This study examines the relation between audit quality and earnings management. Consistent with prior research, we treat audit quality as a dichotomous variable and assume that Big Six auditors are of higher quality than non‐Big Six auditors. Earnings management is captured by discretionary accruals that are estimated using a cross‐sectional version of the Jones 1991 model. Prior literature suggests that auditors are more likely to object to management's accounting choices that increase earnings (as opposed to decrease earnings) and that auditors are more likely to be sued when they are associated with financial statements that overstate earnings (as compared to understate earnings). Therefore, we hypothesize that clients of non‐Big Six auditors report discretionary accruals that increase income relatively more than the discretionary accruals reported by clients of Big Six auditors. This hypothesis is supported by evidence from a sample of 10,379 Big Six and 2,179 non‐Big Six firm years. Specifically, clients of non‐Big Six auditors report discretionary accruals that are, on average, 1.5‐2.1 percent of total assets higher than the discretionary accruals reported by clients of Big Six auditors. Also, consistent with earnings management, we find that the mean and median of the absolute value of discretionary accruals are greater for firms with non‐Big Six auditors. This result also indicates that lower audit quality is associated with more “accounting flexibility”.
Articles in the financial press suggest that institutional investors are overly focused on current profitability, which suggests that as institutional ownership increases, stock prices reflect less current period information that is predictive of future period earnings. On the other hand, institutional investors are often characterized in academic research as sophisticated investors and sophisticated investors should be better able to use current-period information to predict future earnings compared with other owners. According to this characterization, as institutional ownership increases, stock prices should reflect more current-period information that is predictive of future period earnings. Consistent with this latter view, we find that the extent to which stock prices lead earnings is positively related to the percentage of institutional ownership. This result holds after controlling for various factors that affect the relation between price and earnings. It also holds when we control for endogenous portfolio choices of institutions (e.g., institutional investors may be attracted to firms in richer information environments where stock prices tend to lead earnings). Further, a regression of stock returns on order backlog, conditional on the percentage of institutional ownership, indicates that institutional owners place more weight on order backlog compared with other owners. This result is consistent with institutional owners using non-earnings information to predict future earnings. It also explains, in part, why prices lead earnings to a greater extent when there is a higher concentration of institutional owners.
Previous research (Rendleman, Jones, and Latane [1987]; Freeman and Tse [1989]; Bernard and Thomas [1990]; and Ball and Bartov [1996]) indicates that security prices do not fully reflect predictable elements of the relation between current and future quarterly earnings. We investigate whether this finding also holds for the special items component of earnings. Given that special items are prominent in financial analysis and are assumed to have relatively straightforward implications for future earnings (special items are assumed to be largely transitory), one might expect that prices would fully impound the implications of special items for future earnings. Based on the “two‐equation” approach used in Ball and Bartov [1996] and other studies (e.g., Abarbanell and Bernard [1992]; Sloan [1996]; Rangan and Sloan [1998]; and Soffer and Lys [1999]), we find that while prices reflect relatively more of the effects of special items compared to other earnings components, we still reject the null hypothesis that prices fully impound the implications of special items for future earnings. The “two‐equation” approach assesses the consistency of coefficients in a pair of prediction and pricing equations, and thus depends on an assumed functional form. However, a less structured abnormal returns methodology like that used in Bernard and Thomas [1990] also supports the conclusion that the implications of special items are not fully impounded in prices. Specifically, a trading strategy based only on the sign of special items earns small but statistically significant abnormal returns during a 3‐day window four quarters subsequent to the original announcement of special items.
Abstract. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires disclosure of auditor-client disagreements that precede a change in auditor. Although prior research has documented that disclosure of disagreements is associated with a decline in equity value, no empirical work has examined factors that result in auditor-client disagreements. We hypothesize that managers are motivated by debt and compensation arrangements to propose methods that are objected to by their auditors (resulting in a disagreement). Because of their greater independence, we also hypothesize that reported disagreements will be more likely for Big Eight (now Big Six) auditors. A comparison of 40 firms that changed auditors and reported a disagreement with a control group of 40 firms that simply changed auditors revealed that disagreement firms are more likely to have debt covenant violations. Disagreement firms are also more likely to have higher leverage, a decline in earnings, and Big Eight auditors. For firms that disclosed the magnitude of the disagreement's effect on earnings, the use of the questionable procedure tended to enhance "flat'ê arnings growth.R^sumi. La Securities and Exchange Commission exige que soit publi^e l'information relative aux desaccords vfirificateur-client qui precedent un changement de verificateurs. Bien que les recherches anterieures aient demontr^ que la publication de cette information est accompagn^e d'un d^clin de la valeur des tities, aucun travail empirique n'a examine les facteurs qui sont a I'origine des disaccords verificateur-client. Les auteurs posent Thypothese selon laquelle ce sont le passif et les regimes de remuneration qui motivent les gestionnaires a proposer des methodes auxquelles s'opposent les verificateurs (et qui donnent lieu a un disaccord). Les auteurs posent egalement l'hypothese selon laquelle il est plus probable que les desaccords declares mettent en cause tes huit
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.