IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/abacus/v57y2021i2p251-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Damage Apportionment on Internal Control System Quality and Financial Reporting Accuracy

Author

Listed:
  • Reinhard Schrank

Abstract

This paper investigates how damage apportionment between auditor and auditee affects the quality of the internal control system (ICS), the supplied audit quality, and social welfare. The analysis takes place in a setting where the audit is not only required to meet obligations towards the primary addressees of the audited report, but where the auditor assumes a public responsibility that also makes them responsible for the losses of ‘foreseeable third parties’. Using a game‐theoretic model, I show that shifting liability away from the auditor towards the auditee can lead to higher audit quality but lower ICS quality. The empirical evidence shows that internal controls and external auditing can be either complements or substitutes. Furthermore, assigning all the damages to the auditor leads to a Pareto‐efficient allocation of ICS quality and audit quality. This finding justifies the common ‘deep pocket’ assumption in the auditing literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Reinhard Schrank, 2021. "The Impact of Damage Apportionment on Internal Control System Quality and Financial Reporting Accuracy," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 57(2), pages 251-296, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:abacus:v:57:y:2021:i:2:p:251-296
    DOI: 10.1111/abac.12204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12204
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/abac.12204?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ralf Ewert, 1999. "Auditor Liability and the Precision of Auditing Standards," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 155(1), pages 181-181, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Dye, Ronald A., 1995. "Incorporation and the audit market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 75-114, February.
    4. W. Robert Knechel & Marleen Willekens, 2006. "The Role of Risk Management and Governance in Determining Audit Demand," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(9‐10), pages 1344-1367, November.
    5. William L. Felix, Jr. & Audrey A. Gramling & Mario j. Maletta, 2001. "The Contribution of Internal Audit as a Determinant of External Audit Fees and Factors Influencing This Contribution," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 513-534, December.
    6. Derek K. Chan & Suil Pae, 1998. "An Analysis of the Economic Consequences of the Proportionate Liability Rule," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 457-480, December.
    7. Beatty, Rp, 1993. "The Economic-Determinants Of Auditor Compensation In The Initial Public Offerings Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 294-302.
    8. Jere R. Francis & Dechun Wang, 2008. "The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality around the World," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 157-191, March.
    9. Willenborg, M, 1999. "Empirical analysis of the economic demand for auditing in the initial public offerings market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 225-238.
    10. J. Reed Smith & Samuel L. Tiras & Sansakrit S. Vichitlekarn, 2000. "The Interaction between Internal Control Assessment and Substantive Testing in Audits for Fraud," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 327-356, June.
    11. Jenny Goodwin‐Stewart & Pamela Kent, 2006. "Relation between external audit fees, audit committee characteristics and internal audit," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 46(3), pages 387-404, September.
    12. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    13. Dye, Ronald A, 1993. "Auditing Standards, Legal Liability, and Auditor Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(5), pages 887-914, October.
    14. W. Robert Knechel & Marleen Willekens, 2006. "The Role of Risk Management and Governance in Determining Audit Demand," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(9-10), pages 1344-1367.
    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. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    2. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2012. "The consequences of protecting audit partners’ personal assets from the threat of liability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 154-173.
    3. Mingcherng Deng & Nahum Melumad & Toshi Shibano, 2012. "Auditors’ Liability, Investments, and Capital Markets: A Potential Unintended Consequence of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 1179-1215, December.
    4. Persakis, Anthony & Iatridis, George Emmanuel, 2016. "Audit quality, investor protection and earnings management during the financial crisis of 2008: An international perspective," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 73-101.
    5. Ines Maraghni & Mehdi Nekhili, 2017. "Audit committee characteristics and audit fees: Evidence from France [Caractéristiques du comité d’audit et honoraires d’audit : cas des entreprises françaises]," Post-Print hal-01907594, HAL.
    6. Ralf Ewert & Alfred Wagenhofer, 2019. "Effects of Increasing Enforcement on Financial Reporting Quality and Audit Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 121-168, March.
    7. Henock Louis & Thomas C. Pearson & Dahlia M. Robinson & Michael N. Robinson & Amy X. Sun, 2019. "The Effects of the Extant Clauses Limiting Auditor Liability on Audit Fees and Overall Reporting Quality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 381-410, June.
    8. George Drogalas & Michail Nerantzidis & Dimitrios Mitskinis & Ioannis Tampakoudis, 2021. "The relationship between audit fees and audit committee characteristics: evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 24-41, March.
    9. Ralf Ewert & Eberhard Feess & Martin Nell, 2000. "Auditor liability rules under imperfect information and costly litigation: the welfare-increasing effect of liability insurance," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 371-385.
    10. Ji, Xu-dong & Lu, Wei & Qu, Wen, 2018. "Internal control risk and audit fees: Evidence from China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 266-287.
    11. Salau ABDULMALIK O. & Ayoib CHE AHMAD, 2016. "Boardroom diversity and audit fees: director ethnicity, independence and nationality," The Audit Financiar journal, Chamber of Financial Auditors of Romania, vol. 14(136), pages 413-413, Aprilie.
    12. Bley, Jorg & Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2019. "Auditor choice and bank risk taking," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 37-52.
    13. Lasse Niemi & W. Robert Knechel & Hannu Ojala & Jill Collis, 2018. "Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-54, January.
    14. Salau O. Abdulmalik & Ayoib Che Ahmad, 2015. "The Effect of 2011 Revised Code of Corporate Governance on Pricing Behaviour of Nigerian Auditors," European Financial and Accounting Journal, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2015(4), pages 45-65.
    15. David C. Hay & W. Robert Knechel & Norman Wong, 2006. "Audit Fees: A Meta†analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 141-191, March.
    16. 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.
    17. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2016. "Cross-country evidence on the importance of Big Four auditors to equity pricing: The mediating role of legal institutions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 60-81.
    18. Copley, Paul & Douthett, Edward & Zhang, Suning, 2021. "Venture capitalists and assurance services on initial public offerings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 278-286.
    19. Lin, Z. Jun & Liu, Ming, 2009. "The impact of corporate governance on auditor choice: Evidence from China," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 44-59.
    20. Xin Chang & André F. Gygax & Elaine Oon & Hong Feng Zhang, 2008. "Audit quality, auditor compensation and initial public offering underpricing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(3), pages 391-416, September.

    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:bla:abacus:v:57:y:2021:i:2:p:251-296. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0001-3072 .

    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.