FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2563193114> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2563193114 startingPage "114" @default.
• W2563193114 abstract "(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)INTRODUCTIONThis study examines the difference in audit quality between Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors. The issue of whether Big4 firms provide higher quality audit service is important for accounting researchers who often rely on the Big 4 versus non-Big 4 dichotomy as a proxy for audit quality (Beatty, 1989; Gul et al. 2009). The issue also has significant practical ramifications in the selection of auditors by audit committees (CFA Institute Center, 2009; Moizer, 1997) and in loan and underwriting agreements (De Angelo, 1981).A large body of research has examined the issue of Big 4 versus non-Big 4 audit quality (DeAngelo, 1981; Dopuch & Simunic, 1980; Khurana & Raman, 2004; Behn et al. 2008; Francis & Yu, 2009). Abnormal accruals, benchmark beating, timely loss recognition, analyst forecast accuracy, audit opinions, and litigation against auditors have been used as audit quality proxies in the literature (Becker et al. 1998; Krishnan, 2003; Behn et al. 2008; Lawrence et al. 2011; DeFond & Lennox, 2011). This study extends the research on audit quality by exploring a different audit quality matrix: the comparability of clients' audited financial statements.Comparable information enables financial statement users to evaluate the merits of alternative investment opportunities for efficient capital allocation (SEC, 2000). Making financial information comparable was cited by the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) as the primary reason for developing accounting standards (FASB 1980, par. 112). Reducing the divergence in accounting standards across countries in order to enhance the cross-country comparability of accounting information was also cited as the primary reason for the creation of International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), the predecessor of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) (Camfferman and Zeff, 2007). While the widespread adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has undoubtedly reduced the divergence in accounting standards across countries, increased standard comparability alone would not lead to information comparability because information comparability is also affected by institutional environment, management reporting incentives, and audit quality. Particularly, given the numerous accounting choices under IFRS and the significant variations in enforcement infrastructure across countries, auditors play a critical role in the rigorous interpretation and consistent application of IFRS to produce comparable financial information (Ball, 2006). Consequently, for similar economic events, clients of high quality auditors should report more comparable accounting amounts, other things being equal. However, until recently, the literature has not examined the comparability of audited financial statements in audit quality studies1. This study attempts to bring the audit quality research and comparability studies together by examining audit quality of Big 4 versus non-Big 4 firms based on the cross-country comparability of clients' IFRS-based financial statements. Specifically, we investigate the difference in audit quality between Big 4 and non-Big 4 firms and how such difference is affected by the adoption of IFRS in China. We choose China for our study for two major reasons: (1) there are contradicting predictions and mixed evidence regarding Big 4 versus nonBig 4 audit quality in developing economies with weak institutional environment and low litigation risk, and (2) many of IASB's constituent countries are developing economies with weak institutional environment and low litigation risks.Litigation risk avoidance and reputation protection are the two primary motivations cited in the audit literature for high quality audit service. Both motivations would yield the same prediction for developed economies with strong investor protection and high litigation risk. However, the two motivations provide very different predictions for developing economies with code law legal origins and low litigation risk. …" @default.
• W2563193114 created "2017-01-06" @default.
• W2563193114 creator A5015680235 @default.
• W2563193114 creator A5038393555 @default.
• W2563193114 creator A5038425288 @default.
• W2563193114 creator A5052987381 @default.
• W2563193114 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2563193114 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2563193114 title "Auditor Quality and Ifrs Information Comparability" @default.
• W2563193114 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2563193114 type Work @default.
• W2563193114 sameAs 2563193114 @default.
• W2563193114 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2563193114 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2563193114 hasAuthorship W2563193114A5015680235 @default.
• W2563193114 hasAuthorship W2563193114A5038393555 @default.
• W2563193114 hasAuthorship W2563193114A5038425288 @default.
• W2563193114 hasAuthorship W2563193114A5052987381 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C114614502 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C140181557 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C162118730 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C197947376 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C199521495 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C2781027943 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C114614502 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C121955636 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C140181557 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C144133560 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C162118730 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C162324750 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C197947376 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C199521495 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C2781027943 @default.
• W2563193114 hasConceptScore W2563193114C33923547 @default.
• W2563193114 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2563193114 hasLocation W25631931141 @default.
• W2563193114 hasOpenAccess W2563193114 @default.
• W2563193114 hasPrimaryLocation W25631931141 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W1557711215 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W1603166756 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W1646761330 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W1814824315 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W1940853855 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W2064359212 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W2259657277 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W2766004684 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W2790649785 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W2976451474 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W2981430802 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W3014130777 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W3080589739 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W3083456249 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W3121236673 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W3121677440 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W3126090214 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W3212952724 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W3214210458 @default.
• W2563193114 hasRelatedWork W941033863 @default.
• W2563193114 hasVolume "20" @default.
• W2563193114 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2563193114 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2563193114 magId "2563193114" @default.
• W2563193114 workType "article" @default.