IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jbfnac/v26y1999i7-8p779-805.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit Quality and Auditor Size: An Evaluation of Reputation and Deep Pockets Hypotheses

Author

Listed:
  • Clive S. Lennox

Abstract

Empirical studies have shown that large auditors are more accurate than small auditors. The reputation hypothesis states that large auditors have more incentive to be accurate because an inaccurate report may lead to a loss of client‐specific rents (DeAngelo, 1981). The deep pockets hypothesis states that large auditors should be more accurate because they have greater wealth at risk from litigation (Dye, 1993). This paper presents evidence on the relationship between auditor size and litigation and on the market shares of criticised and uncriticised auditors – the findings give greater support to the deep pockets hypothesis than the reputation hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Clive S. Lennox, 1999. "Audit Quality and Auditor Size: An Evaluation of Reputation and Deep Pockets Hypotheses," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7‐8), pages 779-805, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jbfnac:v:26:y:1999:i:7-8:p:779-805
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-5957.00275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00275
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-5957.00275?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:bla:jbfnac:v:26:y:1999:i:7-8:p:779-805. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0306-686X .

    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.