IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/rqfnac/v54y2020i3d10.1007_s11156-019-00814-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The SOX 404 control audit and the effectiveness of additional audit effort in lowering the risk of financial misstatements

Author

Listed:
  • Chan Li

    (University of Pittsburgh)

  • K. K. Raman

    (University of Texas at San Antonio)

  • Lili Sun

    (University of North Texas)

  • Rong Yang

    (Rochester Institute of Technology)

Abstract

We examine the effectiveness of additional audit effort in lowering the risk of financial misstatements for companies with internal control material weaknesses during three separate post-SOX time periods. Our findings suggest that additional audit effort (as proxied by abnormal audit fees) is effective in lowering the risk of financial misstatements for clients with weak internal controls during the Auditing Standard No. 2 regime (2004–2006), but not during the extant Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) regime or the earlier 2002–2004 pre-404 audit (but still post-SOX) time period. We contribute to the on-going debate about the potential benefits associated with the SOX 404 audit and, in particular, the emerging literature on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the SOX 404 audit in improving the assessment of control risk under the extant AS5 regime (Schroeder and Shepardson in Account Rev 91(5):1513–1541, 2016). Collectively, our findings are consistent with the notion that extant PCAOB concerns about internal control quality under AS5 may be valid.

Suggested Citation

  • Chan Li & K. K. Raman & Lili Sun & Rong Yang, 2020. "The SOX 404 control audit and the effectiveness of additional audit effort in lowering the risk of financial misstatements," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 981-1009, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:rqfnac:v:54:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11156-019-00814-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11156-019-00814-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11156-019-00814-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11156-019-00814-7?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. Chris E. Hogan & Michael S. Wilkins, 2008. "Evidence on the Audit Risk Model: Do Auditors Increase Audit Fees in the Presence of Internal Control Deficiencies?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 219-242, March.
    2. Jere R. Francis & Paul N. Michas & Michael D. Yu, 2013. "Office Size of Big 4 Auditors and Client Restatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 1626-1661, December.
    3. Edward C. Norton & Hua Wang & Chunrong Ai, 2004. "Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(2), pages 154-167, June.
    4. Sarah C. Rice & David P. Weber, 2012. "How Effective Is Internal Control Reporting under SOX 404? Determinants of the (Non‐)Disclosure of Existing Material Weaknesses," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 811-843, June.
    5. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    6. Patricia M. Dechow & Weili Ge & Chad R. Larson & Richard G. Sloan, 2011. "Predicting Material Accounting Misstatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 17-82, March.
    7. Peter Iliev, 2010. "The Effect of SOX Section 404: Costs, Earnings Quality, and Stock Prices," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(3), pages 1163-1196, June.
    8. Rick Antle & Elizabeth Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2006. "The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 235-266, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Bikki Jaggi & Santanu Mitra & Mahmud Hossain, 2015. "Earnings quality, internal control weaknesses and industry-specialist audits," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 1-32, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Chan Li, 2009. "Does Client Importance Affect Auditor Independence at the Office Level? Empirical Evidence from Going†Concern Opinions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 201-230, March.
    13. Klein, April, 2002. "Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 375-400, August.
    14. Francis, J & Philbrick, D & Schipper, K, 1994. "Shareholder Litigation And Corporate Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 137-164.
    15. Sharad Asthana & Inder Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2019. "Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 403-438, February.
    16. Palmrose, Zoe-Vonna & Richardson, Vernon J. & Scholz, Susan, 2004. "Determinants of market reactions to restatement announcements," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-89, February.
    17. William R. Kinney, Jr. & Marcy L. Shepardson, 2011. "Do Control Effectiveness Disclosures Require SOX 404(b) Internal Control Audits? A Natural Experiment with Small U.S. Public Companies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 413-448, May.
    18. Rick Antle & Elizabeth Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2002. "The Joint Determination of Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees, and Abnormal Accruals," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2502, Yale School of Management, revised 02 May 2006.
    19. Duong Nguyen & Tribhuvan Puri, 2014. "Information asymmetry and accounting restatement: NYSE-AMEX and NASDAQ evidence," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 211-244, 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. Li, Chan & Raman, K.K. & Sun, Lili & Wu, Da, 2017. "The effect of ambiguity in an auditing standard on auditor independence: Evidence from nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-51.
    2. Joseph V. Carcello & Terry L. Neal & Lauren C. Reid & Jonathan E. Shipman, 2020. "Auditor Independence and Fair Value Accounting: An Examination of Nonaudit Fees and Goodwill Impairments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 189-217, March.
    3. Thomas C. Omer & shelley@unl.edu & Frances M. Tice, 2020. "Do Director Networks Matter for Financial Reporting Quality? Evidence from Audit Committee Connectedness and Restatements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3361-3388, August.
    4. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    5. Duellman, Scott & Hurwitz, Helen & Sun, Yan, 2015. "Managerial overconfidence and audit fees," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 148-165.
    6. Daniela Hohenfels & Reiner Quick, 2020. "Non-audit services and audit quality: evidence from Germany," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 959-1007, October.
    7. Marie Herly & Jan Bartholdy & Frank Thinggaard, 2020. "A re‐examination of accruals quality following restatements," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(7-8), pages 882-909, July.
    8. Simon Fung & Viet Tuan Pham & K. K. Raman, 2022. "Client corruption culture and audit quality: the conditioning effect of the competitive position of the incumbent auditor," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 1133-1171, October.
    9. Sharad Asthana & Inder Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2019. "Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 403-438, February.
    10. Bryan, David B., 2017. "Organized labor, audit quality, and internal control," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 11-26.
    11. Dan Amiram & Zahn Bozanic & James D. Cox & Quentin Dupont & Jonathan M. Karpoff & Richard Sloan, 2018. "Financial reporting fraud and other forms of misconduct: a multidisciplinary review of the literature," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 732-783, June.
    12. Legoria, Joseph & Rosa, Gina & Soileau, Jared S., 2017. "Audit quality across non-audit service fee benchmarks: Evidence from material weakness opinions," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 97-108.
    13. Tobias Svanstr�m, 2013. "Non-audit Services and Audit Quality: Evidence from Private Firms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 337-366, June.
    14. Yu-Ting Hsieh & Chan-Jane Lin & Hsihui Chang, 2022. "Does office size matter in client acceptance decisions? Evidence from big 4 accounting firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 383-407, January.
    15. Anna Bergman Brown & Nicole M. Heron & Hagit Levy & Emanuel Zur, 2023. "StoneRidge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta: A Test of Auditor Litigation Risk," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(3), pages 517-538, October.
    16. 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).
    17. Ge, Weili & Koester, Allison & McVay, Sarah, 2017. "Benefits and costs of Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404(b) exemption: Evidence from small firms’ internal control disclosures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 358-384.
    18. Adrienne Rhodes & Dan Russomanno, 2021. "Executive Accountants and the Reliability of Financial Reporting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4475-4504, July.
    19. Muhammad Farhan Malik & Yuan George Shan & Jamie Yixing Tong, 2022. "Do auditors price litigious tone?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1715-1760, April.
    20. Skaife, Hollis A. & Veenman, David & Wangerin, Daniel, 2013. "Internal control over financial reporting and managerial rent extraction: Evidence from the profitability of insider trading," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 91-110.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    SOX 404 audit; AS2; AS5; Internal controls; Additional audit effort; Financial misstatements;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:kap:rqfnac:v:54:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11156-019-00814-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://springer.com .

    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.