The Estimated Propensity to Issue Going Concern Audit Reports and Audit Quality

Ling Chu, Hila Fogel-Yaari, Ping Zhang
{"title":"The Estimated Propensity to Issue Going Concern Audit Reports and Audit Quality","authors":"Ling Chu, Hila Fogel-Yaari, Ping Zhang","doi":"10.1177/0148558x221079011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Auditors’ propensity to issue Going Concern Audit Reports (GCARs) is one of the proxies often used for audit quality. Although this propensity is a distinguishing characteristic of auditors, it does not indicate quality according to both theory and practice. In theory, higher quality auditors make fewer audit errors; they are more likely to issue GCARs to clients that deserve them and less likely to issue GCARs to clients that do not. Therefore, the propensity itself does not indicate quality. In practice, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection reports reveal that the GCAR is rarely mentioned as a deficiency, and in the few cases in which it is discussed, the deficiency is attributed to evidence gathering and estimations, rather than to the GCAR decision itself. The theory and practice motivate our study. This article investigates the empirical ability of the GCAR propensity to proxy for audit quality and finds that different samples and different models yield different determinations of auditor quality. Our findings caution against the use of the propensity to issue GCARs as a proxy for audit quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":501201,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558x221079011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Auditors’ propensity to issue Going Concern Audit Reports (GCARs) is one of the proxies often used for audit quality. Although this propensity is a distinguishing characteristic of auditors, it does not indicate quality according to both theory and practice. In theory, higher quality auditors make fewer audit errors; they are more likely to issue GCARs to clients that deserve them and less likely to issue GCARs to clients that do not. Therefore, the propensity itself does not indicate quality. In practice, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection reports reveal that the GCAR is rarely mentioned as a deficiency, and in the few cases in which it is discussed, the deficiency is attributed to evidence gathering and estimations, rather than to the GCAR decision itself. The theory and practice motivate our study. This article investigates the empirical ability of the GCAR propensity to proxy for audit quality and finds that different samples and different models yield different determinations of auditor quality. Our findings caution against the use of the propensity to issue GCARs as a proxy for audit quality.

发布持续经营审计报告的估计倾向与审计质量
审计人员发布持续经营审计报告的倾向是审计质量的常用指标之一。虽然这种倾向是审计师的显著特征,但从理论和实践来看,它并不意味着质量。理论上,审计人员素质越高,审计错误越少;他们更有可能向值得的客户发放gcar,而不太可能向不值得的客户发放gcar。因此,倾向本身并不表示质量。在实践中,上市公司会计监督委员会(PCAOB)的检查报告显示,GCAR很少被提及为缺陷,在少数讨论GCAR的情况下,缺陷归因于证据收集和估计,而不是GCAR决策本身。理论和实践是我们学习的动力。本文研究了GCAR倾向对审计质量代理的实证能力,发现不同的样本和不同的模型产生了不同的审计师质量决定。我们的研究结果告诫人们不要将发行gcar的倾向作为审计质量的代表。
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
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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