American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:67147. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.