IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcjaxx/v10y2022i4p528-548.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the random inspection reduce audit opinion shopping?

Author

Listed:
  • Guoqing Zhang
  • Sicen Chen
  • Pengdong Zhang
  • Xiaowei Lin

Abstract

The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has randomly selected two audit firms each year to check their problems in management and internal control since 2016. Using the random inspections from 2016 to 2018, we construct a staggered DID model and find that the possibility of audit firms engaging in audit opinion shopping decreases after they are inspected. To explore the underlying logic, we document that: (1) the random inspections strengthened audit firms’ management of branch offices, resulting in a more pronounced effect on the practice of branch audit offices; and (2) the policy improved audit firms’ internal control, leading to more pronounced effect in audit firms with a heavy workload and loose control. Further, we show that punishments following the inspections strengthen the basic effect, while the effect of random inspections would be weakened for the big 10 audit firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Guoqing Zhang & Sicen Chen & Pengdong Zhang & Xiaowei Lin, 2022. "Does the random inspection reduce audit opinion shopping?," China Journal of Accounting Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 528-548, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcjaxx:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:528-548
    DOI: 10.1080/21697213.2022.2143685
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21697213.2022.2143685
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21697213.2022.2143685?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.

    More about this item

    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:taf:rcjaxx:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:528-548. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcja .

    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.