IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acctbr/v37y2007i3p217-232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Precision in auditing standards: effects on auditor and director liability and the supply and demand for audit services

Author

Listed:
  • Marleen Willekens
  • Dan Simunic

Abstract

This paper analyses the economic implications for a company's directors and its auditors of variations in the degree of precision (or, conversely, the degree of vagueness) in generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS), as well as variations in the degree of precision in legal standards of due care faced by directors. Directors and auditors are assumed to be jointly and severally liable to investors and creditors for unintentional misstatements in audited financial statements that are not detected because of either or both parties' negligence. Directors choose expected cost minimising levels of audit quality and internal control quality, which together define the quality of a firm's financial reporting system. Auditors choose a level of effort, given the level of audit quality demanded by directors. The interaction between directors and auditors is modelled in a leader-follower framework, where the directors' demand decisions reflect their own vague legal standards as well as a conjecture of the auditor's production behaviour as a function of the degree of precision in GAAS. We show that decreasing the precision of GAAS initially induces an auditor to produce higher audit quality by exerting more effort. But beyond a certain critical value, decreasing precision leads to decreasing effort and auditors gamble on violating GAAS. When vagueness exceeds a second critical value, auditors exert no effort at all. The demand decisions of directors with respect to the overall quality of a firm's financial reporting system are more complex. We show that when legal due care standards are precise, or somewhat imprecise, directors will demand levels of financial reporting system quality that comply with due care standards. But as legal standards become more imprecise, the precision of GAAS becomes important and affects the quality of internal control and audit quality demanded. Initially, directors will gamble on violating due care standards, and if the degree of vagueness in legal standards becomes sufficiently large, directors will have no demand for financial reporting system quality. In the final section, we develop hypotheses concerning the effects of decreasing precision in GAAS and suggest ways in which these hypotheses could be tested using international, inter-industry, and inter-temporal comparisons of the Big 4 audit firms' market shares, audit fees, and litigation rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Marleen Willekens & Dan Simunic, 2007. "Precision in auditing standards: effects on auditor and director liability and the supply and demand for audit services," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 217-232.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:acctbr:v:37:y:2007:i:3:p:217-232
    DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2007.9730073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00014788.2007.9730073
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00014788.2007.9730073?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. Derek K. Chan & Suil Pae, 1998. "An Analysis of the Economic Consequences of the Proportionate Liability Rule," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 457-480, December.
    2. Dye, Ronald A, 1993. "Auditing Standards, Legal Liability, and Auditor Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(5), pages 887-914, October.
    3. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    4. Spanos,Aris, 1986. "Statistical Foundations of Econometric Modelling," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521269124.
    5. Narayanan, Vg, 1994. "An Analysis Of Auditor Liability Rules," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 39-59.
    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. Minlei Ye & Dan A. Simunic, 2013. "The Economics of Setting Auditing Standards," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1191-1215, September.
    2. Li, Chan & Raman, K.K. & Sun, Lili & Wu, Da, 2017. "The effect of ambiguity in an auditing standard on auditor independence: Evidence from nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-51.
    3. Cohen, Sandra & Leventis, Stergios, 2013. "Effects of municipal, auditing and political factors on audit delay," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 40-53.
    4. Jochen Bigus, 2015. "Loss Aversion, Audit Risk Judgments, and Auditor Liability," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 581-606, September.
    5. Yi (Dale) Fu & Noel Harding & David C. Hay & Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan & Tom Scott & Harj Singh & Sarka Stepankova & Nigar Sultana, 2023. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised) Audit Evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4805-4812, December.
    6. Marcel Steller & Erich Pummerer, 2021. "Auditor’s Income Taxation and Audit Quality," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, August.

    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. John, Kose & John, Teresa A., 2006. "Managerial incentives, derivatives and stability," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 71-94, April.
    3. Erich Pummerer & Marcel Steller & Julia Baldauf, 2013. "Prüfungsqualität, Prüferhaftung und Risikoaversion — Eine analytische Betrachtung der Bedeutung der Risikoaversion für die Prüfungsqualität," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 32-59, February.
    4. Ku He & Xiaofei Pan & Gary Tian, 2017. "Legal Liability, Government Intervention, and Auditor Behavior: Evidence from Structural Reform of Audit Firms in China," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 61-95, January.
    5. Mingcherng Deng & Tong Lu & Dan A. Simunic & Minlei Ye, 2014. "Do Joint Audits Improve or Impair Audit Quality?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1029-1060, December.
    6. Mingcherng Deng & Nahum Melumad & Toshi Shibano, 2012. "Auditors’ Liability, Investments, and Capital Markets: A Potential Unintended Consequence of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 1179-1215, December.
    7. Carlos Corona & Ramandeep S. Randhawa, 2010. "The Auditor's Slippery Slope: An Analysis of Reputational Incentives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 924-937, June.
    8. Chiawen Liu & Taychang Wang, 2006. "Auditor Liability and Business Investment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 1051-1071, December.
    9. Henock Louis & Thomas C. Pearson & Dahlia M. Robinson & Michael N. Robinson & Amy X. Sun, 2019. "The Effects of the Extant Clauses Limiting Auditor Liability on Audit Fees and Overall Reporting Quality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 381-410, June.
    10. Smith, Deborah Drummond & Gleason, Kimberly C. & Kannan, Yezen H., 2021. "Auditor liability and excess cash holdings: Evidence from audit fees of foreign incorporated firms," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    11. Ralf Ewert & Eberhard Feess & Martin Nell, 2000. "Auditor liability rules under imperfect information and costly litigation: the welfare-increasing effect of liability insurance," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 371-385.
    12. Barnes, Paul, 2013. "The effects on financial statements of the litigation cost rule in a civil action for negligence against the auditor," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 170-182.
    13. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2012. "The consequences of protecting audit partners’ personal assets from the threat of liability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 154-173.
    14. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    15. Marcel Steller & Erich Pummerer, 2021. "Auditor’s Income Taxation and Audit Quality," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, August.
    16. Georges Dionne & Florence Giuliano & Pierre Picard, 2009. "Optimal Auditing with Scoring: Theory and Application to Insurance Fraud," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 58-70, January.
    17. Xianjie He & Jeffrey Pittman & Oliver Rui, 2016. "Reputational Implications for Partners After a Major Audit Failure: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 138(4), pages 703-722, November.
    18. Anna Bergman Brown & Nicole M. Heron & Hagit Levy & Emanuel Zur, 2023. "StoneRidge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta: A Test of Auditor Litigation Risk," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(3), pages 517-538, October.
    19. Joseph Weber & Michael Willenborg & Jieying Zhang, 2008. "Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 941-972, September.
    20. Gillan, Stuart L. & Panasian, Christine A., 2014. "On Litigation Risk and Disclosure Complexity: Evidence from Canadian Firms Cross-Listed in the US," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 426-454.

    More about this item

    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:taf:acctbr:v:37:y:2007:i:3:p:217-232. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RABR20 .

    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.