IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v24y2012i2p74-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A content analysis of CPA firms’ correspondence following PCAOB inspections: 2004–2010

Author

Listed:
  • Blankley, Alan I.
  • Kerr, David S.
  • Wiggins, Casper E.

Abstract

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has conducted well over 1000 inspections of public accounting firms since 2004, the year their inspections began. The PCAOB inspections are mandated by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and are designed to promote high professional audit standards and improve the audit quality of registered public accounting firms (U.S. House, 2002). Since then, a growing body of research has emerged focusing on the process, results, and decision implications of the inspections. Most of the research to date has focused on determining the impact of the inspection regimen from the perspective of regulators, clients, or markets, but there has been very little research focused on the effect of inspections on the accounting firms themselves.

Suggested Citation

  • Blankley, Alan I. & Kerr, David S. & Wiggins, Casper E., 2012. "A content analysis of CPA firms’ correspondence following PCAOB inspections: 2004–2010," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 74-89.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:24:y:2012:i:2:p:74-89
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2012.05.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045712000239
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2012.05.007?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. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Flesher, Dale L. & Sharp, Andrew D., 2014. "Recalling the Public Oversight Board (1977–2002) and winners of the John J. McCloy Award," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 204-211.
    2. Franzen, Laurel & Meckfessel, Michele & Moehrle, Stephen R. & Reynolds-Moehrle, Jennifer A., 2015. "Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2012 academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 21-38.
    3. 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.
    4. Carlin Dowling & W. Robert Knechel & Robyn Moroney, 2018. "Public Oversight of Audit Firms: The Slippery Slope of Enforcing Regulation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 353-380, September.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Lamar Pierce & Michael W. Toffel, 2013. "The Role of Organizational Scope and Governance in Strengthening Private Monitoring," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1558-1584, October.
    4. 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.
    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. Xianjie He & Jeffrey Pittman & Oliver Rui, 2016. "Reputational Implications for Partners After a Major Audit Failure: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 138(4), pages 703-722, November.
    7. Raphael Duguay & Michael Minnis & Andrew Sutherland, 2020. "Regulatory Spillovers in Common Audit Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3389-3411, August.
    8. Leilei Gu & Jinyu Liu & Yuchao Peng, 2022. "Locality Stereotype, CEO Trustworthiness and Stock Price Crash Risk: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 773-797, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Daniel Aobdia & Luminita Enache & Anup Srivastava, 2021. "Changes in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies over time," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 715-754, February.
    11. repec:prg:jnlcfu:v:2021:y:2021:i:4:id:565 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Guangming Gong & Liang Xiao & Si Xu & Xun Gong, 2019. "Do Bond Investors Care About Engagement Auditors’ Negative Experiences? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 779-806, September.
    13. Hanlon, Michelle & Shroff, Nemit, 2022. "Insights into auditor public oversight boards: Whether, how, and why they “work”," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    14. Devan Mescall & Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2017. "Does the Accounting Profession Discipline Its Members Differently After Public Scrutiny?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 285-309, May.
    15. Aobdia, Daniel & Shroff, Nemit, 2017. "Regulatory oversight and auditor market share," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 262-287.
    16. Nicolás Gambetta & Laura Sierra‐García & María Antonia García‐Benau & Josefina Novejarque‐Civera, 2023. "The Informative Value of Key Audit Matters in the Audit Report: Understanding the Impact of the Audit Firm and KAM Type," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(2), pages 114-134, June.
    17. Wen-Ching Chang & Yahn-Shir Chen & Ling-Tai Lynette Chou & Chia-Hui Ko, 2016. "Audit Partner Disciplinary Actions and Financial Restatements," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 52(2), pages 286-318, June.
    18. Nicolás Gambetta & Laura Sierra García & María Antonia García Benau & Josefina Novejarque Civera, 2022. "The informative value of Key Audit Matters in the audit report," Documentos de Investigación 129, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.
    19. Bai, Min & Li, Shihe & Lien, Donald & Yu, Chia-Feng (Jeffrey), 2022. "The winner's curse in high-tech enterprise certification: Evidence from stock price crash risk," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    20. 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).
    21. Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2017. "Is the Public Oversight of Auditors Effective? The Impact of Sanctions on Loss of Clients, Salary and Audit Reporting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 787-818, October.

    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:reacre:v:24:y:2012:i:2:p:74-89. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

    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.