IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v14y2021i11p508-d661870.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Disclosure of an Audit Engagement Partner’s Name Improve the Audit Quality? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kose John

    (Department of Finance, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY 10012, USA)

  • Min (Shirley) Liu

    (Department of Accounting, Murray Koppelman School of Business, Brooklyn College, The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210, USA)

Abstract

On 15 December 2015, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) passed Rule 3211, requiring audit firms registered with PCAOB in the U.S. to disclose the audit engagement partner’s name in the Form AP, effective 31 January 2017. The regulation aims to improve the transparency and quality of audits, thereby increasing investors’ confidence in financial statements. Using the audit firms registered with the PCAOB and their clients as the treated sample, we employed a difference-in-difference analysis to investigate whether and the extent to which implementing Rule 3211 impacts audit quality and audit costs. We compared the audit quality (proxied by the abnormal discretionary accruals quality, the probability of restating the financial statements, and the ratio of the audit fees to the total fees) and audit costs (proxied by the total audit fees) from one year (up to three years) pre- to one year (up to three years) post-Rule 3211, to a control sample (comprised of U.K. audit firms, which were not subject to such regulation during the sample period). The empirical results generally indicate that there was an increase in the audit quality and in the audit costs from the pre- to the post-Rule 3211 period and also suggest that auditor independence increased in the post-regulation period compared to the pre-regulation period. Our empirical results are new and contribute to the research on the PCAOB and audits.

Suggested Citation

  • Kose John & Min (Shirley) Liu, 2021. "Does the Disclosure of an Audit Engagement Partner’s Name Improve the Audit Quality? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-30, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:11:p:508-:d:661870
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/11/508/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/11/508/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shivaram Rajgopal & Suraj Srinivasan & Xin Zheng, 2021. "Measuring audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 559-619, June.
    2. Marcus M. Doxey & James G. Lawson & Thomas J. Lopez & Quinn T. Swanquist, 2021. "Do Investors Care Who Did the Audit? Evidence from Form AP," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1741-1782, December.
    3. William H. Greene & Min (Shirley) Liu, 2020. "Review of Difference-in-Difference Analyses in Social Sciences: Application in Policy Test Research," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Cheng Few Lee & John C Lee (ed.), HANDBOOK OF FINANCIAL ECONOMETRICS, MATHEMATICS, STATISTICS, AND MACHINE LEARNING, chapter 124, pages 4255-4280, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Costa-Font, Joan & Raut, Nilesh & Van Houtven, Courtney, 2021. "Medicaid Expansion and the Mental Health of Spousal Caregivers," IZA Discussion Papers 14754, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Elsayed, Mohamed & Elshandidy, Tamer & Ahmed, Yousry, 2022. "Corporate failure in the UK: An examination of corporate governance reforms," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. Kevin Koh & Li Li & Xuejiao Liu & Chunfei Wang, 2023. "The Effect of Audit Partner Diversity on Audit Quality: Evidence from China," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(1), pages 340-380, March.
    4. Isaac Selasi Awuye, 2022. "The impact of audit quality on earnings management: Evidence from France," Post-Print hal-03824396, HAL.
    5. Yi-Hsing Liao & Hua Lee & Chao-Jung Chen, 2023. "The informational role of audit partner industry specialization," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 69-109, January.
    6. Masoud Azizkhani & Sarowar Hossain & Mai Nguyen, 2023. "Effects of audit committee chair characteristics on auditor choice, audit fee and audit quality," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3675-3707, September.
    7. Abbott, Lawrence J. & Buslepp, William L., 2022. "An investigation of the market's pricing of auditor competence: Evidence from PwC's Oscars blunder," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    8. Bingyi Chen & Jenelle K. Conaway, 2022. "Do U.S. Investors Value Foreign Component Auditors?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 805-851, June.
    9. Anastassia Fedyk & James Hodson & Natalya Khimich & Tatiana Fedyk, 2022. "Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 938-985, September.
    10. 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).
    11. Mowchan, Michael J., 2023. "Do accounting firms change strategy through office managing partner appointments? Evidence from the U.S," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:11:p:508-:d:661870. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.