IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v100y2022ics0361368222000022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports

Author

Listed:
  • Knechel, W. Robert
  • Park, Hyun Jong

Abstract

We examine the effect of audit firm political connections on the harshness of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection reports. Relying on Regulatory Capture Theory and Motivated Reasoning Theory, we show audit firm political connections, as measured through PAC contributions, are negatively associated with the harshness of Part I reports. Our results are robust to instrumentation and are not due to movements of personnel between the PCAOB and audit firms or improvements in a firm's audit quality. In supplementary tests, we show the negative relation is stronger when we consider the directed nature of PAC contributions to members of Congress who exercise SEC oversight and robust to alternative measures. Finally, we consider the harshness of Part II inspection reports and find no association with political connections. Collectively, our results suggest audit firm political connections induce favorable influence over Part I findings of PCAOB inspection reports.

Suggested Citation

  • Knechel, W. Robert & Park, Hyun Jong, 2022. "Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:100:y:2022:i:c:s0361368222000022
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2022.101335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368222000022
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2022.101335?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arthur Lewbel, 2012. "Using Heteroscedasticity to Identify and Estimate Mismeasured and Endogenous Regressor Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 67-80.
    2. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1999. "Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 77-97, May.
    3. Ege, Matthew & Knechel, W. Robert & Lamoreaux, Phillip T. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2020. "A multi-method analysis of the PCAOB’s relationship with the audit profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
    5. Lauren Cohen & Andrea Frazzini & Christopher Malloy, 2010. "Sell‐Side School Ties," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(4), pages 1409-1437, August.
    6. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 2007. "Bureaucrats or Politicians? Part I: A Single Policy Task," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 169-179, March.
    7. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.
    8. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Larcker, David F. & Rusticus, Tjomme O., 2010. "On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 186-205, April.
    10. Abernathy, John L. & Barnes, Michael & Stefaniak, Chad, 2013. "A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 30-60.
    11. Brown, CE & Peecher, ME & Solomon, I, 1999. "Auditors' hypothesis testing in diagnostic inference tasks," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 1-26.
    12. Piercey, M. David, 2009. "Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 330-341, March.
    13. Colonnello, Stefano & Curatola, Giuliano & Hoang, Ngoc Giang, 2017. "Direct and indirect risk-taking incentives of inside debt," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 428-466.
    14. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
    15. repec:cup:jfinqa:v:46:y:2011:i:06:p:1865-1891_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    17. Cynthia Williams Turner, 2001. "Accountability Demands and the Auditor’s Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 683-706, December.
    18. Lindsay M. Johnson & Marsha B. Keune & Jennifer Winchel, 2019. "U.S. Auditors' Perceptions of the PCAOB Inspection Process: A Behavioral Examination†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1540-1574, September.
    19. Ferdinand A. Gul, 2006. "Auditors' Response to Political Connections and Cronyism in Malaysia," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(5), pages 931-963, December.
    20. Jones Heese & Mozaffar Khan & Karthik Ramanna, 2017. "Is the SEC Captured? Evidence from Comment-Letter Reviews," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-087, Harvard Business School.
    21. Barry Weingast, 1984. "The congressional-bureaucratic system: a principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 147-191, January.
    22. DeFond, Mark L., 2010. "How should the auditors be audited? Comparing the PCAOB Inspections with the AICPA Peer Reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 104-108, February.
    23. Zhifeng Yang, 2013. "Do Political Connections Add Value to Audit Firms? Evidence from IPO Audits in China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 891-921, September.
    24. Stratmann, Thomas, 1995. "Campaign Contributions and Congressional Voting: Does the Timing of Contributions Matter?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(1), pages 127-136, February.
    25. Milyo Jeffrey & Primo David & Groseclose Timothy, 2000. "Corporate PAC Campaign Contributions in Perspective," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-15, April.
    26. Kothari, S.P. & Leone, Andrew J. & Wasley, Charles E., 2005. "Performance matched discretionary accrual measures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 163-197, February.
    27. Francis, J & Philbrick, D & Schipper, K, 1994. "Shareholder Litigation And Corporate Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 137-164.
    28. Snyder, James M, Jr, 1992. "Long-Term Investing in Politicians; or, Give Early, Give Often," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 15-43, April.
    29. Abigail M. Allen & Karthik Ramanna & Sugata Roychowdhury, 2014. "Auditor Lobbying on Accounting Standards," Harvard Business School Working Papers 15-055, Harvard Business School.
    30. Keith Poole & Thomas Romer, 1985. "Patterns of political action committee contributions to the 1980 campaigns for the United States House of Representatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 63-111, January.
    31. Carcello, Joseph V. & Hollingsworth, Carl & Mastrolia, Stacy A., 2011. "The effect of PCAOB inspections on Big 4 audit quality," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 85-96.
    32. Joshua D. Anderson & John E. Core, 2018. "Managerial Incentives to Increase Risk Provided by Debt, Stock, and Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4408-4432, September.
    33. Amore, Mario Daniele & Bennedsen, Morten, 2013. "The value of local political connections in a low-corruption environment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 387-402.
    34. Yu, Frank & Yu, Xiaoyun, 2011. "Corporate Lobbying and Fraud Detection," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(6), pages 1865-1891, December.
    35. Correia, Maria M., 2014. "Political connections and SEC enforcement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 241-262.
    36. Peecher, ME, 1996. "The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 125-140.
    37. Nickell, Stephen J, 1981. "Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1417-1426, November.
    38. Löhlein, Lukas, 2016. "From peer review to PCAOB inspections: regulating for audit quality in the U.S," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67147, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    39. Weingast, Barry R & Moran, Mark J, 1983. "Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 91(5), pages 765-800, October.
    40. Heese, Jonas & Khan, Mozaffar & Ramanna, Karthik, 2017. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 98-122.
    41. Armstrong, Christopher S. & Larcker, David F. & Ormazabal, Gaizka & Taylor, Daniel J., 2013. "The relation between equity incentives and misreporting: The role of risk-taking incentives," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 327-350.
    42. Wang, Qian & Wong, T.J. & Xia, Lijun, 2008. "State ownership, the institutional environment, and auditor choice: Evidence from China," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 112-134, September.
    43. Guimarães, Paulo, 2008. "The fixed effects negative binomial model revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 63-66, April.
    44. Gordon, Sanford C. & Hafer, Catherine, 2005. "Flexing Muscle: Corporate Political Expenditures as Signals to the Bureaucracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(2), pages 245-261, May.
    45. Peltzman, Sam, 1976. "Toward a More General Theory of Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 211-240, August.
    46. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    47. Aobdia, Daniel & Shroff, Nemit, 2017. "Regulatory oversight and auditor market share," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 262-287.
    48. Kimberly D. Westermann & Jeffrey Cohen & Greg Trompeter, 2019. "PCAOB Inspections: Public Accounting Firms on “Trial”," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 694-731, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Correia, Maria M., 2014. "Political connections and SEC enforcement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 241-262.
    2. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    3. Thompson, Anne M., 2022. "Political connections and the SEC confidential treatment process," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    4. Kuvvet, Emre & Maskara, Pankaj Kumar, 2018. "Former members of the U.S. Congress and fraud enforcement: Does it help to have politically connected friends on the board?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 77-89.
    5. Sarah B. Stuber & Chris E. Hogan, 2021. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 331-370, March.
    6. Habib, Ahsan & Ranasinghe, Dinithi & Muhammadi, Abdul Haris & Islam, Ainul, 2018. "Political connections, financial reporting and auditing: Survey of the empirical literature," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 37-51.
    7. Christensen, Brant & Lei, Lijun (Gillian) & Shu, Sydney Qing & Thomas, Wayne, 2023. "Does audit regulation improve the underlying information used by managers? Evidence from PCAOB inspection access and management forecast accuracy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    9. Yik-Pui Low, Steven & Foo, Yee-Boon & Gul, Ferdinand A, 2023. "Corporate lobbying: Resource-seeking or rent-seeking? Evidence from audit fees," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1).
    10. Johnson, Elizabeth & Reichelt, Kenneth J. & Soileau, Jared S., 2018. "No news is bad news: Do PCAOB part II reports have an effect on annually inspected firms’ audit fees and audit quality?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 106-126.
    11. Kaufhold, Ann-Katrin & Langenbucher, Katja & Blank, Patrick & Krahnen, Jan Pieter, 2021. "BaFin (in)dependence - a reform proposal," SAFE White Paper Series 82, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    12. Prabashi Dharmasiri & Soon-Yeow Phang & Ashna Prasad & John Webster, 2022. "Consequences of Ethical and Audit Violations: Evidence from the PCAOB Settled Disciplinary Orders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 179-203, August.
    13. Fang, Ming & Francis, Bill & Hasan, Iftekhar & Wu, Qiang, 2022. "External social networks and earnings management," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    14. Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2018. "The Role of Stakeholders in Corporate Governance: A View from Accounting Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 12775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Boland, Matthew & Godsell, David, 2021. "Bureaucratic discretion and contracting outcomes," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    16. Habib, Ahsan & Muhammadi, Abdul Haris & Jiang, Haiyan, 2017. "Political connections, related party transactions, and auditor choice: Evidence from Indonesia," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19.
    17. Miguel Duro & Jonas Heese & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2019. "The effect of enforcement transparency: Evidence from SEC comment-letter reviews," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 780-823, September.
    18. Alhababsah, Salem & Alhaj-Ismail, Alaa, 2023. "Does shared tenure between audit committee chair and engagement partner affect audit outcomes? Evidence from the UK," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    19. Hutton, Amy & Shu, Susan & Zheng, Xin, 2022. "Regulatory transparency and the alignment of private and public enforcement: Evidence from the public disclosure of SEC comment letters," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 297-321.
    20. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Political connections; PCAOB; Audit regulation; Auditor inspections;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing
    • M48 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    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:eee:aosoci:v:100:y:2022:i:c:s0361368222000022. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.