How Big-4 Firms Improve Audit Quality

References

• Allison PD, Long JS (1990) Departmental effects on scientific productivity. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 55(4):469–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aobdia D, Lin C-J, Petacchi R (2015) Capital market consequences of audit partner quality. Accounting Rev. 90(6):2143–2176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ayers S, Kaplan SK (2003) Review partners’ reaction to contact partner risk judgments of prospective clients. Auditing 22(1):29–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ball R, Shivakumar L (2005) Earnings quality in UK private firms: Comparative loss recognition timeliness. J. Accounting Econom. 39(1):83–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beaver WH (1966) Financial ratios as predictors of failure. J. Accounting Res. 4:71–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bedard JC, Deis DR, Curtis MB, Jenkins JG (2008) Risk monitoring and control in audit firms: A research synthesis. Auditing 27(1):187–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell TB, Bedard JC, Johnstone KM, Smith EF (2002) KRiskSM: A computerized decision aid for client acceptance and continuance risk assessments. Auditing 21(2):97–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berzins J, Bøhren Ø, Rydland P (2008) Corporate finance and governance in firms with limited liability: Basic characteristics. Research Report No. 1, Centre for Corporate Governance Research, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
• Blay AD, Moon JR, Paterson JS (2016) There’s no place like home: The influence of home-state going-concern reporting rates on going-concern opinion propensity and accuracy. Auditing 35(2):23–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blouin J, Grein BM, Rountree BR (2007) An analysis of forced auditor change: The case of former Arthur Andersen clients. Accounting Rev. 82(3):621–650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonner S, Pennington N (1991) Cognitive processes and knowledge as determinants of auditor expertise. J. Accounting Literature 10:1–50.Google Scholar
• Boone JP, Khurana I, Raman KK (2010) Do the Big 4 and second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality? J. Accounting Public Policy 29(4):330–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carcello JV, Hermanson RH, Huss HF (2000) Going-concern opinions: The effects of partner compensation plans and client size. Auditing 19(Spring):67–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carey PR, Simnett R (2006) Audit partner tenure and audit quality. Accounting Rev. 81(3):653–676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carson E, Fargher NL, Geiger MA, Lennox CS, Raghunandan K, Willekens M (2013) Audit reporting for going-concern uncertainty: A research synthesis. Auditing 32(Suppl 1):353–384.Google Scholar
• Causholli M, De Martinis M, Hay D, Knechel WR (2010) Audit markets, fees and production: Toward an integrated view of empirical audit research. J. Accounting Literature 29:167–215.Google Scholar
• Chan KH, Wu D (2011) Aggregate quasi-rents and auditor independence: Evidence from audit firm mergers in China. Contemporary Accounting Res. 28(1):175–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen CJP, Su X, Wu X (2009) Forced audit firm change, continued partner-client relationship, and financial reporting quality. Auditing 28(2):227–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen CJP, Su X, Wu X (2010) Auditor changes following a Big 4 merger with a local Chinese firm: A case study. Auditing 29(1):41–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Creter C, Summey D (2003) Training for peak performance. Pharmaceutical Executive 23(5Suppl):70–73.Google Scholar
• DeAngelo LE (1981) Auditor size and audit quality. J. Accounting Econom. 3(3):183–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dechow PM, Hutton AP, Kim JH, Sloan RG (2012) Detecting earnings management: A new approach. J. Accounting Res. 50(2):275–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeFond ML, Francis JR (2005) Audit research after Sarbanes-Oxley. Auditing 24(s-1):5–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeFond M, Zhang J (2014) A review of archival auditing research. J. Accounting Econom. 58(2/3):275–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeFond ML, Erkens DH, Zhang J (2017) Do client characteristics really drive the Big N audit quality effect? New evidence from propensity score matching. Management Sci. 63(11):3628–3649.Link, Google Scholar
• Delaney JT, Huselid MA (1996) The impact of human resource management practice on perceptions of organizational performance. Acad. Management J. 39(4):949–969.Google Scholar
• DeZoort FT, Lord AT (1994) An investigation of obedience pressure effects on auditors’ judgments. Behav. Res. Accounting 6(1):1–34.Google Scholar
• Dopuch N, Simunic D (1980) The nature of competition in the auditing profession: A descriptive and normative view. Buckley J, Weston F, eds. Regulation and the Accounting Profession (Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, CA), 283–289.Google Scholar
• Dye RA (1993) Auditing standards, legal liability, and auditor wealth. J. Political Econom. 101(5):887–914.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emby C, Gelardi AMG, Lowe DJ (2002) A research note on the influence of outcome knowledge on audit partners’ judgments. Behav. Res. Accounting 14(1):87–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Francis J (2011) A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing 30(2):125–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Francis J, Yu M (2009) Big Four office size and audit quality. Accounting Rev. 84(5):1521–1552.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaeremynck A, Willekens M (2003) The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: Evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment. Accounting Bus. Res. 33(1):65–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geiger MA, Rama DV (2006) Audit firm size and going-concern reporting accuracy. Accounting Horizons 20(1):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groysberg B, Lee LE (2008) The effects of colleague quality on top performance: The case of security analysts. J. Organ. Behav. 29(8):1123–1144.Google Scholar
• Groysberg B, Lee LE, Nanda A (2008) Can they take it with them? The portability of star knowledge workers’ performance. Management Sci. 54(7):1213–1230.Link, Google Scholar
• Healy P, Lys T (1986) Auditor changes following Big Eight mergers with non-Big Eight audit firms. J. Accounting Public Policy 5(4):251–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hope O-K, Langli JC (2010) Auditor independence in a private firm and low litigation risk setting. Accounting Rev. 85(2):573–605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hope O-K, Vyas D (2017) Private company finance and financial reporting. Accounting Bus. Res. 47(5):506–537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hope O-K, Thomas WB, Vyas D (2013) Financial reporting quality of U.S. private and public firms. Accounting Rev. 88(5):1715–1742.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hope O-K, Thomas WB, Vyas D (2017) Stakeholder demand for accounting quality and economic usefulness of accounting in U.S. private firms. J. Accounting Public Policy 36(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iacus S, King G, Porro G (2011) Mutivariate matching methods that are monotonic imbalance bounding. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 106(493):345–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• International Federation of Accountants (2015) International Standard on Auditing 570 Going Concern (International Federation of Accountants, New York).Google Scholar
• Jiang JX, Wang IY, Wang KP (2019) Big N auditors and audit quality: New evidence from quasi-experiments. Accounting Rev. 94(1):205–227.Google Scholar
• Johnstone KM (2000) Client-acceptance decisions: Simultaneous effects of client business risk, audit risk, auditor business risk, and risk adaptation. Auditing 19(Spring):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnstone KM, Bedard JC (2003) Risk management in client acceptance decisions. Accounting Rev. 78(4):1003–1025.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnstone KM, Bedard JC (2004) Audit firm portfolio management decisions. J. Accounting Res. 42(4):659–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim EH, Morse A, Zingales L (2009) Are elite universities losing their competitive edge? J. Financial Econom. 93(3):353–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knechel WR, Niemi L, Zerni M (2013) Empirical evidence on the implicit determinants of compensation in Big 4 audit partnerships. J. Accounting Res. 51(2):349–387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knechel WR, Vanstraelen A, Zerni M (2015) Does the identity of engagement partners matter? An analysis of audit partner reporting decisions. Contemporary Accounting Res. 32(4):1443–1478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kothari S, Leone A, Wasley CE (2005) Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. J. Accounting Econom. 39(1):163–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langli JC, Svanström T (2014) Audits of private companies. Hay D, Knechel WR, Willekens M, eds. Routledge Companion to Auditing (Routledge, Abingdon, UK), 147–158.Google Scholar
• Lawrence A, Minutti-Meza M, Zhang P (2011) Can Big 4 vs. non-Big 4 differences in audit-quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics? Accounting Rev. 86(1):259–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myers LA, Schmidt J, Wilkins M (2014) An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors. Rev. Quant. Finance Accounting 43(1):155–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noe RA, Schmitt N (1986) The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of a model. Personality Psych. 39(3):497–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oettl A (2012) Reconceptualizing stars: Scientist helpfulness and peer performance. Management Sci. 58(6):1122–1140.Link, Google Scholar
• Ohlson JA (1980) Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. J. Accounting Res. 18(1):109–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peytcheva M, Gillett P (2011) How partners’ views influence auditor judgment? Auditing 30(4):285–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ponemon LA, Gabhart DRL (1990) Auditor independence judgments: A cognitive-developmental model and experimental evidence. Contemporary Accounting Res. 7(1):227–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raghunandan K, Rama D (1999) Auditor resignations and the market for audit services. Auditing 18(1):124–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rozenbaum O (2014) Do firms contribute to the variation in employees’ performance in knowledge-intensive industries? The case of equity research. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Russell JS, Terborg JR, Powers ML (1985) Organizational performance and organizational level training and support. Personality Psych. 38(4):849–863.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sundgren S, Svanström T (2013) Audit office size, audit quality and audit pricing: Evidence from small-and medium-sized enterprises. Accounting Bus. Res. 43(1):31–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sundgren S, Svanström T (2017) Is the public oversight of auditors effective?: The impact of sactions on loss of clients, salary and audit reporting. Eur. Accounting Rev. 26(4):787–818.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tan CEL, Jubb CA, Houghton K (1997) Auditor judgments: The effects of the partner’s views on decision outcomes and cognitive effort. Behav. Res. Accounting 9(Suppl):157–175.Google Scholar
• Trompeter G (1994) The effects of partner compensation schemes and generally accepted accounting principles on audit partner judgment. Auditing 13(Fall):56–68.Google Scholar
• Vanstraelen A, Schelleman C (2017) Auditing private companies: What do we know? Accounting Bus. Res. 47(5):565–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watts R, Zimmerman J (1981) Auditors and the determination of accounting standards. Working paper, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
• Wilks TJ (2002) Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. Accounting Rev. 77(1):51–72.Crossref, Google Scholar