IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/crpeac/v97y2023ics1045235423000217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examine the available evidence: Was the Duhnke PCAOB captured?

Author

Listed:
  • Keyser, John D.

Abstract

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was created in 2003 after Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The mission of the Board is to serve the public interest through regulation of accounting firms who audit public companies. Regulatory agencies are susceptible to regulatory capture whereby the agency serves the interests of the regulated industry rather than the public interest. In 2017, the Securities Exchange Commission appointed five new members, including Chairman Duhnke, to the PCAOB. This paper applies Carpenter’s (2014b) model to evaluate whether the PCAOB was captured during the Duhnke chairmanship. The susceptibility of the PCAOB to regulatory capture is important because the effectiveness of the capital markets depends on trust in financial statement audits. The available evidence is consistent with a “weak” capture conclusion. During the Duhnke Board’s tenure, there was diminished activity in the areas of inspection, standard-setting, and enforcement.

Suggested Citation

  • Keyser, John D., 2023. "Examine the available evidence: Was the Duhnke PCAOB captured?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:crpeac:v:97:y:2023:i:c:s1045235423000217
    DOI: 10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235423000217
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102573?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. Canada, Joseph & Kuhn, J. Randel & Sutton, Steve G., 2008. "Accidentally in the public interest: The perfect storm that yielded the Sarbanes-Oxley act," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 987-1003.
    2. Carcello, Joseph V. & Hollingsworth, Carl & Mastrolia, Stacy A., 2011. "The effect of PCAOB inspections on Big 4 audit quality," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 85-96.
    3. Dellaportas, Steven & Davenport, Laura, 2008. "Reflections on the public interest in accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 1080-1098.
    4. Carol Callaway Dee & Ayalew Lulseged & Tianming Zhang, 2011. "Client Stock Market Reaction to PCAOB Sanctions Against a Big 4 Auditor," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 263-291, March.
    5. David P. M. Scollnik, 2018. "Bayesian analysis of a quarantine inspection model," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(8), pages 1484-1496, June.
    6. Justin Rex, 2020. "Anatomy of agency capture: An organizational typology for diagnosing and remedying capture," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 271-294, April.
    7. Marver H. Bernstein, 1972. "Independent Regulatory Agencies: A Perspective on Their Reform," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 400(1), pages 14-26, March.
    8. Paisey, Catriona & Paisey, Nicholas J., 2020. "Protecting the public interest? Continuing professional development policies and role-profession conflict in accountancy," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 67.
    9. Knechel, W. Robert & Park, Hyun Jong, 2022. "Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. Lindsay M. Johnson & Marsha B. Keune & Jennifer Winchel, 2019. "U.S. Auditors' Perceptions of the PCAOB Inspection Process: A Behavioral Examination†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1540-1574, September.
    11. Lisa Baudot & Robin W. Roberts & Dana M. Wallace, 2017. "An Examination of the U.S. Public Accounting Profession’s Public Interest Discourse and Actions in Federal Policy Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 203-220, May.
    12. Mark L. Defond & Clive S. Lennox, 2017. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Quality of Internal Control Audits?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 591-627, June.
    13. Windsor, Carolyn & Warming-Rasmussen, Bent, 2009. "The rise of regulatory capitalism and the decline of auditor independence: A critical and experimental examination of auditors’ conflicts of interests," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 267-288.
    14. Kimberly D. Westermann & Jeffrey Cohen & Greg Trompeter, 2019. "PCAOB Inspections: Public Accounting Firms on “Trial”," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 694-731, June.
    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. Christensen, Brant & Lei, Lijun (Gillian) & Shu, Sydney Qing & Thomas, Wayne, 2023. "Does audit regulation improve the underlying information used by managers? Evidence from PCAOB inspection access and management forecast accuracy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Maroun, Warren & Solomon, Jill, 2014. "Whistle-blowing by external auditors: Seeking legitimacy for the South African Audit Profession?," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 109-121.
    3. Sarah B. Stuber & Chris E. Hogan, 2021. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 331-370, March.
    4. Hanlon, Michelle & Shroff, Nemit, 2022. "Insights into auditor public oversight boards: Whether, how, and why they “work”," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    5. Friedrich, Christian & Quick, Reiner, 2024. "Do non-audit service failures impair auditor reputation? An analysis of KPMG advisory service scandals in Germany," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Paisey, Catriona & Paisey, Nicholas J., 2012. "Whose rights? Professional discipline and the incorporation of a (human) rights framework: The case of ICAS," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 17-35.
    7. van Brenk, Herman & Renes, Remko & Trompeter, Gregory M., 2022. "Auditing in the public interest: Reforming the profession by building on the strengths of the existing accounting firms," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    8. Knechel, W. Robert & Park, Hyun Jong, 2022. "Audit firm political connections and PCAOB inspection reports," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Bertrand Malsch & Marie-Soleil Tremblay & Jeffrey Cohen, 2022. "Non-audit Engagements and the Creation of Public Value: Consequences for the Public Interest," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(2), pages 467-479, June.
    11. Moehrle, Stephen R. & Mintchik, Natalia & Mohrman, Mary Beth & Reynolds-Moehrle, Jennifer A. & Vargus, Mark, 2014. "Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2011 academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 175-195.
    12. Paisey, Catriona & Paisey, Nicholas J., 2020. "Protecting the public interest? Continuing professional development policies and role-profession conflict in accountancy," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 67.
    13. Jerry Sun & Steven F. Cahan & Jing Xu, 2016. "Individual Auditor Conservatism After CSRC Sanctions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 133-146, June.
    14. Liu, Guoping & Sun, Jerry, 2019. "Did the SEC administrative proceedings against Chinese auditors affect audit quality?," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    15. Nathan R. Berglund, 2020. "Do Client Bankruptcies Preceded by Clean Audit Opinions Damage Auditor Reputation?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1914-1951, September.
    16. Aobdia, Daniel & Dou, Yiwei & Kim, Jungbae, 2021. "Public audit oversight and the originate-to-distribute model," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1).
    17. Navarro, Patricia & Robb, Sean W.G. & Sutton, Steve G. & Weisner, Martin M., 2020. "The cost stickiness of information technology material weaknesses: An intertemporal comparison between it-related and other material weaknesses," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    18. Henry L. Friedman & Lucas Mahieux, 2021. "How Is the Audit Market Affected by Characteristics of the Nonaudit Services Market?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 959-1020, June.
    19. Ardelean Alexandra, 2013. "Defining the Public Interest in Relation to the Accountancy Profession: Some Perspectives," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 60(2), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Regulatory capture; PCAOB; SOX;
    All these keywords.

    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:eee:crpeac:v:97:y:2023:i:c:s1045235423000217. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/critical-perspectives-on-accounting/ .

    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.