Review partners' reactions to contact partner risk judgments of prospective clients

Auditing

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 29-45

  Ayers, Susan ^a   Kaplan, Steven E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Client acceptance; Justification; Potential client; Review process; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142617980     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.1.29     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1997. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. _. 1998. Acceptance and continuance of clients and engagements. In Quality Control Policies and Procedures for CPA Firms. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. Asare, S., K. Hackenbrack, and W. R. Knechel. 1994. Client acceptance and continuation decisions. In Auditing Symposium XIII: Proceedings of the 1994 Deloitte and Touche-University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems, edited by R. Srivastava. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
4. _, and W. R. Knechel. 1995. Termination of information evaluation in auditing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 8:21-31.
5. _, and L. S. McDaniel. 1996. The effect of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process. The Accounting Review 71 (April): 139-159.
6. Ayers, S., and S. E. Kaplan. 1998. Potential differences between engagement and risk review partners and their effect on client acceptance judgments. Accounting Horizons 12 (June): 139-153.
7. Bamber, E. M. 1983. Expert judgment in the audit team: A source reliability approach. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 396-412.
8. Beaulieu, P. R. 2001. The effects of judgments of new clients' integrity upon risk judgments, audit evidence, and fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (September): 85-99.
9. Bell, T. B., S. Szykowny, and J. Willingham. 1993. Assessing the likelihood of fraudulent financial reporting: A cascaded inference logit approach. Working paper, KPMG.
10. _, W. R. Landsman, and D. A. Shackelford. 1994. Legal liability and audit fees: An empirical study. Working paper, University of North Carolina.
11. Cohen, J. R., and G. M. Trompeter. 1998. An examination of factors affecting audit practice development. Contemporary Accounting Research 15 (4): 481-504.
12. _, and D. M. Hanno. 2000. Auditors' consideration of corporate governance and management control philosophy in preplanning and planning judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (Fall): 133-146.
13. Ettredge, M., and R. Greenberg. 1990. Determinants of fee cutting on initial audit engagements. Journal of Accounting Research 28:198-210.
14. Gendron, Y. 2001. The difficult client-acceptance decision in Canadian audit firms: A field investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 18 (2): 283-310.
15. Gibbins, M., and J. D. Newton. 1994. An empirical exploration of complex accountability in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (Autumn): 165-186.
16. Haynes, C. M. 1999. Auditors' evaluations of evidence obtained through management inquiry: A cascaded-inference approach. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (Fall): 87-103.
17. Huss, H. F., and F. A. Jacobs. 1991. Risk containment: Exploring auditor decisions in the engagement process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (Fall): 16-32.
18. Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305-360.
19. Johnstone, K. M. 2000. Client-acceptance decisions: Simultaneous effects of client business risk, auditor business risk, and risk adaptation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (Spring): 1-25.
20. _, and J. C. Bedard. 2001. Engagement planning, bid pricing, and client response in the market for initial attest engagements. The Accounting Review 76 (April): 199-220.
21. Kelley, H. 1972. Attribution in Social Interaction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
22. Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. Justification of decisions in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (Autumn): 369-384.
23. Loebbecke, J. K., and J. J. Willingham. 1988. Review of SEC accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Working paper, University of Utah.
24. Luehlfing, M. S., P. A. Copley, and R. A. Shockley. 1995. An examination of the relationship between audit-related risks and the second partner review. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance: 43-50.
25. Pratt, J., and J. D. Slice. 1994. The effects of client characteristics on auditor litigation risk judgments, required audit evidence, and recommended audit fees. The Accounting Review 69 (October): 639-656.
26. Schum, D. A., and W. M. DuCharme. 1971. Comments on the relationship between the impact and the reliability of evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6 (March): 111-131.
27. _, _, and K. E. DePitts. 1973. Research on human multistage probabilistic inference processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10 (December): 318-348.
28. Simon, D., and J. Francis. 1988. The effects of auditor change on auditor fees: Tests of price cutting and price recovery. The Accounting Review 63: 255-269.
29. Simunic, D. A., and M. T. Stein. 1996. The impact of litigation risk on audit pricing: A review of the economics and the evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 15 (Supplement): 119-134.
30. Solomon, I., M. D. Shields, and O. R. Whittington. 1999. What do industry specialists auditors know? Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Spring): 191-208.
31. Tan, H., and K. Jamal. 2001. Do auditors objectively evaluate their subordinates' work? The Accounting Review 76 (January): 99-110.
32. Thompson, L., and G. Loewenstein. 1992. Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51 (2): 176-197.
33. Trompeter, G. 1994. The effect of partner compensation schemes and generally accepted accounting principles on audit partner judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (2): 56-68.
34. Watson, D. 1982. The actor and the observer: How are their perceptions of causality divergent? Psychological Bulletin 92(3): 682-700.
35. Wright, S., and A. M. Wright. 1997. The effect of industry experience on hypothesis generation and audit planning decisions. Behavioral Research in Accounting 9: 273-294.