2006
DOI: 10.1108/02686900610680512
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Auditor‐client relationship: the case of audit tenure and auditor switching in Malaysia

Abstract: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0
8

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
9
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Our findings on audit pricing and auditor choices of Indian firms add significant insights to the existing audit literature on emerging economies such as India (Simon et al, 1986), Bangladesh (Habib and Islam, 2007;Karim et al, 2013;Khan et al, 2015), China (Lin and Liu, 2009), Malaysia (Simon et al, 1992;Thahir Abdul Nasser et al, 2006), Indonesia (Darmadi, 2016), South Africa (Simon, 1995), Thailand (Pratoomsuwan, 2017) and Uganda (Kaawaase et al, 2016). In particular, our observations about the tendency of financially distressed firms to choose non-Big 4 auditors and lower their audit fees raise serious concerns about the credibility of the audited financial statements and corporate governance mechanisms adopted by these distressed firms.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 52%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our findings on audit pricing and auditor choices of Indian firms add significant insights to the existing audit literature on emerging economies such as India (Simon et al, 1986), Bangladesh (Habib and Islam, 2007;Karim et al, 2013;Khan et al, 2015), China (Lin and Liu, 2009), Malaysia (Simon et al, 1992;Thahir Abdul Nasser et al, 2006), Indonesia (Darmadi, 2016), South Africa (Simon, 1995), Thailand (Pratoomsuwan, 2017) and Uganda (Kaawaase et al, 2016). In particular, our observations about the tendency of financially distressed firms to choose non-Big 4 auditors and lower their audit fees raise serious concerns about the credibility of the audited financial statements and corporate governance mechanisms adopted by these distressed firms.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…Numerous studies have explored the factors affecting auditor selection by a firm, primarily in the context of developed economies (Beasley and Petroni, 2001;Chaney et al, 2004;Niskanen et al, 2010). Nonetheless, relatively few studies have investigated auditor selection in the audit market setting of emerging economies such as Malaysia (Thahir Abdul Nasser et al, 2006), China (Lin and Liu, 2009), Turkey (Aksu et al, 2007) and Indonesia (Darmadi, 2016).…”
Section: Determinants Of Auditor Choicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research conducted by [17] and [18], companies in financial distress tend not to change KAP this is due to changing auditors in a company that is too frequent to increase audit fees. When auditing a client for the first time, the first thing the auditor does is understand the client's business environment and the client's audit risks.…”
Section: The Effect Of Company Financial Difficulties On Auditor Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The former, requires the auditor to have a "state of mind that permits the provision of an opinion without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgement allowing an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism (Hayes et al, 2004)." While independence in appearance requires the auditor to avoid situations that will cause others to conclude that they are not maintaining an unbiased objective attitude of mind (Nasser et al, 2006).…”
Section: Conceptual Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%