A Matter of Appearances: Does Financial Expertise Help Audit Committees Look Beyond the Superficial When Selecting and Compensating Auditors?

Matthew Baugh, Nicholas Hallman, Steven J. Kachelmeier
{"title":"A Matter of Appearances: Does Financial Expertise Help Audit Committees Look Beyond the Superficial When Selecting and Compensating Auditors?","authors":"Matthew Baugh, Nicholas Hallman, Steven J. Kachelmeier","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3050614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although prior research has claimed that audit committees with more expertise secure better auditors and enjoy higher quality earnings, a deeper understanding of this premise compels consideration of the factors that less-expert audit committees consider when choosing auditors if indeed they are less sensitive to auditor quality. Drawing on newly mandated PCAOB Form AP disclosures of audit partners’ identities, we examine the premise that less-expert audit committees are more likely to be influenced by auditors’ superficial characteristics, which we proxy by obtaining independent ratings of audit partners’ physical appearances. We find that audit committees with fewer financial experts tend to engage more attractive audit partners and pay attractive audit partners a differential fee premium. These findings support the view that expertise helps audit committees by mitigating the influence of superficial characteristics in auditor selection and compensation decisions.","PeriodicalId":10477,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Social Science eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Social Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3050614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Although prior research has claimed that audit committees with more expertise secure better auditors and enjoy higher quality earnings, a deeper understanding of this premise compels consideration of the factors that less-expert audit committees consider when choosing auditors if indeed they are less sensitive to auditor quality. Drawing on newly mandated PCAOB Form AP disclosures of audit partners’ identities, we examine the premise that less-expert audit committees are more likely to be influenced by auditors’ superficial characteristics, which we proxy by obtaining independent ratings of audit partners’ physical appearances. We find that audit committees with fewer financial experts tend to engage more attractive audit partners and pay attractive audit partners a differential fee premium. These findings support the view that expertise helps audit committees by mitigating the influence of superficial characteristics in auditor selection and compensation decisions.
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
外表问题:财务专业知识是否有助于审计委员会在选择和补偿审计师时超越表面?
尽管先前的研究声称,拥有更多专业知识的审计委员会可以确保更好的审计师,并享有更高质量的盈余,但如果对这一前提有更深入的理解,就会迫使我们考虑到专业程度较低的审计委员会在选择审计师时考虑的因素,如果它们确实对审计师质量不那么敏感的话。根据新规定的PCAOB表格AP披露的审计合伙人身份,我们研究了一个前提,即不太专业的审计委员会更有可能受到审计师表面特征的影响,我们通过对审计合伙人的外表进行独立评级来代理这些特征。我们发现,财务专家较少的审计委员会倾向于聘请更有吸引力的审计合伙人,并向有吸引力的审计合伙人支付不同的费用溢价。这些发现支持这样的观点,即专业知识有助于审计委员会减轻表面特征对审计师选择和薪酬决策的影响。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Cost of Overconfidence in Public Information The Compliance Consequences of Fault Assignment in Sanctions Examining the Link Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Work Performance of Employees in the Private Schools, Mediated by Workplace Environment An Ordinal Theory of Risk and Correlation Aversion Persuasion Under Costly Learning
×
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