IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijbmjn/v11y2016i5p219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of Audit Opinion after the Scandals of Enron: Empirical Validation in the French Context

Author

Listed:
  • Soltani Lynda

Abstract

This study examines the effect of regulatory changes on audit quality in the French context. The evaluation of the risks and the anomalies carried out by the auditors brings them control relating to the financial statements of the company in order to express an opinion on the effectiveness, the regularity, the sincerity and the faithful image of these documents, in a large complexity of the organizations the objective of this research consists in studying the effect of the evolutions of the regulation as regards legal audit on the estimate of the probability of having an opinion of audit with reserve which reinforces the independence of the auditor.A list of hypothesis related to the approached problems is proposed followed by an overview of the different theoretical propositions which are in place. From a sample of French companies in the SBF 250 over the period 2002-2011, the results show that the analysis of the conditions of receiving a qualified audit opinion is determined by- the variables of the financial health of the company, the inventory receivables which indicate the complexity of the audited firm and the characteristics of the audit.

Suggested Citation

  • Soltani Lynda, 2016. "Determinants of Audit Opinion after the Scandals of Enron: Empirical Validation in the French Context," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 219-219, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijbmjn:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/57267/31649
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/57267
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craswell, Allen & Stokes, Donald J. & Laughton, Janet, 2002. "Auditor independence and fee dependence," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 253-275, June.
    2. Francis, Jr & Stokes, Dj, 1986. "Audit Prices, Product Differentiation, And Scale Economies - Further Evidence From The Australian Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 383-393.
    3. Dopuch, Nicholas & Holthausen, Robert W. & Leftwich, Richard W., 1986. "Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of `subject to' qualified audit opinions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 93-117, June.
    4. Chen, Jiandong & Cumming, Douglas & Hou, Wenxuan & Lee, Edward, 2013. "Executive integrity, audit opinion, and fraud in Chinese listed firms," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 72-91.
    5. Lennox, Clive, 2005. "Audit quality and executive officers' affiliations with CPA firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 201-231, June.
    6. Wang, Qian & Wong, T.J. & Xia, Lijun, 2008. "State ownership, the institutional environment, and auditor choice: Evidence from China," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 112-134, September.
    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. Firth, Michael & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2012. "How Do Various Forms of Auditor Rotation Affect Audit Quality? Evidence from China," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 109-138.
    3. Feng Chen & Songlan Peng & Shuang Xue & Zhifeng Yang & Feiteng Ye, 2016. "Do Audit Clients Successfully Engage in Opinion Shopping? Partner‐Level Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 79-112, March.
    4. Xingqiang Du, 2019. "What’s in a Surname? The Effect of Auditor-CEO Surname Sharing on Financial Misstatement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 849-874, September.
    5. Anna Alon & Oksana Kim, 2022. "Protectionism through legislative layering: Implications for auditors and investors," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(3), pages 363-383, September.
    6. Lyn Barkess & Roger Simnett & Paul Urquhart, 2002. "The Effect of Client Fee Dependence on Audit Independence," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 12(28), pages 14-22, November.
    7. Ilias G. Basioudis, 2007. "Auditor's Engagement Risk and Audit Fees: The Role of Audit Firm Alumni," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(9‐10), pages 1393-1422, November.
    8. Alex Chu & Xingqiang Du & Guohua Jiang, 2011. "Buy, Lie, or Die: An Investigation of Chinese ST Firms’ Voluntary Interim Audit Motive and Auditor Independence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 135-153, August.
    9. Roger Simnett & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Research Methods for Examining Independence Issues: Experimental and Economics-of-Auditing Approaches," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 12(28), pages 23-31, November.
    10. Zhifeng Yang, 2013. "Do Political Connections Add Value to Audit Firms? Evidence from IPO Audits in China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 891-921, September.
    11. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    12. Su, Xijia & Wu, Xi, 2016. "Client Following Former Audit Partners and Audit Quality: Evidence from Unforced Audit Firm Changes in China," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-22.
    13. Zhang, Min & Xu, Haoran & Li, Xu, 2017. "The Effect of Previous Working Relationship between Rotating Partners on Mandatory Audit Partner Rotation," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 101-121.
    14. Chan, Ann Ling-Ching & Ding, Rong & Hou, Wenxuan, 2014. "Does mutual fund ownership affect financial reporting quality for Chinese privately-owned enterprises?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 131-140.
    15. Jihong Liu & Yaping Wang & Liansheng Wu, 2011. "The Effect of Guanxi on Audit Quality in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 103(4), pages 621-638, November.
    16. Xingqiang Du, 2019. "Does CEO-Auditor Dialect Sharing Impair Pre-IPO Audit Quality? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 699-735, May.
    17. Laurence Kranich & Andrés Perea & Hans Peters, 2005. "Core Concepts For Dynamic Tu Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 43-61.
    18. Frank D. Hodge & Roger D. Martin & Jamie H. Pratt, 2006. "Audit Qualifications of Income†Decreasing Accounting Choices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-394, June.
    19. Sang Cheol Lee & Mooweon Rhee & Jongchul Yoon, 2018. "Foreign Monitoring and Audit Quality: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    20. Butler, Marty & Leone, Andrew J. & Willenborg, Michael, 2004. "An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 139-165, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:ijbmjn:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:219. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.