Audit Quality of The Engagement Partner and Audit Firm

Elfina Astrella Sambuaga(1), Antonius Herusetya(2*)

(1) Universitas Pelita Harapan
(2) Universitas Pelita Harapan
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study examines the effect of the number of clients and complexity on audit quality at the audit engagement partner (AEP) and public accounting firm (PAF) levels. We use discretionary accrual and real activities manipulation models to assess the audit quality at the AEP and PAF levels. Our study examines 506 firm-year observations as our sample for the companies in the industrial sector listed on the Indonesian Stock Exchange. Using multiple linear regressions and controlling for year and industry fixed effects, our study discovered that the client complexity handled by AEPs is associated with the declining audit quality of AEPs using discretionary accruals. However, our study discovered no relationship between the number of clients at the AEP and PAF levels, and client complexity at the PAF level that influences the audit quality. Thus, the findings of our study suggest to standard setters, capital market participants, and other stakeholders that audit quality at the AEP level remains a significant concern.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Carey, P., & Simnett, R. (2006). Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 81(3), 653–676.

https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2006.81.3.653

Chi, H. Y., & Chin, C. L. (2011). Firm versus partner measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on auditor quality. Auditing: A Jurnal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50004

Chi, W., Douthett, E. B., & Lisic, L. L. (2012). Client importance and audit partner independence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(3), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2011.08.009

Chin, C. L., & Chi, H. Y. (2009). Reducing restatements with increased industry expertise. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(3), 729–765. https://doi.org/10.1506/car.26.3.4

Francis, J.R. (2011). A Framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A Jurnal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 125-152. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50006

Goodwin, J., & Wu, D. (2016). What is the relationship between audit partner busyness and audit quality? Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(1), 341–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12129

Greiner, A., Kohlbeck, M. J., & Smith, T. J. (2017). The relationship between aggressive real earnings management and current and future audit fees. Auditing: A Jurnal of Practice & Theory, 36(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51516

Gul, F. A., Wu, D., & Yang, Z. (2013). Do individual auditors affect audit quality? Evidence from archival data. Accounting Review, 88(6), 1993–2023. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50536

Herusetya, A. (2012). Analisis kualitas audit terhadap manajemen laba akuntansi: studi pendekatan composite measure versus conventional measure. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia, 9(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.21002/jaki.2012.08

Herusetya, A., & Jaunanda, M. (2021). Does industry expertise at engagement partner and audit firm level matter in emerging market? Evidence from Indonesia. Accounting, 7(4), 951–964. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2021.1.012

Hsieh, Y. T., & Lin, C. J. (2016). Audit firms' client acceptance decisions: Does partner-level industry expertise matter? Auditing: A Jurnal of Practice & Theory, 35(2), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51292

Hussin, W. N. W, Bamahros, H. M., & Shukeri, S. N. (2018). Lead engagement partner workload, partner-client tenure and audit reporting lag: Evidence from Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal, 33(3), 246–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-07-2017-1601

Iatridis, G. E. (2012). Audit quality in common-law and code-law emerging markets: Evidence on earnings conservatism, agency costs and cost of equity. Emerging Markets Review, 13(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2012.01.001

Kim, Y., & Park, M. S. (2014). Real activities manipulation and auditors' client-retention decisions. Accounting Review, 89(1), 367–401. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50586

Lai, K. M. Y., Sasmita, A., Gul, F. A., Foo, Y. B., & Hutchinson, M. (2018). Busy auditors, ethical behavior, and discretionary accruals quality in Malaysia. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1187–1198.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3152-4

Lennox, C. S., & Wu, X. (2018). A review of the archival literature on audit partners. The Accounting Horizons, 32(2), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51942

Ministry of the State Secretariat. (2015). Government Regulation of The Republic of Indonesia Number 20 Year 2015 about Practice of Public Accounting. Available at https://jdih.kemenkeu.go.id/fullText/2015/20TAHUN2015PP.pdf

Setiawan, L., & Fitriany, F. (2011). Pengaruh workload dan spesialisasi auditor terhadap kualitas audit dengan kualitas komite audit sebagai variabel pemoderasi. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia, 8(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.21002/jaki.2011.03

Siregar, S. V., & Utama, S. (2008). Type of earnings management and the effect of ownership structure, firm size, and corporate-governance practices: Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Accounting, 43(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2008.01.001

Tucker, J. W., & Zarowin, P. A. (2006). Does income smoothing improve earnings informativeness? The Accounting Review, 81(1), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2006.81.1.251

DOI: 10.23917/reaksi.v7i1.17388

Article Metrics

Abstract view(s): 588 time(s)
PDF: 971 time(s)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.