Joint Audit, Game Theory, and Impairment-Testing Disclosures
AbstractWe examine the consequences on impairment testing disclosures of auditor-pair choice made by French listed companies where two (joint) auditors are required by law. Managers are likely to manipulate impairment-testing disclosures since it relies on unverifiable fair value estimates (e.g., goodwill). From a simple game theory model, we demonstrate that a Big-4 auditor paired with a non-Big 4 auditor increase auditors' incentives to force firms to disclose more because Big 4 auditor fully bears reputation costs. Using a disclosure score for firms composing the French SBF 120 index from 2006 to 2009, we provide evidence that combination of Big 4 / non-Big 4 auditors generate higher impairment-related disclosures levels whereas the other combinations, i.e. two Big 4 or two non-Big 4, tend to decrease the level of impairment-related disclosures. These empirical results are consistent with our model predictions and robust to various controls variables (e.g., size, risk, year and firm fixed effects).
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by HAL in its series Post-Print with number halshs-00671613.
Date of creation: 29 Mar 2012
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published - Presented, 1er Workshop "Audit" - EM Lyon / IAE Poitiers / Université Paris-Dauphine, 2012, Ecully, France
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00671613
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
Joint Audit; Impairment Test; Game Theory; Prisoner's Dilemma; Disclosures; IAS 36;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-04-10 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Fields, Thomas D. & Lys, Thomas Z. & Vincent, Linda, 2001. "Empirical research on accounting choice," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 255-307, September.
- DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
- Cook, J. & Hatherly, D. & Nadeau, L. & Thomas, L. C., 1997. "Does cooperation in auditing matter? A comparison of a non-cooperative and a cooperative game model of auditing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 470-482, December.
- Ramanna, Karthik, 2008. "The implications of unverifiable fair-value accounting: Evidence from the political economy of goodwill accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 253-281, August.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.