The Acquiescent Gatekeeper: Reputational Intermediaries, Auditor Independence and the Governance of Accounting

J. Coffee
{"title":"The Acquiescent Gatekeeper: Reputational Intermediaries, Auditor Independence and the Governance of Accounting","authors":"J. Coffee","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.270944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The role of \"gatekeepers\" as reputational intermediaries who can be more easily deterred than the principals they serve has been developed in theory, but less often examined in practice. Initially, this article seeks to define the conditions under which gatekeeper liability is likely to work - and, correspondingly, the conditions under which it is more likely to fail. Then, after reviewing the recent empirical literature on earnings management, it concludes that the independent auditor does not today satisfy the conditions under which gatekeeper liability should produce high law compliance. A variety of explanations - poor observability, implicit collusion, and high agency costs within the gatekeeper - provide overlapping explanations for gatekeeper failure. What remedy should work best to minimize such failures? As a more appropriate and supplementary remedy to reliance on class action litigation, this article recommends fundamental reform of the governance of the accounting profession. In particular, it contrasts the structure of self-regulation within the broker-dealer industry with the absence of similar self-discipline in the accounting profession. While such reform may be unlikely, its absence strongly implies that earnings management is likely to remain a pervasive phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":180033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"78","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Abstracts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.270944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 78

Abstract

The role of "gatekeepers" as reputational intermediaries who can be more easily deterred than the principals they serve has been developed in theory, but less often examined in practice. Initially, this article seeks to define the conditions under which gatekeeper liability is likely to work - and, correspondingly, the conditions under which it is more likely to fail. Then, after reviewing the recent empirical literature on earnings management, it concludes that the independent auditor does not today satisfy the conditions under which gatekeeper liability should produce high law compliance. A variety of explanations - poor observability, implicit collusion, and high agency costs within the gatekeeper - provide overlapping explanations for gatekeeper failure. What remedy should work best to minimize such failures? As a more appropriate and supplementary remedy to reliance on class action litigation, this article recommends fundamental reform of the governance of the accounting profession. In particular, it contrasts the structure of self-regulation within the broker-dealer industry with the absence of similar self-discipline in the accounting profession. While such reform may be unlikely, its absence strongly implies that earnings management is likely to remain a pervasive phenomenon.
默许的看门人:声誉中介、审计师独立性和会计治理
作为声誉中介的“看门人”的角色比他们所服务的委托人更容易被阻止,这一角色在理论上得到了发展,但在实践中却很少得到检验。首先,本文试图定义看门人责任可能起作用的条件——以及相应的,它更可能失败的条件。然后,在回顾了最近关于盈余管理的实证文献后,本文得出结论,独立审计师目前不满足看门人责任应产生高度法律合规性的条件。各种各样的解释——可观察性差、隐性串通和守门人内部的高代理成本——为守门人失败提供了重叠的解释。什么样的补救措施可以最大限度地减少这种失败?作为依赖集体诉讼的更合适的补充救济,本文建议对会计行业的治理进行根本性的改革。特别是,它将经纪自营业的自律结构与会计行业缺乏类似自律的情况进行了对比。尽管这种改革可能不太可能,但它的缺失强烈暗示,盈余管理可能仍将是一种普遍现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信