PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the effect of audit engagement partner's professional experience on audit quality. The authors also investigate the relationship between the audit partner's experience and audit fees in both Big 4 and non-Big 4 accounting firms.Design/methodology/approachSince the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) officially enacted Rule 3211 in 2017, US accounting firms are required to disclose detailed information of engagement partners in Form AP (PCAOB, 2015b). The authors obtained a sample of 2,283 audit partners from Form AP and hand collected their individual professional experience data through Certified Public Accountant (CPA) database, corporate disclosure and social media sites (e.g. Linkedin). Econometric models with fixed effects are used in this study to test our hypotheses. Two-stage least square (2SLS) model is used in the robustness test.FindingsThe authors find that the relationship between audit engagement partner's professional experience and audit quality is concave. It indicates that audit quality is increasing during the early stage of engagement partners' career and then decreases as the partners approaching the late-career phase. Further, the authors find that partner's professional experience is positively associated with audit fees in non-Big 4 accounting firms but not significantly associated with audit fees in Big 4 accounting firms.Practical implicationsThe finding of how auditor experience impacts audit quality can be useful for accounting firms to better plan their staffing in auditing engagements. This study’s results are also helpful for small accounting firms to optimize their pricing strategy.Originality/valueThis study provides new empirical evidence about the relation between auditor professional experience and audit quality. Furthermore, the authors extend the literature of audit fee determinants by testing the joint effects of audit firm-level factors and auditor individual-level professional experience on audit fees.
This study examines the impact of mandatory audit partner's rotation on corporate tax avoidance. Using audit partners’ information disclosed in Form AP, we find that companies generally increase their effective tax rates (ETRs) after audit partner's mandatory rotation, and the increase is specifically driven by companies hiring non‐Big four auditors. This implies that incoming auditors, especially those from non‐Big four accounting firms, are more conservative in tax issues. Further analysis suggests that companies engaging in less tax avoidance before and simultaneously purchasing tax services from their auditors have less increase in ETRs after an audit partner's rotation. The findings of this study assist both audit practitioners and tax regulators to better understand the impact of audit partner rotation on firm's tax behaviors.
This article presents a systematic review of the theoretical and empirical literature on option grants and managerial risk taking. One of the objectives is the motivation of further research on the topic. Risk-averse managers hold less diversified portfolios and, thus, tend to take less risk than optimal for shareholders. More option grants may encourage risk taking and result in higher firm value or alternatively increase the sensitivity of wealth to stock-price fluctuations mitigating overall risk-taking incentives. The net effect of options on risk-taking behavior is, therefore, ambiguous and calls for more empirical investigation. This is crucial for fiscal policymaking and regulation reforms. Yet, establishing a causal link between option granting and managerial risk taking has been challenging due to reverse causality, omitted correlated variables and measurement errors. In this review, we revisit the VegaDelta question by synthesizing the relevant research in economics, finance and accounting. We find that the empirical literature has successfully utilized natural experiments (e.g., regulation changes) to better establish causality, even though some mixed results are also documented. Finally, we also emphasize potential future research avenues especially relating to accounting disclosure, earnings management and tax policy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.