Audit-Firm Portfolio Characteristics and Client Financial Reporting Quality

Ann Gaeremynck · Sofie Van der Meulen · Marleen Willekens

35 citations0/0 files storedEuropean Accounting Review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance Corporate Governance and Financial Management Financial Reporting and XBRL

Abstract

This paper contributes to the audit quality literature by defining continuous measures of expected future audit-firm losses and testing their association with proxies of financial reporting quality. In prior studies audit-firm size has been used as a proxy for expected future audit-firm losses and hence – following theoretical arguments in DeAngelo (Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), pp. 183–199, 1981) and Dye (Journal of Political Economy, 101(5), pp. 887–914, 1993) – for audit quality. In particular, the Big 8/6/5/4 indicator variable has been tested empirically against various measures of client financial reporting quality. In this paper, we focus on testing various characteristics of an audit firm's client portfolio as drivers of audit quality (and therefore subsequently also client financial reporting quality), including measures to proxy size, visibility and financial health characteristics of an audit-firm portfolio. We test both a disclosure and earnings quality model for that purpose, and find for a sample of Belgian companies in financial distress, that audit-firm portfolio characteristics better explain variations in client financial reporting quality than the traditionally used Big N indicator variable. In particular, we find that – ceteris paribus – the size of an audit-firm portfolio is irrelevant in explaining the variation in financial reporting quality amongst companies. Next, we find that client visibility characteristics of an audit-firm portfolio have a constraining impact on earnings management, but no impact on the disclosure quality in the notes. Third, we find that solvency characteristics of an audit-firm portfolio (but not liquidity and profitability characteristics), are positively associated with the financial reporting quality. Taken together, the evidence suggests that not so much the size of an audit-firm portfolio (and the audit firm) but other portfolio and client characteristics drive audit and financial reporting quality.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Law and Finance 1968FINANCIAL RATIOS, DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS AND THE PREDICTION OF CORPORATE BANKRUPTCY 1997Legal Determinants of External Finance 1991Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigations 1980Financial Ratios and the Probabilistic Prediction of Bankruptcy 1981Auditor size and audit quality 1985Positive Accounting Theory 2003Earnings management and investor protection: an international comparison

Cited by

2019The effect of audit market structure on audit quality and audit pricing in the private‐client market 2013Can Auditors Mitigate Information Asymmetry in M&As? An Empirical Analysis of the Method of Payment in Belgian Transactions

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.