Costs and benefits of a risk-based PCAOB inspection regime

IF 3.6 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Accounting Organizations and Society Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.aos.2024.101552
Brant E. Christensen , Nathan J. Newton , Michael S. Wilkins
{"title":"Costs and benefits of a risk-based PCAOB inspection regime","authors":"Brant E. Christensen ,&nbsp;Nathan J. Newton ,&nbsp;Michael S. Wilkins","doi":"10.1016/j.aos.2024.101552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We investigate the costs and benefits of the PCAOB's risk-based inspection regime by studying how auditors respond to engagement-level inspection risk. Using an established inspection selection model, we find evidence that auditors behave consistent with accountability theory when auditing clients with elevated ex-ante inspection risk. Specifically, we observe an increased propensity to report material weaknesses, a decreased propensity to assert that previous material weaknesses have been remediated, increased audit effort, and a decreased likelihood of subsequent financial statement restatement. In general, these outcomes reflect auditors' attempts to minimize negative inspection outcomes in a way that could be beneficial to investors. However, auditors' apparent focus on relative inspection risk also creates potential costs for investors as evidenced by an increased likelihood of resignation from the client and inattention to clients with relatively <em>lower</em> inspection risk when auditor resources are most constrained. Importantly, several tests provide evidence that auditors' response to inspection risk is distinct from and incremental to their response to misstatement risk. Overall, our findings suggest that there are potential benefits and potential costs associated with auditors' responses to a selection approach that is primarily risk-based.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48379,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Organizations and Society","volume":"112 ","pages":"Article 101552"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Organizations and Society","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368224000126","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigate the costs and benefits of the PCAOB's risk-based inspection regime by studying how auditors respond to engagement-level inspection risk. Using an established inspection selection model, we find evidence that auditors behave consistent with accountability theory when auditing clients with elevated ex-ante inspection risk. Specifically, we observe an increased propensity to report material weaknesses, a decreased propensity to assert that previous material weaknesses have been remediated, increased audit effort, and a decreased likelihood of subsequent financial statement restatement. In general, these outcomes reflect auditors' attempts to minimize negative inspection outcomes in a way that could be beneficial to investors. However, auditors' apparent focus on relative inspection risk also creates potential costs for investors as evidenced by an increased likelihood of resignation from the client and inattention to clients with relatively lower inspection risk when auditor resources are most constrained. Importantly, several tests provide evidence that auditors' response to inspection risk is distinct from and incremental to their response to misstatement risk. Overall, our findings suggest that there are potential benefits and potential costs associated with auditors' responses to a selection approach that is primarily risk-based.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于风险的 PCAOB 检查制度的成本和收益
我们通过研究审计师如何应对业务约定层面的检查风险,调查了 PCAOB 基于风险的检查制度的成本与收益。通过使用既定的检查选择模型,我们发现有证据表明,审计师在对事前检查风险较高的客户进行审计时,其行为符合问责理论。具体而言,我们观察到审计师更倾向于报告重大缺陷,更倾向于断言以前的重大缺陷已得到补救,审计力度加大,以及后续财务报表重编的可能性降低。一般来说,这些结果反映了审计师试图以一种对投资者有利的方式尽量减少负面检查结果。然而,审计师对相对检查风险的明显关注也为投资者带来了潜在成本,这表现在审计师资源最紧张时,客户辞职的可能性增加,以及对检查风险相对较高的客户的不关注。重要的是,有几项测试证明,审计师对检查风险的反应有别于对错报风险的反应,而且是递增的。总之,我们的研究结果表明,审计师对主要基于风险的选择方法的反应既有潜在的收益,也有潜在的成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.40%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Accounting, Organizations & Society is a major international journal concerned with all aspects of the relationship between accounting and human behaviour, organizational structures and processes, and the changing social and political environment of the enterprise.
期刊最新文献
What you are versus what you do: The effect of noun-verb framing in earnings conference calls Seeking justice: Inequitable management compensation and employee whistleblowing The impact of descriptor identicalness on investors' judgements of managers’ opportunistic estimation choices Bringing morality back in: Accounting as moral interlocutor in reflective equilibrium processes Accounting and the shifting spheres: The economic, the public, the planet
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1