Partner wealth and audit quality: evidence from the United States

IF 4.8 3区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Accounting Studies Pub Date : 2024-06-26 DOI:10.1007/s11142-024-09828-6

John Xuefeng Jiang, Shaohua He, K. Philip Wang

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using the market values of audit partners’ houses as a measure of their personal wealth, we find that wealthier U.S. partners provide higher-quality audits, as evidenced by fewer material restatements, fewer material SEC comment letters, and higher audit fees. A battery of falsification tests shows that these findings are not driven by the matching of wealthier partners with clients with higher financial reporting quality. Our additional analyses suggest two explanations: greater personal wealth both incentivizes partners to exert more effort in delivering high-quality audits and reveals partners’ audit competence.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

合伙人财富与审计质量：来自美国的证据

利用审计合伙人房屋的市场价值作为其个人财富的衡量标准，我们发现，较富裕的美国合伙人提供的审计质量较高，这体现在较少的重大重述、较少的美国证券交易委员会重大意见函以及较高的审计费用上。一系列的伪造测试表明，这些发现并不是由于较富有的合伙人与财务报告质量较高的客户相匹配所导致的。我们的补充分析提出了两种解释：更多的个人财富既能激励合伙人付出更多努力提供高质量的审计，又能显示出合伙人的审计能力。

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

Review of Accounting Studies BUSINESS, FINANCE-

CiteScore

7.90

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Review of Accounting Studies provides an outlet for significant academic research in accounting including theoretical, empirical, and experimental work. The journal is committed to the principle that distinctive scholarship is rigorous. While the editors encourage all forms of research, it must contribute to the discipline of accounting. The Review of Accounting Studies is committed to prompt turnaround on the manuscripts it receives. For the majority of manuscripts the journal will make an accept-reject decision on the first round. Authors will be provided the opportunity to revise accepted manuscripts in response to reviewer and editor comments; however, discretion over such manuscripts resides principally with the authors. An editorial revise and resubmit decision is reserved for new submissions which are not acceptable in their current version, but for which the editor sees a clear path of changes which would make the manuscript publishable. Officially cited as: Rev Account Stud

期刊最新文献

How do retail investors respond to summary disclosure? Evidence from mutual fund factsheets The effect of the FASB-IASB convergence project on the rules- and principles-based nature of US GAAP and IFRS Unexpected defaults: the role of information opacity The gender effects of COVID: evidence from equity analysts Board bias, information, and investment efficiency