IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v57y2017icp73-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditor selection following auditor turnover: Do peers' choices matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Xudong (Daniel)
  • Sun, Lili
  • Ettredge, Michael

Abstract

Drawing on social norms and social learning theories, this study investigates the influences of peer (similar) firms' prior choices on whether or not a client chooses to affiliate with a “social norm” audit office in its metropolitan area, following auditor turnover. The office in a metro area auditing the largest number of peer firms along a given similarity dimension is considered to be the social norm office for that dimension. We identify peer firms using four alternative dimensions of similarity: client geographic location, industry affiliation, client size (filing status), and departing auditor type (Big N versus non-Big N). Using a large sample of auditor changes from the years 2001–2012, we find that for every dimension of similarity, the propensity of a client to select a norm (as opposed to a non-norm) audit office as the succeeding auditor is positively associated with 1) the proportion of its peers audited by the “norm” office in the prior year (i.e., social norm evidence) and 2) the proportion of its auditor-switching peers selecting a “norm” audit office in the prior year (i.e. social learning evidence). Social norm and social learning evidence provided by “more similar” peers has greater effect than evidence provided by “less similar” peers across all four dimensions of peer similarity. Further analysis suggests that social norm and learning evidence has incremental power (beyond each other) in explaining auditor selection, with norm evidence exhibiting a larger effect than learning evidence. An analysis of the implementation of SOX 404(b) mandatory internal control audits in 2004 shows that clients' tendency to choose pre-existing social norm audit offices can be disrupted by exogenous events.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Xudong (Daniel) & Sun, Lili & Ettredge, Michael, 2017. "Auditor selection following auditor turnover: Do peers' choices matter?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 73-87.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:57:y:2017:i:c:p:73-87
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2017.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368217300132
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2017.03.001?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. Botosan, CA & Harris, MS, 2000. "Motivations for a change in disclosure frequency and its consequences: An examination of voluntary quarterly segment disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 329-353.
    2. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    3. Yan Sun & Hun†Tong Tan & Jixun Zhang, 2015. "Effect of Concession†Timing Strategies in Auditor–Client Negotiations: It Matters Who Is Using Them," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 1489-1506, December.
    4. Axelrod, Robert, 1986. "An Evolutionary Approach to Norms," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1095-1111, December.
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1997. "Industry costs of equity," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 153-193, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Lisa Koonce & Jeffrey Miller & Jennifer Winchel, 2015. "The Effects of Norms on Investor Reactions to Derivative Use," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 1529-1554, December.
    10. DeFond, Mark L. & Subramanyam, K. R., 1998. "Auditor changes and discretionary accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 35-67, February.
    11. Edward I. Altman, 1968. "Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis And The Prediction Of Corporate Bankruptcy," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 23(4), pages 589-609, September.
    12. Edward I. Altman, 1968. "The Prediction Of Corporate Bankruptcy: A Discriminant Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 23(1), pages 193-194, March.
    13. Klein, Benjamin & Leffler, Keith B, 1981. "The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(4), pages 615-641, August.
    14. Bizjak, John M. & Lemmon, Michael L. & Naveen, Lalitha, 2008. "Does the use of peer groups contribute to higher pay and less efficient compensation?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 152-168, November.
    15. Robert Bloomfield & Mark W. Nelson & Eugene Soltes, 2016. "Gathering Data for Archival, Field, Survey, and Experimental Accounting Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 341-395, May.
    16. Watts, Ross L & Zimmerman, Jerold L, 1983. "Agency Problems, Auditing, and the Theory of the Firm: Some Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(3), pages 613-633, October.
    17. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    18. W. Robert Knechel & Ann Vanstraelen & Mikko Zerni, 2015. "Does the Identity of Engagement Partners Matter? An Analysis of Audit Partner Reporting Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 1443-1478, December.
    19. Paul Fischer & Steven Huddart, 2008. "Optimal Contracting with Endogenous Social Norms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1459-1475, September.
    20. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    21. Healy, Paul M. & Palepu, Krishna G., 2001. "Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 405-440, September.
    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. Federico E. Contiggiani & Fernando Delbianco & Fernando Tohm'e, 2021. "A Graph-based Similarity Function for CBDT: Acquiring and Using New Information," Papers 2104.14268, arXiv.org.

    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. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Chen, Long & Krishnan, Gopal V. & Yu, Wei, 2018. "The relation between audit fee cuts during the global financial crisis and earnings quality and audit quality," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 14-31.
    3. Fargher, Neil & Wee, Marvin, 2019. "The impact of Ball and Brown (1968) on generations of research," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 55-72.
    4. Guangming Gong & Liang Xiao & Si Xu & Xun Gong, 2019. "Do Bond Investors Care About Engagement Auditors’ Negative Experiences? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 779-806, September.
    5. Jian Cao & Feng Chen & Julia L. Higgs, 2016. "Late for a very important date: financial reporting and audit implications of late 10-K filings," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 633-671, June.
    6. 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).
    7. Biddle, Gary C. & Hilary, Gilles & Verdi, Rodrigo S., 2009. "How does financial reporting quality relate to investment efficiency?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2-3), pages 112-131, December.
    8. Pinghsun Huang & Yi-Chieh Wen & Yan Zhang, 2020. "Does the monitoring effect of Big 4 audit firms really prevail? Evidence from managerial expropriation of cash assets," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 739-768, August.
    9. Kevan Jensen & Jin-Mo Kim & Han Yi, 2015. "The geography of US auditors: information quality and monitoring costs by local versus non-local auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 513-549, April.
    10. Hope, Ole-Kristian & Hu, Danqi & Zhao, Wuyang, 2017. "Third-party consequences of short-selling threats: The case of auditor behavior," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 479-498.
    11. Arrunada, Benito & Paz-Ares, Candido, 1997. "Mandatory rotation of company auditors: A critical examination," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-61, March.
    12. Heidi Quah & Janto Haman & Dharmendra Naidu, 2021. "The effect of stock liquidity on investment efficiency under financing constraints and asymmetric information: Evidence from the United States," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 2109-2150, April.
    13. Kenneth J. Reichelt & Dechun Wang, 2010. "National and Office‐Specific Measures of Auditor Industry Expertise and Effects on Audit Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 647-686, June.
    14. Breuer, Matthias & Le, Anthony & Vetter, Felix, 2023. "Audit mandates, audit firms, and auditors," Working Papers 333, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    15. Aobdia, Daniel & Shroff, Nemit, 2017. "Regulatory oversight and auditor market share," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 262-287.
    16. Dang, Man & Puwanenthiren, Premkanth & Truong, Cameron & Henry, Darren & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2022. "Audit quality and seasoned equity offerings methods," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    17. Lin, Hsiao-Lun & Yen, Ai-Ru, 2017. "Determinants and market valuation of the decision to audit or review: Evidence from Taiwan," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 209-224.
    18. Charles Piot, 2000. "Relations D'Agence, Opportunites De Croissance Et Notoriete De L'Auditeur Externe : Une Etude Empirique Du Marche Français," Post-Print halshs-00587501, HAL.
    19. Saeed Rabea Baatwah & Adel Ali Al-Qadasi, 2020. "Determinants of outsourced internal audit function: a further analysis," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 10(4), pages 629-659, December.
    20. Feng Guo & Chenxi Lin & Adi Masli & Michael S. Wilkins, 2021. "Auditor Responses to Shareholder Activism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 63-95, March.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:57:y:2017:i:c:p:73-87. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.