IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v28y2023i2d10.1007_s11142-021-09650-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why are expanded audit reports not informative to investors? Evidence from the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Clive S. Lennox

    (University of Southern California)

  • Jaime J. Schmidt

    (The University of Texas at Austin)

  • Anne M. Thompson

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

Abstract

Standard-setters worldwide have passed new audit reporting requirements aimed at making audit reports more informative to investors. In the UK, the new standard expands the audit reporting model by requiring auditors to disclose the risks of material misstatement (RMMs) that had the greatest effect on the financial statement audit. Using short window tests, prior research indicates that these disclosures are not incrementally informative to investors (Gutierrez et al. in Review of Accounting Studies 23:1543–1587, 2018). In this study, we investigate three potential explanations for why investors do not find the additional auditor risk disclosures to be informative. First, using long-window tests, we find no evidence that the insignificant short-window market reactions are due to a delayed investor reaction to RMMs. Second, using value relevance tests, we show that the insignificant market reactions are not due to auditors disclosing irrelevant information. Finally, we provide evidence suggesting that RMMs lack information content because investors were already informed about the financial reporting risks before auditors began disclosing them in expanded audit reports.

Suggested Citation

  • Clive S. Lennox & Jaime J. Schmidt & Anne M. Thompson, 2023. "Why are expanded audit reports not informative to investors? Evidence from the United Kingdom," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 497-532, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:28:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s11142-021-09650-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-021-09650-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-021-09650-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-021-09650-4?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. 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.
    2. Steven J. Kachelmeier & Dan Rimkus & Jaime J. Schmidt & Kristen Valentine, 2020. "The Forewarning Effect of Critical Audit Matter Disclosures Involving Measurement Uncertainty," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2186-2212, December.
    3. Quick, Reiner & Boolaky, P. K., 2016. "Bank Directors' Perceptions of Expanded Auditor's Reports," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 84650, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    4. Landsman, Wayne R. & Maydew, Edward L. & Thornock, Jacob R., 2012. "The information content of annual earnings announcements and mandatory adoption of IFRS," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 34-54.
    5. Elliott, Ja, 1982. "Subject To Audit Opinions And Abnormal Security Returns - Outcomes And Ambiguities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 617-638.
    6. Barth, Mary E. & Beaver, William H. & Landsman, Wayne R., 2001. "The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: another view," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 77-104, September.
    7. Annette Köhler & Nicole Ratzinger-Sakel & Jochen Theis, 2020. "The Effects of Key Audit Matters on the Auditor’s Report’s Communicative Value: Experimental Evidence from Investment Professionals and Non-professional Investors," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 105-128, July.
    8. Lennox, Clive, 2005. "Audit quality and executive officers' affiliations with CPA firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 201-231, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Tim Loughran & Bill Mcdonald, 2011. "When Is a Liability Not a Liability? Textual Analysis, Dictionaries, and 10‐Ks," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(1), pages 35-65, February.
    11. Doyle, Jeffrey & Ge, Weili & McVay, Sarah, 2007. "Determinants of weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 193-223, September.
    12. Asad Kausar & Richard J. Taffler & Christine Tan, 2009. "The Going‐Concern Market Anomaly," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 213-239, March.
    13. Holthausen, Rw & Verrecchia, Re, 1988. "The Effect Of Sequential Information Releases On The Variance Of Price Changes In An Intertemporal Multi-Asset Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 82-106.
    14. Lauren C. Reid & Joseph V. Carcello & Chan Li & Terry L. Neal & Jere R. Francis, 2019. "Impact of Auditor Report Changes on Financial Reporting Quality and Audit Costs: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1501-1539, September.
    15. Elizabeth Gutierrez & Miguel Minutti-Meza & Kay W. Tatum & Maria Vulcheva, 2018. "Consequences of adopting an expanded auditor’s report in the United Kingdom," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1543-1587, December.
    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. Nien-Su Shih, 2024. "Does Using the Extended Audit Report Decrease Information Asymmetry in Family Firms?," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 14(1), pages 1-3.
    2. David Hay & Noel Harding & Chris Gan & Irene Ge & Linh Ho & Dinithi Ranasinghe & Harj Singh & Nigar Sultana & Shan Zhou, 2023. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on the Proposed Standard on Assurance Engagements over GHG Emissions Disclosure," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4813-4820, December.

    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. Yan Luo, 2021. "Determinants and consequence of critical audit matter disclosure: early evidence," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(4), pages 336-345, December.
    3. Li, Valerie & Luo, Yan, 2023. "Costs and benefits of auditors' disclosure of critical audit matters: Initial evidence from the United States," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Smith, Kecia Williams, 2023. "Tell Me More: A content analysis of expanded auditor reporting in the United Kingdom," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Duboisée de Ricquebourg, Alan & Maroun, Warren, 2023. "How do auditor rotations affect key audit matters? Archival evidence from South African audits," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    6. 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).
    7. Tarek Abdelfattah & Mohamed Elmahgoub & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2021. "Female Audit Partners and Extended Audit Reporting: UK Evidence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 177-197, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Li, Donghui & Xing, Lu & Zhao, Yang, 2022. "Does extended auditor disclosure deter managerial bad-news hoarding? Evidence from crash risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    10. Hien Hoang & Robyn Moroney & Soon‐Yeow Phang & Xinning Xiao, 2023. "Investor reactions to key audit matters: Financial and non‐financial contexts," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3325-3349, September.
    11. Chen, Lihong & Xiao, Tingting & Zhou, Jia, 2023. "Do auditor changes affect the disclosure of critical audit matters? Evidence from China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    12. Sau Yu Ong & Robyn Moroney & Xinning Xiao, 2022. "How do key audit matter characteristics combine to impact financial statement understandability?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 805-835, March.
    13. Dong, Bei & Robinson, Dahlia & Robinson, Michael, 2015. "The market's response to earnings surprises after first-time going-concern modifications," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 21-32.
    14. Chan-Chuan Ting, 2023. "The Association Between Changes in Key Audit Matters and Earnings Management Behavior in Companies," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 13(6), pages 1-3.
    15. Pinto, Inês & Morais, Ana Isabel & Quick, Reiner, 2020. "The impact of the precision of accounting standards on the expanded auditor’s report in the European Union," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    16. 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.
    17. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Melinda Timea FULOP & Nicolae MAGDAS & George Silviu CORDOS, 2019. "Theoretical Background Of Internal And External Environment Of Negotiation," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(21), pages 1-3.
    19. Ruben M.T. Peixinho & Richard J. Taffler, 2011. "Are analysts misleading investors? The case of goingconcern opinions," CEFAGE-UE Working Papers 2011_22, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE (Portugal).
    20. 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.
    21. James P. Ryans, 2021. "Textual classification of SEC comment letters," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 37-80, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Audit reporting model; Information content; Value relevance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • 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:spr:reaccs:v:28:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s11142-021-09650-4. 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://www.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.