IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/euract/v28y2019i4p621-658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit Market Response to PCAOB Censures of US Big 4 Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff P. Boone
  • Inder K. Khurana
  • K. K. Raman

Abstract

Subsequent to the first-ever Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) censure of a US Big 4 firm (Deloitte) in December 2007, there were two other PCAOB US Big 4 firm censures as of 2016 year-end. We examine whether these two post-2007 PCAOB censures of US Big 4 firms conveyed new information to the audit market. For both censures, we find little or no evidence of any change in the factual audit quality of the censured firm over a three-year window surrounding the censure. Our findings suggest that the quality control deficiencies (identified during inspection of specific audit engagements) that triggered the PCAOB censure were isolated occurrences rather than systemic to the firm at large, i.e., the censures do not imply an impairment in the US Big 4 firm's overall factual audit quality. We also find that the negative response of investors and audit committees documented in prior research for the 2007 Deloitte censure disappeared for the later US Big 4 firm censures. Given that the PCAOB inspects (and can censure) non-US auditors who audit US-listed foreign companies, our findings are of potential interest to regulators, investors and audit committees outside the US.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff P. Boone & Inder K. Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2019. "Audit Market Response to PCAOB Censures of US Big 4 Firms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 621-658, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:28:y:2019:i:4:p:621-658
    DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2018.1504687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09638180.2018.1504687
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09638180.2018.1504687?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Prabashi Dharmasiri & Soon-Yeow Phang & Ashna Prasad & John Webster, 2022. "Consequences of Ethical and Audit Violations: Evidence from the PCAOB Settled Disciplinary Orders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 179-203, August.

    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:euract:v:28:y:2019:i:4:p:621-658. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/REAR20 .

    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.