Although the financial statements of an organization are considered a product of management, prior research suggests that a company's financial statements may be affected by the negotiation strategy employed by the auditor when resolving audit differences with management. However, little subsequent research has discussed the potential strategies that auditors may employ during the negotiation process. Our study extends the literature by investigating, in a post-SarbanesOxley environment, whether auditors will employ a reciprocity-based strategy for the resolution of audit differences and what client characteristics (client management's negotiating style and client retention risk) will increase the extent to which it is utilized. Further, we explore the potential effect of a reciprocity-based strategy on the quality of the financial statements. Such a strategy involves bringing inconsequential items to management and subsequently waiving these items in an effort to encourage management to be more cooperative in the posting of significant income-decreasing adjustments. The results of experiment 1 indicate that client management's negotiating style and retention risk have an interactive effect on auditors' use of a reciprocity-based strategy. Specifically, auditors are more likely to utilize a reciprocity-based strategy when management's negotiating style is competitive and client retention risk is high. Experiment 2 findings suggest that the auditor's use of reciprocity during negotiation can actually result in more conservative financial statements by helping the auditor manage perceived client pressures to waive or reduce proposed adjustments.

No abstract

No abstract

Auditors face the challenging tasks of attesting that the financial statements are free from material misstatement while simultaneously fostering a functional working relationship with the client. As the financial statements may be considered, in part, a product of negotiations between the auditor and client management (Antle and Nalebuff 1991), the negotiation strategy employed by the auditor may be useful in effectively fulfilling both tasks. To investigate the effect of auditor strategy on the resolution of proposed audit adjustments in a post Sarbanes-Oxley environment, we conduct experiments that examine both the client and auditor sides of the negotiation. We investigate a strategy of “concession” that draws upon the societal rule of reciprocation, which makes the waiving of inconsequential audit differences transparent. Specifically, with a concession approach, the auditor brings to the attention of the client all the audit differences (both significant and inconsequential) discovered during the audit and, subsequently, waives the inconsequential items. In contrast, a strategy of “no-concession” of inconsequential items (in which the auditor discloses to the client only the significant audit differences that must be booked) renders the client unaware of the waived inconsequential differences. Results from the client experiments indicate that, relative to a no-concession approach, participants representing client management (controllers/CFOs) are more willing to post significant income-decreasing adjustments (both objective and subjective) when exposed to a concession approach in the course of negotiating the final contents of the audited financial statements. A concession approach also results in greater client satisfaction and retention. Consistent with these findings, results from the auditor experiment suggest that auditors also perceive that altering their approach toward greater disclosure of waived inconsequential audit differences can improve client satisfaction and retention.

No abstract