Auditor – client match: timing of auditor change following mismatch and improvement through the change

IF 2.8 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
K. Lai, Patrick P. Leung
{"title":"Auditor – client match: timing of auditor change following mismatch and improvement through the change","authors":"K. Lai, Patrick P. Leung","doi":"10.1108/maj-02-2022-3457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis paper aims to first investigate auditor change following mismatch by focusing on the number of times mismatch occurred prior to auditor change and on clients mismatched continuously with auditors for two or more years. Subsequently, it studies the relation of mismatch in the current year with auditor change for clients mismatched in the past year. These issues are important because of the call for regulatory intervention in auditor selection. If market forces achieve improvement in matching, then those forces should be relied upon in auditor selection.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis paper adapts the literature to estimate mismatch and uses logistic regressions on an auditor change model to study the timing of auditor change by mismatched clients and on a mismatch model to examine improvement in matching following auditor change.\n\n\nFindings\nThis paper finds that the more frequent mismatches occurred in the past four years, the higher the likelihood of switching in the current year. Clients mismatched continuously for two or more years are more likely to change auditors. This paper also reports that mismatched clients who switch auditors are less likely to be mismatched again after the switch.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nBecause market forces reduce mismatch through auditor change, free choice by clients and auditors should be allowed, and regulatory intervention should be introduced cautiously. As investors and other users of financial statements have an interest in seeing that clients get the appropriate auditors for the audit, they will be assured that market forces could achieve the purpose. Thus, the results of this paper address public concern in the regulatory regime and support current audit market practices.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nPrior studies assume a one-year time frame for auditor change to follow mismatch. This paper relaxes this assumption, to better reflect audit market practices, by showing that clients who are more often mismatched with auditors or those mismatched continuously for two or more years could also change auditors. Furthermore, prior studies find that mismatching motivates auditor change, but they do not show that matching improves after the change. This paper extends the literature by shedding new light to show that auditor change improves auditor–client matching.\n","PeriodicalId":47823,"journal":{"name":"Managerial Auditing Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Managerial Auditing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/maj-02-2022-3457","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to first investigate auditor change following mismatch by focusing on the number of times mismatch occurred prior to auditor change and on clients mismatched continuously with auditors for two or more years. Subsequently, it studies the relation of mismatch in the current year with auditor change for clients mismatched in the past year. These issues are important because of the call for regulatory intervention in auditor selection. If market forces achieve improvement in matching, then those forces should be relied upon in auditor selection. Design/methodology/approach This paper adapts the literature to estimate mismatch and uses logistic regressions on an auditor change model to study the timing of auditor change by mismatched clients and on a mismatch model to examine improvement in matching following auditor change. Findings This paper finds that the more frequent mismatches occurred in the past four years, the higher the likelihood of switching in the current year. Clients mismatched continuously for two or more years are more likely to change auditors. This paper also reports that mismatched clients who switch auditors are less likely to be mismatched again after the switch. Research limitations/implications Because market forces reduce mismatch through auditor change, free choice by clients and auditors should be allowed, and regulatory intervention should be introduced cautiously. As investors and other users of financial statements have an interest in seeing that clients get the appropriate auditors for the audit, they will be assured that market forces could achieve the purpose. Thus, the results of this paper address public concern in the regulatory regime and support current audit market practices. Originality/value Prior studies assume a one-year time frame for auditor change to follow mismatch. This paper relaxes this assumption, to better reflect audit market practices, by showing that clients who are more often mismatched with auditors or those mismatched continuously for two or more years could also change auditors. Furthermore, prior studies find that mismatching motivates auditor change, but they do not show that matching improves after the change. This paper extends the literature by shedding new light to show that auditor change improves auditor–client matching.
审计师-客户匹配:不匹配后审计师变更的时间以及通过变更进行改进
本文旨在通过关注审计师变更之前发生的不匹配次数以及客户与审计师连续两年或两年以上的不匹配,首先调查不匹配后的审计师变更。随后,针对上一年度错配的客户,研究了当年错配与审计师变动的关系。这些问题之所以重要,是因为要求对审计师的选择进行监管干预。如果市场力量在匹配方面取得了改善,那么在选择审计师时应依赖这些力量。设计/方法/方法本文采用文献来估计不匹配,并在审计师变更模型上使用逻辑回归来研究不匹配客户的审计师变更时间,并在不匹配模型上检查审计师变更后匹配的改进。本文发现,过去四年发生错配频率越高,当年发生切换的可能性越高。连续两年或更长时间不匹配的客户更有可能更换审计师。本文还报告了在转换审计人员后,不匹配的客户不太可能再次不匹配。研究局限/启示由于市场力量通过更换审计师减少错配,应允许客户和审计师自由选择,并应谨慎引入监管干预。由于投资者和财务报表的其他使用者有兴趣看到客户找到合适的审计人员进行审计,他们将确信市场力量可以实现这一目的。因此,本文的结果解决了公众对监管制度的关注,并支持了当前的审计市场实践。原创性/价值先验研究假设审计师变更的时间框架为一年,以遵循不匹配。本文放宽了这一假设,以更好地反映审计市场实践,通过表明客户更经常与审计师不匹配或那些持续两年或更长时间不匹配的客户也可以更换审计师。此外,先前的研究发现,不匹配激励了审计师的变化,但他们并没有表明匹配在变化后得到改善。本文通过提供新的视角来扩展文献,表明审计师变更改善了审计师与客户的匹配。
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
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
13.80%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The key areas addressed are: ■Audit and Assurance (financial and non-financial) ■Financial and Managerial Reporting ■Governance, controls, risks and ethics ■Organizational issues including firm cultures, performance and development In addition, the evaluation of changes occurring in the auditing profession, as well as the broader fields of accounting and assurance, are also explored. Debates concerning organizational performance and professional competence are also covered.
×
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