Publication: The Impact of the PCAOB Individual Engagement Inspection Process - Preliminary Evidence Paper
Author: Daniel Aobdia
Publication: Published in the The Accounting Review, 2018, 93(4): 53-80
Abstract: This study investigates the impact on auditors' and clients' activities of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspections of individual engagements. I find that both auditors and clients react to a Part I Finding, which identifies audit deficiencies on their inspected engagements. Audit firm effort increases on inspected engagements and non-inspected engagements of offices or partners that receive a Part I Finding, suggesting direct, as well as spillover, effects of the PCAOB inspections. The client is also more likely to switch auditors. However, auditor effort and financial reporting quality subsequently decline for inspected engagements that did not receive a Part I Finding. In these cases, clients are less likely to switch auditors. Additional analyses show that the auditor reaction depends on whether the auditor is an industry specialist, the client reaction depends on the size of the auditor, and effects on financial reporting quality depend on whether the deficiency is a firm-wide issue. Overall, these results suggest that both audit firms and clients care about the PCAOB individual engagement inspection process and, in several instances, gravitate toward the level set by the Part I Finding bar.
The economic research fellows and staff economists generate high-quality working papers that inform the oversight activities of the PCAOB and are disseminated to stimulate discussion and critical comment to the benefit of the public. Working papers are preliminary materials that have not been approved by the Board and reflect only the views of the author(s).
The research topics of economic research fellows, including a description of any nonpublic data sets required for research, are presented to the Board for approval and research papers are reviewed to confirm that the topic of the paper is consistent with the researcher's proposal. That review does not, however, encompass an evaluation of the conclusions reached by researchers.