IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v38y2021i1p63-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditor Responses to Shareholder Activism

Author

Listed:
  • Feng Guo
  • Chenxi Lin
  • Adi Masli
  • Michael S. Wilkins

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate how auditors respond to shareholder activism against their clients. Our study is important because activism may be viewed by auditors as a source of increased engagement risk, thereby impacting audit outcomes. The potential relationship between shareholder activism and audit outcomes leads us to predict that activism targets will pay higher audit fees and also will be more likely to receive adverse internal control opinions (ICOs) and first‐time going concern opinions (GCOs). Our results, which support all three predictions, suggest that the public scrutiny associated with activism campaigns heightens auditors' concerns about reputational damage and litigation risk. Consistent with this notion, we find that activism targets are more likely to experience accounting‐related lawsuits. We also find that the increased likelihood of adverse ICOs documented in our baseline tests reflects higher‐quality reporting rather than increased auditor conservatism. Overall, our findings suggest that activism campaigns spur auditor diligence while also increasing the possibility of negative outcomes that may not be fully anticipated by activist investors. Réponses des auditeurs à l'activisme des actionnaires Dans cet article, nous examinons de quelle façon les auditeurs répondent à l'activisme des actionnaires à l'encontre de leurs clients. Notre étude est importante, car l'activisme peut être perçu par les auditeurs comme une source d'accroissement du risque de mission, et peut donc avoir une incidence sur les résultats d'audit. La relation possible entre l'activisme des actionnaires et les résultats d'audit nous laisse présager que les sociétés qui font l'objet d'un tel activisme assument des frais d'audit plus élevés et sont plus susceptibles de recevoir une opinion sur le contrôle interne négative et une première opinion sur la continuité de l'exploitation. Nos observations, qui soutiennent ces trois prévisions, portent à croire que l'examen du public associé aux campagnes d'activisme accroît les préoccupations des auditeurs quant aux risques d'atteinte à la réputation et de litige. Conformément à cette notion, nous constatons que les sociétés ciblées par l'activisme sont plus susceptibles de faire face à des poursuites judiciaires liées à leurs activités comptables. Nous montrons également que la hausse de la probabilité de recevoir une opinion sur le contrôle interne négative documentée dans nos tests de base est attribuable à une communication d'information de meilleure qualité plutôt qu'à un conservatisme accru de la part des auditeurs. Dans l'ensemble, nos observations donnent à penser que les campagnes d'activisme encouragent la diligence des auditeurs tout en augmentant la possibilité de résultats négatifs que ne peuvent pas entièrement prévoir les investisseurs activistes.

Suggested Citation

  • Feng Guo & Chenxi Lin & Adi Masli & Michael S. Wilkins, 2021. "Auditor Responses to Shareholder Activism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 63-95, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:38:y:2021:i:1:p:63-95
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12630
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12630?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    2. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Alon Brav & Wei Jiang & Thomas Keusch, 2019. "Dancing With Activists," NBER Working Papers 26171, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    4. Thompson, Samuel B., 2011. "Simple formulas for standard errors that cluster by both firm and time," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 1-10, January.
    5. John Pound, 1992. "Raiders, Targets, And Politics: The History And Future Of American Corporate Control," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 5(3), pages 6-18, September.
    6. Mutchler, JF & Hopwood, W & McKeown, JM, 1997. "The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 295-310.
    7. Nathaniel Beck, 2018. "Estimating grouped data models with a binary dependent variable and fixed effects: What are the issues," Papers 1809.06505, arXiv.org.
    8. April Klein & Emanuel Zur, 2009. "Entrepreneurial Shareholder Activism: Hedge Funds and Other Private Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(1), pages 187-229, February.
    9. Brav, Alon & Jiang, Wei & Kim, Hyunseob, 2010. "Hedge Fund Activism: A Review," Foundations and Trends(R) in Finance, now publishers, vol. 4(3), pages 185-246, March.
    10. Mark L. DeFond & K. Raghunandan & K.R. Subramanyam, 2002. "Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1247-1274, September.
    11. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
    12. Frost, Ca, 1991. "Loss Contingency Reports And Stock-Prices - A Replication And Extension Of Banks And Kinney," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 157-169.
    13. Linda A. Myers & Jonathan E. Shipman & Quinn T. Swanquist & Robert L. Whited, 2018. "Measuring the market response to going concern modifications: the importance of disclosure timing," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1512-1542, December.
    14. Edward I. Altman, 1968. "Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis And The Prediction Of Corporate Bankruptcy," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 23(4), pages 589-609, September.
    15. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2014. "Accounting misstatements following lawsuits against auditors," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 58-75.
    16. Edward I. Altman, 1968. "The Prediction Of Corporate Bankruptcy: A Discriminant Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 23(1), pages 193-194, March.
    17. Edmans, Alex & Holderness, Clifford, 2016. "Blockholders: A Survey of Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 11442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Alon Brav & Wei Jiang & Frank Partnoy & Randall Thomas, 2008. "Hedge Fund Activism, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1729-1775, August.
    19. Bradley P. Lawson & Dechun Wang, 2016. "The Earnings Quality Information Content of Dividend Policies and Audit Pricing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(4), pages 1685-1719, December.
    20. April Klein & Emanuel Zur, 2011. "The Impact of Hedge Fund Activism on the Target Firm's Existing Bondholders," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(5), pages 1735-1771.
    21. Sarah C. Rice & David P. Weber, 2012. "How Effective Is Internal Control Reporting under SOX 404? Determinants of the (Non‐)Disclosure of Existing Material Weaknesses," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 811-843, June.
    22. Beck, Nathaniel, 2020. "Estimating Grouped Data Models with a Binary-Dependent Variable and Fixed Effects via a Logit versus a Linear Probability Model: The Impact of Dropped Units," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 139-145, January.
    23. Ge, Weili & Koester, Allison & McVay, Sarah, 2017. "Benefits and costs of Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404(b) exemption: Evidence from small firms’ internal control disclosures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 358-384.
    24. C.S. Agnes Cheng & Henry He Huang & Yinghua Li, 2015. "Hedge Fund Intervention and Accounting Conservatism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 392-421, March.
    25. Thomas Bourveau & Jordan Schoenfeld, 2017. "Shareholder activism and voluntary disclosure," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1307-1339, September.
    26. Christopher S. Armstrong & Alan D. Jagolinzer & David F. Larcker, 2010. "Chief Executive Officer Equity Incentives and Accounting Irregularities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(2), pages 225-271, May.
    27. Mark L. Defond & Jere R. Francis & Nicholas J. Hallman, 2018. "Awareness of SEC Enforcement and Auditor Reporting Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 277-313, March.
    28. Appel, Ian R. & Gormley, Todd A. & Keim, Donald B., 2016. "Passive investors, not passive owners," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 111-141.
    29. Dhaliwal, Dan S. & Lamoreaux, Phillip T. & Litov, Lubomir P. & Neyland, Jordan B., 2016. "Shared auditors in mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 49-76.
    30. Jayanthi Sunder & Shyam V. Sunder & Wan Wongsunwai, 2014. "Debtholder Responses to Shareholder Activism: Evidence from Hedge Fund Interventions," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(11), pages 3318-3342.
    31. Jennifer R. Joe, 2003. "Why Press Coverage of a Client Influences the Audit Opinion," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 109-133, March.
    32. Teoh, Sh, 1992. "Auditor Independence, Dismissal Threats, And The Market Reaction To Auditor Switches," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 1-23.
    33. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Havranek, Tomas & Bajzík, Josef & Irsova, Zuzana & Novak, Jiri, 2023. "Does Shareholder Activism Create Value? A Meta-Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 18233, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Václav Kupec & Přemysl Písař & Michal Lukáč & Gabriela Pajtinková Bartáková, 2021. "Conceptual Comparison of Internal Audit and Internal Control in the Marketing Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Paul J. Coram & Yi (Dale) Fu & Mukush Garg & Noel Harding & David C. Hay & Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan & Nora Muñoz‐Izquierdo & Ashna Prasad & Nigar Sultana & Jamie Tong, 2022. "Comments of the AFAANZ auditing and assurance standards committee on proposed international standard on auditing ISA for LCE," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 4219-4244, September.

    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. Jian Cao & Thomas R. Kubick & Adi N. S. Masli, 2017. "Do corporate payouts signal going-concern risk for auditors? Evidence from audit reports for companies in financial distress," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 599-631, October.
    2. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Brav, Alon & Jiang, Wei & Keusch, Thomas, 2020. "Dancing with activists," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 1-41.
    3. Xiaolu Xu & Leo L. Yang & Joseph H. Zhang, 2022. "How do auditors respond to client firms’ technological peer pressure? Evidence from going‐concern opinions," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(9-10), pages 1553-1580, October.
    4. Raluca Roman, 2015. "Shareholder activism in banking," Research Working Paper RWP 15-9, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    5. Keusch, Thomas, 2021. "Shareholder Activists and Frictions in the CEO Labor Market," LawFin Working Paper Series 19, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    6. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Alon Brav & Wei Jiang & Thomas Keusch, 2019. "Dancing With Activists," NBER Working Papers 26171, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Sean T. McGuire & Stevanie S. Neuman & Sarah C. Rice, 2020. "Interim Effective Tax Rate Estimates and Internal Control Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 603-633, March.
    8. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    9. Zvi Singer & Jing Zhang, 2022. "Do companies try to conceal financial misstatements through auditor shopping?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1-2), pages 140-180, January.
    10. Hope, Ole-Kristian & Hu, Danqi & Zhao, Wuyang, 2017. "Third-party consequences of short-selling threats: The case of auditor behavior," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 479-498.
    11. Ryan Flugum & Matthew E. Souther, 2020. "External monitoring and returns to hedge fund activist campaigns," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 97-140, January.
    12. Chen, Peter F. & He, Shaohua & Ma, Zhiming & Stice, Derrald, 2016. "The information role of audit opinions in debt contracting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 121-144.
    13. Erenburg, Grigori & Smith, Janet Kiholm & Smith, Richard, 2016. "Which institutional investors matter for firm survival and performance?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 348-373.
    14. Denes, Matthew R. & Karpoff, Jonathan M. & McWilliams, Victoria B., 2017. "Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 405-424.
    15. Li, Xudong (Daniel) & Sun, Lili & Ettredge, Michael, 2017. "Auditor selection following auditor turnover: Do peers' choices matter?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 73-87.
    16. Jing Chen & Michael J. Jung, 2016. "Activist hedge funds and firm disclosure," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 52-63, April.
    17. Thomas C. Omer & Nathan Y. Sharp & Dechun Wang, 2018. "The Impact of Religion on the Going Concern Reporting Decisions of Local Audit Offices," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(4), pages 811-831, June.
    18. Myojung Cho & Gopal V. Krishnan, 2023. "Principles-based accounting standards and audit outcomes: empirical evidence," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 164-200, March.
    19. Erhemjamts, Otgontsetseg & Huang, Kershen, 2019. "Institutional ownership horizon, corporate social responsibility and shareholder value," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 61-79.
    20. Jordan Schoenfeld, 2020. "Contracts Between Firms and Shareholders," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 383-427, May.

    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:wly:coacre:v:38:y:2021:i:1:p:63-95. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.