IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/cfripp/v1y2011i3p241-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit fees, motivation of avoiding loss and opinion shopping

Author

Listed:
  • Tang Yuejun

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to empirically analyze the impacts of motivation for avoiding loss and actual abnormal audit fees on management behaviors of audit opinion shopping. Design/methodology/approach - Using empirical research methods, this study employs regressive models and moderating effect models with data from Chinese listed companies from 2001 to 2008. Findings - By analyzing the empirical data, it is found that strong motivation for avoiding loss has a certain moderating effect on the relationship between abnormal audit fees and audit opinion shopping; abnormal descent of audit fees significantly increases both the likelihood of receiving modified audit opinions of annual financial reports and that of the improvement of audit opinions; listed companies reporting consecutive losses in the last two years have a higher likelihood of an improvement in unfavorable audit opinions because of stronger motivation for avoiding loss and audit opinion shopping of management; and strong motivation for avoiding loss has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between abnormal increase of audit fees and audit opinion shopping. Practical implications - This study has a significant practical implication for market supervisors, small and medium investors. Originality/value - The paper classifies abnormal audit fees into abnormal increase and descent of audit fees, and audit opinions differences into the improvement and deterioration of audit opinions, and further empirically analyzes and verifies the moderating effect of motivation for avoiding loss on the relationship between abnormal audit fees and audit opinion shopping.

Suggested Citation

  • Tang Yuejun, 2011. "Audit fees, motivation of avoiding loss and opinion shopping," China Finance Review International, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 1(3), pages 241-261, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:cfripp:v:1:y:2011:i:3:p:241-261
    DOI: 10.1108/20441391111144103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/20441391111144103/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/20441391111144103/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/20441391111144103?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. Krishnan, Jagan & Stephens, Ray G., 1995. "Evidence on opinion shopping from audit opinion conservatism," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 179-201.
    2. Lennox, Clive, 2000. "Do companies successfully engage in opinion-shopping? Evidence from the UK," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 321-337, 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. Zvi Singer & Jing Zhang, 2022. "Do companies try to conceal financial misstatements through auditor shopping?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1-2), pages 140-180, January.
    2. 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).
    3. Feng Chen & Songlan Peng & Shuang Xue & Zhifeng Yang & Feiteng Ye, 2016. "Do Audit Clients Successfully Engage in Opinion Shopping? Partner‐Level Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 79-112, March.
    4. Li-Jen He & Jianxiong Chen, 2021. "Does Mandatory Audit Partner Rotation Influence Auditor Selection Strategies?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Anna Alon & Oksana Kim, 2022. "Protectionism through legislative layering: Implications for auditors and investors," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(3), pages 363-383, September.
    6. Choi, Sunhwa & Choi, Youn-Sik & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Lee, Woo-Jong, 2015. "The impact of mandatory versus voluntary auditor switches on stock liquidity: Some Korean evidence," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 100-116.
    7. Guang-Zheng Chen, 2020. "Related Party Transactions and Opinion Shopping," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9.
    8. Gómez Aguilar, Nieves & Biedma López, Estíbaliz & Ruiz Barbadillo, Emiliano, 2018. "El efecto de la rotación de socio en la calidad de la auditoría," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 7-18.
    9. Xingqiang Du & Liang Xiao & Yingjie Du, 2023. "Does CEO–Auditor Dialect Connectedness Trigger Audit Opinion Shopping? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(2), pages 391-426, May.
    10. Emiliano Ruiz Barbadillo & Nieves Gómez Aguilar & Nieves Carrera Pena, 2006. "Evidencia empírica sobre el efecto de la duración del contrato en la calidad de la auditoría: análisis de las medidas de retención y rotación obligatoria de auditores," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 30(2), pages 283-316, May.
    11. Efstathios KIRKOS, 2012. "Predicting Auditor Switches By Applying Data Mining," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 7(3(21)/ Fa), pages 246-261.
    12. Agustín J. Sánchez-Medina & Félix Blázquez-Santana & Jesús B. Alonso, 2019. "Do Auditors Reflect the True Image of the Company Contrary to the Clients’ Interests? An Artificial Intelligence Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 529-545, March.
    13. Reynolds, J. Kenneth & Francis, Jere R., 2000. "Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 375-400, December.
    14. José Ramón Sánchez-Serrano & David Alaminos & Francisco García-Lagos & Angela M. Callejón-Gil, 2020. "Predicting Audit Opinion in Consolidated Financial Statements with Artificial Neural Networks," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-14, August.
    15. Nieves Carrera & Nieves Gómez‐Aguilar & Christopher Humphrey & Emiliano Ruiz‐Barbadillo, 2007. "Mandatory audit firm rotation in Spain: a policy that was never applied," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(5), pages 671-701, September.
    16. Liang Tan & Santhosh Ramalingegowda & Yong Yu, 2022. "Third-Party Consequences of Changes in Managerial Fiduciary Duties: The Case of Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1556-1572, February.
    17. Santiago Lago-Peñas & Mercedes Mareque Álvarez-Santullano & Elena Rivo-López & Mónica Villanueva-Villar, 2017. "Determining factors for audit opinion in private family and non-family firms. Evidence from Spain," Working Papers. Collection C: Family business 1701, Universidade de Vigo, GEN - Governance and Economics research Network.
    18. Kaplan, Steven E. & Williams, David D., 2012. "The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 322-341.
    19. Kalelkar, Rachana, 2016. "Audit committee diligence around initial audit engagement," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 59-67.
    20. Maryamalsadat Mousavi Azghandi & Sahar Jabbari & Hossien Rezaei Ranjbar & Ahmed Al-janabi, 2023. "The Effect of Social Capital on Auditor’s Performance," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, February.

    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:eme:cfripp:v:1:y:2011:i:3:p:241-261. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.