Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Perceptions of preparers, users and auditors regarding financial statement audits conducted by Big 4 accounting firms

Perceptions of preparers, users and auditors regarding financial statement audits conducted by... This study includes the most diverse stakeholder population integrated into one research study regarding perceptions of financial statement audits conducted by Big 4 accounting firms. Whereas prior studies almost exclusively used either archival data or experiments to implicitly derive the stakeholders’ perceptions, this study employed focus groups with financial statement (1) preparers; (2) users consisting of bankers, financial analysts and non-professional investors; and (3) auditors to explicitly solicit perceptions regarding the financial statement audits conducted by Big 4 accounting firms. Some stakeholders opined that Big 4 audit quality has decreased because of the rush to hire staff because of increased Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) work. However, stakeholders generally agreed that for organizations that are some combination of large, complex and/or multinational, the Big 4 accounting firms will be superior. For other organizations, second- and third-tier accounting firms will provide the same quality audit as the Big 4 firms. One factor as to why there are fewer differences between the firms is that many of the non-Big 4 auditors are Big 4 firm alumni. Regardless of whether a Big 4 audit is actually superior, the stakeholders generally agreed that the Big 4 audit has a cachet that has a monetary value in the financial marketplaces. In terms of differences between the Big 4 firms, the auditors believe there is little difference in how they interpret GAAP or GAAS because there is open communication between the Big 4 firms. Alternatively, the preparers have witnessed differences, particularly, in GAAP interpretations. However, both the auditors and the preparers generally agreed that interpretation differences are wider between Big 4 and non-Big 4 firms. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Disclosure and Governance Springer Journals

Perceptions of preparers, users and auditors regarding financial statement audits conducted by Big 4 accounting firms

Download PDF
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/perceptions-of-preparers-users-and-auditors-regarding-financial-Fn0oBipuU4

References (72)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd
Subject
Business and Management; Business and Management, general; Accounting/Auditing; Corporate Finance; Corporate Governance
ISSN
1741-3591
eISSN
1746-6539
DOI
10.1057/jdg.2010.15
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study includes the most diverse stakeholder population integrated into one research study regarding perceptions of financial statement audits conducted by Big 4 accounting firms. Whereas prior studies almost exclusively used either archival data or experiments to implicitly derive the stakeholders’ perceptions, this study employed focus groups with financial statement (1) preparers; (2) users consisting of bankers, financial analysts and non-professional investors; and (3) auditors to explicitly solicit perceptions regarding the financial statement audits conducted by Big 4 accounting firms. Some stakeholders opined that Big 4 audit quality has decreased because of the rush to hire staff because of increased Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) work. However, stakeholders generally agreed that for organizations that are some combination of large, complex and/or multinational, the Big 4 accounting firms will be superior. For other organizations, second- and third-tier accounting firms will provide the same quality audit as the Big 4 firms. One factor as to why there are fewer differences between the firms is that many of the non-Big 4 auditors are Big 4 firm alumni. Regardless of whether a Big 4 audit is actually superior, the stakeholders generally agreed that the Big 4 audit has a cachet that has a monetary value in the financial marketplaces. In terms of differences between the Big 4 firms, the auditors believe there is little difference in how they interpret GAAP or GAAS because there is open communication between the Big 4 firms. Alternatively, the preparers have witnessed differences, particularly, in GAAP interpretations. However, both the auditors and the preparers generally agreed that interpretation differences are wider between Big 4 and non-Big 4 firms.

Journal

International Journal of Disclosure and Governance – Springer Journals

Published: Sep 2, 2010

There are no references for this article.