IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jaecon/v52y2011i1p21-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality

Author

Listed:
  • DeFond, Mark L.
  • Lennox, Clive S.

Abstract

We find that over six hundred auditors with fewer than 100 SEC clients exit the market following SOX. Compared to the non-exiting auditors, the exiting auditors are lower quality, where quality is gauged by: (1) avoidance of AICPA peer reviews and failure to comply with PCAOB rules, and (2) severity of the peer review and inspection reports. In addition, clients of exiting auditors receive higher quality auditing from successor auditors, as captured by a greater likelihood of receiving going concern opinions. Our results suggest that the PCAOB inspections improve audit quality by incentivizing low quality auditors to exit the market.

Suggested Citation

  • DeFond, Mark L. & Lennox, Clive S., 2011. "The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 21-40, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:52:y:2011:i:1:p:21-40
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016541011100022X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Feng Gao & Joanna Shuang Wu & Jerold Zimmerman, 2009. "Unintended Consequences of Granting Small Firms Exemptions from Securities Regulation: Evidence from the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 459-506, May.
    2. Lennox, Clive & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2010. "Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of audit firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 84-103, February.
    3. Mark L. DeFond & K. Raghunandan & K.R. Subramanyam, 2002. "Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1247-1274, September.
    4. Zhan Shu, Susan, 2000. "Auditor resignations: clientele effects and legal liability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 173-205, April.
    5. Gilles Hilary & Clive Lennox, 2005. "The Credibility of Self-Regulation: Evidence from the Accounting Profession's Peer Review," Post-Print hal-00482306, HAL.
    6. K. Hung Chan & Donghui Wu, 2011. "Aggregate Quasi Rents and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Audit Firm Mergers in China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 175-213, March.
    7. Joseph D. Piotroski & Suraj Srinivasan, 2008. "Regulation and Bonding: The Sarbanes‐Oxley Act and the Flow of International Listings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 383-425, May.
    8. Hilary, Gilles & Lennox, Clive, 2005. "The credibility of self-regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession's peer review program," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-3), pages 211-229, December.
    9. Louis, Henock, 2005. "Acquirers' abnormal returns and the non-Big 4 auditor clientele effect," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-3), pages 75-99, December.
    10. Craswell, Allen & Stokes, Donald J. & Laughton, Janet, 2002. "Auditor independence and fee dependence," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 253-275, June.
    11. Joseph Weber & Michael Willenborg, 2003. "Do Expert Informational Intermediaries Add Value? Evidence from Auditors in Microcap Initial Public Offerings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 681-720, September.
    12. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    13. Engel, Ellen & Hayes, Rachel M. & Wang, Xue, 2007. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and firms' going-private decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 116-145, September.
    14. Leuz, Christian & Triantis, Alexander & Yue Wang, Tracy, 2008. "Why do firms go dark? Causes and economic consequences of voluntary SEC deregistrations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 181-208, August.
    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. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    2. Aobdia, Daniel & Shroff, Nemit, 2017. "Regulatory oversight and auditor market share," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 262-287.
    3. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    4. Zhao, Qiuhong & Ziebart, David A., 2015. "SOX and bondholders' reliance on monitors," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 129-137.
    5. Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2013. "Audit office size, audit quality and audit pricing: evidence from small- and medium-sized enterprises," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 31-55, February.
    6. Giuseppe Iuliano & Gaetano Matonti, 2015. "Do big 4 audit companies detect earnings management and report it in the audit opinion? Empirical evidence from italian non-listed firms," ESPERIENZE D'IMPRESA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 5-43.
    7. Abdioglu, Nida & Bamiatzi, Vassiliki & Cavusgil, S.Tamer & Khurshed, Arif & Stathopoulos, Konstantinos, 2015. "Information asymmetry, disclosure and foreign institutional investment: An empirical investigation of the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 902-915.
    8. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    9. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    10. Anantharaman, Divya, 2012. "Comparing self-regulation and statutory regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 55-77.
    11. Löhlein, Lukas, 2016. "From peer review to PCAOB inspections: Regulating for audit quality in the U.S," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 28-47.
    12. 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.
    13. Jackson, Gregory, 2010. "Understanding corporate governance in the United States: An historical and theoretical reassessment," Arbeitspapiere 223, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf.
    14. Chang, Wen-Ching & Chen, Jui-Pin, 2020. "Auditor sanction and reputation damage: Evidence from changes in non-client-company directorships," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    15. Beattie, Vivien & Fearnley, Stella & Hines, Tony, 2010. "Factors Affecting Audit Quality in the 2007 UK Regulatory Environment: Perceptions of Chief Financial Officers, Audit Committee Chairs and Audit Engagement Partners," SIRE Discussion Papers 2012-29, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    16. Sarowar Hossain & Jeff Coulton & Jenny Jing Wang, 2023. "Client Importance and Audit Quality at the Individual Audit Partner, Office, and Firm Levels," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(2), pages 650-696, June.
    17. Mo, Phyllis L.L. & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2015. "Auditors' going Concern Reporting in the pre- and post-bankruptcy Law Eras: Chinese Affiliates of Big 4 Versus Local Auditors," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-30.
    18. Beatriz García Osma & Belén Gill de Albornoz Noguer & Elena De las Heras Cristobal, 2016. "Opinion shopping: Partner versus firm-level evidence," Working Papers. Serie EC 2016-02, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    19. Andrew B. Jackson & Michael Moldrich & Peter Roebuck, 2008. "Mandatory audit firm rotation and audit quality," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(5), pages 420-437, May.
    20. Ana Albuquerque & Julie Lei Zhu, 2019. "Has Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act Discouraged Corporate Investment? New Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3423-3446, July.

    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:jaecon:v:52:y:2011:i:1:p:21-40. 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/jae .

    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.