Evidence on auditor risk-management strategies before and after The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 135-157

  Francis, Jere R ^a   Krishnan, Jagan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

auditors' legal liability; client screening; going concern reports; litigation risk

Indexed keywords

EID: 4444326894     PISSN: 16081625     EISSN: 21642257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/16081625.2002.10510607     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Ali, A. and Kallapur, S. 2001. “Stock price consequences of the private securities litigation reform act of 1995 and related events”. The Accounting Review, 76: 431–460. (July)
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1997. Serving the Public Interest: A New Conceptual Framework for Auditor Independence New York: AICPA).
3. Andersen. 1992. The Liability Crisis in the United States A joint letter signed by the Big Six accounting firms (Arthur Andersen, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, KPMG Peat Marwick, and Price Waterhouse) Reprinted in Journal of Accountancy (November 1992), 19–23
4. Behn, B., Kaplan, S. and Krumwiede, K. 2001. “Further evidence on the auditor's going-concern report: The influence of management plans”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20: 13–28. (March)
5. Business Week. 1990. “Behind the fall of laventhol” 54–55. 24 December
6. Business Week. 1992. “The Big 6 are in trouble” 78–79. 6 April
7. Business Week. 1993. “Big 6 firms are firing clients” 76–77. 1 March
8. Carcello, J. and Palmrose, Z. 1994. “Auditor litigation and modified reporting on bankrupt companies”. Journal of Accounting Research, 32: 1–30. (Supplement)
9. Carcello, J., Hermanson, D. and Huss, H. F. 1995. “Temporal changes in bankruptcy-related reporting”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14: 133–143. (Fall)
10. Carcello, J., Hermanson, D. and Huss, H. F. 199. “The effect of SAS No. 59: How treatment of the transition period influences results”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 16: 114–123. (Spring)
11. Chen, K. and Church, B. 1992. “Default on debt obligations and the issuance of going-concern opinions”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 11: 30–49. (Fall)
12. Chen, K. and Church, B. 1996. “Going concern opinions and the market's reaction to bankruptcy filings”. The Accounting Review, 71: 117–128. (January)
13. Choi, J., Doogar, R. and Ganguly, A. 2001. “Large audit firm clienteles: 1981 to 1997“, Working Paper Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
14. DeFond, M. and Subramanyam, K. 1998. “Modified opinions, litigation risk, and discretionary accruals”, Working Paper University of Southern California.
15. Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R. and Leftwich, R. 1987. “Predicting audit qualifications with financial and market variables”. The Accounting Review, 62: 431–454. (July)
16. Dunn, K., Tan, C. and Venuti, E. 2002. “Audit firm characteristics and type II errors in the going concern opinion”. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics, 9 (1): 39–69.
17. Farber, H. 1990. “The decline of unionization in the United States: What can be learned from recent experience?”. Journal of Labor Economics, 8 (1) S75-S105
18. Feroz, E., Park, K. and Pastena, V. 1991. “The financial and market effects of the SEC's accounting and auditing enforcement releases”. Journal of Accounting Research, 29: 107–142. (Supplement)
19. Francis, J. and Krishnan, J. 1999. “Accounting accruals and auditor reporting conservatism”. In Contemporary Accounting Research 135–166. '6 (Spring)
20. Francis, J. and Krishnan, J. 2002. “Do large accounting firms screen out risky clients?” University of Missouri-Columbia. Working Paper
21. Geiger, M. and Raghunandan, K. 2001. “Bankruptcies, audit reports, and the reform act”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20: 187–195. (March)
22. Geiger, M. and Raghunandan, K. 2002. “Going-concern opinions in the ‘New’ legal environment”. Accounting Horizons, 16: 17–26. (March)
23. Government Accounting Office (GAO). 1989. CPA Audit Quality Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office Document. Number GAO/AFMD-89-45
24. Hackenbrack, K. and Nelson, M. 1996. “Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards”. The Accounting Review, 71: 43–59. (January)
25. Hopwood, W., McKeown, J. and Mutchler, J. 1989. “A test of the incremental explanatory power of opinions qualified for consistency and uncertainty”. The Accounting Review, 64: 28–48. (January)
26. Hopwood, W., McKeown, J. and Mutchler, J. 1994. “A reexamination of auditor versus model accuracy within the context of the going-concern opinion decision”. Contemporary Accounting Research, 10: 409–431. (Spring)
27. Johnson, M. F. and Nelson, Kasznikand K.K. 2001. “The impact of securities litigation reform on the disclosure of forward-looking information by high technology firms”. Journal of Accounting Research, 39: 297–327. (September)
28. Kida, T. 1980. “An investigation into auditors' continuity and related qualification judgments”. Journal of Accounting Research, 18: 506–523. (Autumn)
29. King, R. and Schwartz, R. 1997. “The private securities litigation reform act of 1995 a discussion of three provisions”. Accounting Horizons, 11: 92–106. (March)
30. Kinney, W. and Nelson, M. 1996. “Outcome information and the ‘expectation gap’: The case of loss contingencies”. Journal of Accounting Research, 34: 281–299. (Fall)
31. Knapp, M. 1996. Contemporary Auditing: Issues and Cases, 2nd edn St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
32. Krishnan, J. 1994. “Auditor switching and conservatism”. The Accounting Review, 69: 200–215. (January)
33. Krishnan, J. and Krishnan, J. 1997. “Litigation risk and auditor resignations”. The Accounting Review, 72: 539–560. (October)
34. McKeown, J., Mutchler, J. and Hopwood, W. 1991. “Towards an explanation of auditor failure to modify the audit opinions of bankrupt companies”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 10: 1–13. (Supplement)
35. Mednick, R. 1990. “The war on accountants' legal liability”. In The CPA Journal (March) 20–25.
36. Mutchler, J. 1984. “Auditors' perceptions of the going-concern opinion decision”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 3: 17–30. (Spring)
37. Ohlson, J. 1980. “Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy”. Journal of Accounting Research, 18: 109–131. (Spring)
38. Palmrose, Z. 2000. Empirical Research in Auditor Litigation: Considerations and Data, Studies in Accounting Research #33 Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association).
39. Public Accounting Report. 1994. “Big 6 legal costs escalate”. Public Accounting Report, 30 June 1994 3
40. Public Oversight Board (POB). 1993. In the Public Interest: A Special Report by the Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section, AICPA New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants).
41. Raghunandan, K. and Rama, D. 1995. “Audit opinions for companies in financial distress: Before and after SAS No. 59”. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14: 50–63. (Spring)
42. Reynolds, J. K. and Francis, J. 2000. “Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions”. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29: 375–400. (December)
43. Shu, S. Z. 2000. “Auditor resignations: clientele effects and legal liability”. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29: 173–205. (April)
44. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 59. 1988. “The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern” (New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants)
45. Zmijewski, M. 1984. “Methodological issues relating to the estimation of financial distress prediction models”. Journal of Accounting Research, 22: 59–82. (Supplement)