10-K文件语气歧义的审计工作

Q4 Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Martin M. Kim, Hambisa Belina
{"title":"10-K文件语气歧义的审计工作","authors":"Martin M. Kim, Hambisa Belina","doi":"10.33423/jaf.v23i2.6043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the association between ambiguous words (uncertain and weak modal words) in 10-K filings and audit fees. We find a positive association between ambiguous words in 10-K filings and audit fees. Results show that auditors put more time and effort into analyzing clients’ reports containing more ambiguous words. We conduct a propensity score matching technique to address potential endogeneity in client characteristics, which presents further empirical support for our main results. We re-estimate the main analysis for robustness tests by excluding firms with going concern opinions, firms audited by Big 4, and firms that report a net loss. We find the main results still hold in all robustness tests. The results of this study can be in the interest of multiple stakeholders, such as issuers, investors, auditors, and regulators, in that the 10-K report is mandatory, but the discretion of the management determines the degree of clarity of the text in the 10-K filings. Therefore, the interpretation and decisions of users of these ambiguous reports are non-trivial.","PeriodicalId":36300,"journal":{"name":"Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Audit Effort on Tone Ambiguity in 10-K Filings\",\"authors\":\"Martin M. Kim, Hambisa Belina\",\"doi\":\"10.33423/jaf.v23i2.6043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study examines the association between ambiguous words (uncertain and weak modal words) in 10-K filings and audit fees. We find a positive association between ambiguous words in 10-K filings and audit fees. Results show that auditors put more time and effort into analyzing clients’ reports containing more ambiguous words. We conduct a propensity score matching technique to address potential endogeneity in client characteristics, which presents further empirical support for our main results. We re-estimate the main analysis for robustness tests by excluding firms with going concern opinions, firms audited by Big 4, and firms that report a net loss. We find the main results still hold in all robustness tests. The results of this study can be in the interest of multiple stakeholders, such as issuers, investors, auditors, and regulators, in that the 10-K report is mandatory, but the discretion of the management determines the degree of clarity of the text in the 10-K filings. Therefore, the interpretation and decisions of users of these ambiguous reports are non-trivial.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33423/jaf.v23i2.6043\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33423/jaf.v23i2.6043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨了10-K文件中歧义词(不确定和弱情态词)与审计费用之间的关系。我们发现10-K文件中的歧义词与审计费用之间存在正相关关系。结果表明,审计师在分析含有更多歧义词的客户报告上投入了更多的时间和精力。我们采用倾向得分匹配技术来解决客户特征的潜在内生性,这为我们的主要结果提供了进一步的实证支持。我们通过排除具有持续经营意见的公司、由四大审计的公司和报告净亏损的公司来重新估计稳健性测试的主要分析。我们发现主要结果在所有稳健性检验中仍然成立。本研究的结果可能符合发行人、投资者、审计师和监管机构等多个利益相关者的利益,因为10-K报告是强制性的,但管理层的自由裁量权决定了10-K文件中文本的清晰程度。因此,使用者对这些模棱两可的报告的解释和决定是非琐碎的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Audit Effort on Tone Ambiguity in 10-K Filings
This study examines the association between ambiguous words (uncertain and weak modal words) in 10-K filings and audit fees. We find a positive association between ambiguous words in 10-K filings and audit fees. Results show that auditors put more time and effort into analyzing clients’ reports containing more ambiguous words. We conduct a propensity score matching technique to address potential endogeneity in client characteristics, which presents further empirical support for our main results. We re-estimate the main analysis for robustness tests by excluding firms with going concern opinions, firms audited by Big 4, and firms that report a net loss. We find the main results still hold in all robustness tests. The results of this study can be in the interest of multiple stakeholders, such as issuers, investors, auditors, and regulators, in that the 10-K report is mandatory, but the discretion of the management determines the degree of clarity of the text in the 10-K filings. Therefore, the interpretation and decisions of users of these ambiguous reports are non-trivial.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance
Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance
自引率
0.00%
发文量
92
×
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