IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/futbus/v10y2024i1d10.1186_s43093-024-00321-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The differential impact of distracted auditors in managing portfolio of financially distressed audit clients on audit quality: the role of professional skepticism

Author

Listed:
  • Reem Essam Bedeir

    (Cairo University)

Abstract

This study hypothesizes that distracted auditors affect audit quality. As a result of resources scarcity, auditors pay more attention to financially distressed audit clients rather than non-financially distressed audit clients at the same audit client portfolio which eventually leads to differences in audit quality. In this context, earnings restatement of audit clients is used as a distraction event of auditors. Distracted auditor is measured by the percentage of the audit fees of financially distressed audit clients to total audit fees and audit quality is proxied by total accruals. The data is obtained from firms listed on the US stock market over eleven years between 2010 and 2020. The results indicate that financially distressed audit clients of distracted auditors receive higher audit quality than non-financially distressed audit clients of the same audit client portfolio. Further analysis suggests that this difference in audit quality between financially distressed audit clients and non-financially distressed audit clients decreases with skeptical auditors. This study introduces a new comprehensive approach to measure professional skepticism using KAMs disclosure. The results are robust to different measurements of distracted auditors, audit quality and professional skepticism. Overall, the empirical analyses suggest that distracted auditors have a decreasing differential impact on audit quality by professional skepticism.

Suggested Citation

  • Reem Essam Bedeir, 2024. "The differential impact of distracted auditors in managing portfolio of financially distressed audit clients on audit quality: the role of professional skepticism," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:futbus:v:10:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s43093-024-00321-9
    DOI: 10.1186/s43093-024-00321-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s43093-024-00321-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s43093-024-00321-9?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. Cory Cassell & Emily Hunt & Gans Narayanamoorthy & Stephen P. Rowe, 2019. "A hidden risk of auditor industry specialization: evidence from the financial crisis," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 891-926, September.
    2. Jeffrey Pittman & Yuping Zhao, 2020. "Debt Covenant Restriction, Financial Misreporting, and Auditor Monitoring," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2145-2185, December.
    3. Ittonen, Kim & Tronnes, Per C. & Wong, Leon, 2017. "Substantial doubt and the entropy of auditors’ going concern modifications," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 134-147.
    4. Philipp Henrizi & Dario Himmelsbach & Stefan Hunziker, 2021. "Anchoring and adjustment effects on audit judgments: experimental evidence from Switzerland," Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(4), pages 598-621, February.
    5. Gady Jacoby & Jialong Li & Mingzhi Liu, 2019. "Financial distress, political affiliation and earnings management: the case of politically affiliated private firms," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 508-523, April.
    6. Sammy X. Ying & Chris Patel & Peipei Pan, 2020. "The influence of peer attitude and inherent scepticism on auditors’ sceptical judgments," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 179-202, February.
    7. Jin Suk Heo & Soo Young Kwon & Hun‐Tong Tan, 2021. "Auditors' Responses to Workload Imbalance and the Impact on Audit Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 338-375, March.
    8. Chengyee Janie Chang & Yutao Li & Yan Luo, 2022. "Auditor distraction and audit quality," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(4), pages 341-373, July.
    9. Lauren C. Reid & Joseph V. Carcello & Chan Li & Terry L. Neal & Jere R. Francis, 2019. "Impact of Auditor Report Changes on Financial Reporting Quality and Audit Costs: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1501-1539, September.
    10. Lambert, Tamara A. & Jones, Keith L. & Brazel, Joseph F. & Showalter, D. Scott, 2017. "Audit time pressure and earnings quality: An examination of accelerated filings," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 50-66.
    11. Beck, Matthew J. & Gunn, Joshua L. & Hallman, Nicholas, 2019. "The geographic decentralization of audit firms and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1).
    12. Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2014. "Auditor†in†Charge Characteristics and Going†concern Reporting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 531-550, June.
    13. Wuchun Chi & Linda A. Myers & Thomas C. Omer & Hong Xie, 2017. "The effects of audit partner pre-client and client-specific experience on audit quality and on perceptions of audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 361-391, March.
    14. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    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. Li, Minghui & Yang, Xin & Zhai, Kerui, 2024. "Signing auditors’ experience gap and audit quality," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Patrick Velte, 2023. "The impact of external auditors on firms’ financial restatements: a review of archival studies and implications for future research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 959-985, September.
    3. Mihai Carp & Costel Istrate, 2021. "Audit Quality under Influences of Audit Firm and Auditee Characteristics: Evidence from the Romanian Regulated Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    5. Byzalov, Dmitri & Basu, Sudipta, 2024. "The misuse of regression-based x-Scores as dependent variables," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2).
    6. Mehdi Nekhili & Fahim Javed & Haithem Nagati, 2022. "Audit Partner Gender, Leadership and Ethics: The Case of Earnings Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 233-260, May.
    7. Cao, June & Ee, Mong Shan & Hasan, Iftekhar & Huang, He, 2024. "Asymmetric reactions of abnormal audit fees jump to credit rating changes," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    8. Kristina Peštović & Nikola Milicevic & Nenad Djokic & Ines Djokic, 2021. "Audit Service Quality Perceived by Customers: Formative Modelling Measurement Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Li, Valerie & Luo, Yan, 2023. "Costs and benefits of auditors' disclosure of critical audit matters: Initial evidence from the United States," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    11. Felix, Robert & Wilford, Amanda L., 2024. "Auditor's financial stress: An inconspicuous determinant of audit outcomes," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. Murat Ocak & Bekir Emre Kurtulmuş & Emrah Arıoğlu, 2024. "Do Individual Auditors from More Religious Hometowns Enhance Audit Quality? Evidence from an Islamic Country," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 439-481, March.
    13. Geiger, Marshall A. & Basioudis, Ilias G. & DeLange, Paul, 2022. "The effect of non-audit fees and industry specialization on the prevalence and accuracy of auditor’s going-concern reporting decisions," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    14. Zhai, Huayun & Lu, Meiting & Shan, Yaowen & Liu, Qingzhuo & Zhao, Ying, 2021. "Key audit matters and stock price synchronicity: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    15. Jenna J. Burke & Rani Hoitash & Udi Hoitash, 2020. "The Use and Characteristics of Foreign Component Auditors in U.S. Multinational Audits: Insights from Form AP Disclosures," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2398-2437, December.
    16. Smith, Kecia Williams, 2023. "Tell Me More: A content analysis of expanded auditor reporting in the United Kingdom," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    17. Ying Zhou & David P. Weber & Ce Wen, 2024. "Selection bias in audit firm tenure research," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 3085-3129, December.
    18. MohammadRezaei, Fakhroddin & Mohd-Saleh, Norman & Ahmed, Kamran, 2018. "Audit Firm Ranking, Audit Quality and Audit Fees: Examining Conflicting Price Discrimination Views," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 295-313.
    19. Jie Hao & Viet Pham & Meng Guo, 2022. "The Gender Effects of Audit Partners on Audit Outcomes: Evidence of Rule 3211 Adoption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 275-304, May.
    20. Xiong, Hao & Hou, Fei & Li, Hanwen & Wang, Huabing, 2020. "Does rice farming shape audit quality: Evidence from signing auditors level analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 403-420.

    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:spr:futbus:v:10:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1186_s43093-024-00321-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.