Is Self-Regulated Peer Review Effective at Signaling Audit Quality?

ABSTRACT: This study examines whether peer reviews conducted under the AICPA's self‐regulatory model have been effective at signaling audit quality. Prior research has examined whether peer‐review reports are associated with perceived audit quality. We examine whether peer‐review reports are associated with actual audit quality. Using a unique data set obtained from the files of an insurance company, we find that peer‐review findings are indeed useful in predicting audit failure (i.e., malpractice claims alleging auditor negligence), and that certain types of findings are particularly useful in this regard. We also find that peer‐review findings are associated with other firm‐specific indicators of potentially weak quality control or risky practices within accounting firms. Taken together, we interpret our findings to indicate that self‐regulated peer review as mandated by the AICPA does provide effective signals regarding audit‐firm quality.

[1]  C. Lennox,et al.  Auditing the Auditors: Evidence on the PCAOB's Inspections of Audit Firms , 2008 .

[2]  Adam Snyder.  Increasing Transparency in Peer Review: Members Speak Out , 2004 .

[3]  Brian J. Bushee.  The Influence of Institutional Investors on Myopic R&D Investment Behavior , 1999 .

[4]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables , 1997 .

[5]  R. Houston,et al.  PCAOB Inspections of Smaller CPA Firms: Initial Evidence from Inspection Reports , 2007 .

[6]  Katherine A. Gunny,et al.  The Association between Earnings Quality and Regulatory Report Opinions in the Accounting Industry , 2006 .

[7]  T. B. O'keefe,et al.  The Production of Audit Services: Evidence from a Major Public Accounting Firm , 1994 .

[8]  Dennis Murray,et al.  The Association between Auditor Quality and Auditor Size: An Analysis of Small CPA Firms , 1998 .

[9]  William R. Kinney,et al.  Auditor Independence, Non‐Audit Services, and Restatements: Was the U.S. Government Right? , 2004 .

[10]  Sarah E. Bonner,et al.  Fraud Type and Auditor Litigation: An Analysis of SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases , 1999 .

[11]  Richard A. Johnson,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis , 1983 .

[12]  G. Maddala.  Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics: Introduction , 1983 .

[13]  H. Tan,et al.  Non-Audit Service Fees and Audit Quality: The Impact of Auditor Specialization , 2008 .

[14]  Mark L. DeFond,et al.  Audit Research after Sarbanes‐Oxley , 2005 .

[15]  Gilles Hilary,et al.  The Credibility of Self-Regulation: Evidence from the Accounting Profession's Peer Review Program , 2005 .

[16]  G. Stigler.  The Theory of Economic Regulation , 2021, The Political Economy.

[17]  G. Schwarz.  Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[18]  T. Fogarty.  The imagery and reality of peer review in the U.S.: Insights from institutional theory , 1996 .

[19]  Suresh Kotha,et al.  Managerial Actions, Stock Returns, and Earnings: The Case of Business-to-Business Internet Firms , 2000 .

[20]  R. Watts,et al.  Lawsuits Against Auditors , 1994 .

[21]  Ralf Zurbruegg,et al.  Law and the Determinants of Property-Casualty Insurance , 2001 .

[22]  Guy P. Lander.  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 , 2002 .

[23]  L. DeAngelo,et al.  Auditor size and audit quality , 1981 .

[24]  Jere R. Francis.  What do we know about audit quality , 2004 .

[25]  H. Kaiser.  A second generation little jiffy , 1970 .

[26]  J. Krishnan,et al.  The Differentiation of Quality among Auditors: Evidence from the Not‐for‐Profit Sector , 2000 .

[27]  Divya Anantharaman.  How Objective is Peer Review? Evidence from Self-Regulation of the Accounting Profession , 2007 .

[28]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .