IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ysm/somwrk/amz2575.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Auditor Liability Reforms in the UK and the US: A Comparative Review

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Bush
  • Shyam Sunder
  • Stella Fearnley

Abstract

The past decade has seen many changes in audit liability regimes of the US and the UK, and more may be on the way. These include LLP status for audit firms, proportional liability, and the introduction of various forms of liability caps through contract in engagement letters. These changes may affect audit quality, price and profitability, the organization of the market for audit services, as well as domestic and cross-national mechanisms for regulation of this market. What have been, or will be the consequences of these changes? Will the auditors, who advocate many of these reforms, benefit from them? Will the investors, who advocate other reforms, benefit from them? Answers to these questions are relevant to policy decisions at hand. We analyze the recent changes and the proposals for future changes on the basis of available research on the market for audit services, including some studies commissioned by regulators. We find it difficult to establish a correspondence between the self-interest of the advocates of various changes and the observed and anticipated effects of such changes. More evidence is needed to inform the debate in the corridors of power. Such evidence could be obtained by requiring audit firms to publish information about their true litigation costs. Moreover, the regulatory process might benefit from somewhat greater reliance on market forces.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Bush & Shyam Sunder & Stella Fearnley, 2007. "Auditor Liability Reforms in the UK and the US: A Comparative Review," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2575, Yale School of Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:ysm:somwrk:amz2575
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://icfpub.som.yale.edu/publications/2575
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Coffee, 2005. "A Theory of Corporate Scandals: Why the USA and Europe Differ," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 198-211, Summer.
    2. Peter Moizer, 1992. "State of the art in audit market research," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 333-348.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ysm:somwrk:amz2575. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/smyalus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.