Audit Quality and Auditor Size: An Evaluation of Reputation and Deep Pockets Hypotheses
Empirical studies have shown that large auditors are more accurate than small auditors. The reputation hypothesis states that large auditors have more incentive to be accurate because an inaccurate report may lead to a loss of client-specific rents (DeAngelo, 1981). The deep pockets hypothesis states that large auditors should be more accurate because they have greater wealth at risk from litigation (Dye, 1993). This paper presents evidence on the relationship between auditor size and litigation and on the market shares of criticised and uncriticised auditors - the findings give greater support to the deep pockets hypothesis than the reputation hypothesis. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999.
Year of publication: |
1999-09
|
---|---|
Authors: | Lennox, Clive S. |
Published in: |
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. - Wiley Blackwell, ISSN 0306-686X. - Vol. 26.1999-09, 7&8, p. 779-805
|
Publisher: |
Wiley Blackwell |
Saved in:
freely available
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
Employee Movements from Audit Firms to Audit Clients
Finley, Andrew R., (2019)
-
Audit effort and earnings management
Caramanis, Constantinos, (2008)
-
Special section: The changing regulatory landscape
Lennox, Clive, (2009)
- More ...