The Moderation of Accounting Firm Size in Its Influence on Audit Quality During Covid’19

Lili Sugeng Wiyantoro, Herlin Tundjung Setijaningsih

Abstract


Asymmetry of information between the management and the owners of the company, making management have opportunity to do some fraud. Asymmetry of information can be overcome with the audit process; the auditor is expected to detect the errors and fraud. Auditors who make mistakes in the audit process, have risk to getting lawsuits that called litigation risk. Additionally, auditor independence issues are a central position in the auditing literature. This problem is often sparked debate about audit quality, audit quality associated with audit tenure The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of litigation risk on audit quality, the effect size of audit firm as a moderating variable on the relationship between litigation risk and audit quality, the effect of audit tenure on audit quality, and effect size of audit firm as a moderating variable on the relationship between audit tenure and audit quality. The study used 117 data of financial statements of listed manufacturing companies in Indonesia Stock Exchange during the period 2019-2021 with a purposive sampling method. By using multiple regression with MRA in SPSS software. The results indicate that litigation risk has effect on audit quality, size of audit firm does not have effect on the relationship between litigation risk and audit quality, audit tenure has effect on audit quality, size of audit firm has effect on relationship between litigation risk and audit quality.


Keywords


litigation risk; audit tenure; audit quality; size of audit firm

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abbott, L.J., S. Parker, and G.F. Peters. 2006. Earnings Management, Litigation Risk, and Asymmetric Audit Fee Responses. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. Vol. 25, No. 1, Hal. 85-98.

Akrimi, Nesrine, 2021. The Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic on Audit Quality: The

Perceptions of Saudi Auditors, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal. Vol. 25, Issue 2, 2021

Albitar, K., Gerged, A., M., Kikhia, H., and Hussainey K. (2020). Auditing in times of

social distancing: The effect of COVID-19 on auditing quality. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management. In Pres

Al-Thuneibat, Al Isa, Ata Baker. 2011. Do Audit Tenure and Firm Size Contribute to Audit Quality: Empirical Evidence from Jordan? Managerial Auditing Journal. Vol. 26 No. 4. Pp.317-334.

Becker, C., DeFond, M., Jiambalvo, J. and Subramanyam, K. 1998. The Effect of Audit Quality on Earnings Management. Contemporary Accounting Research. Vol. 16, pp. 1-24.

Boyton, Johnson, dan Kell. 2003. Modern auditing. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Carcello, Joseph V. Nagy, Albert L. 2004. Audit Firm Tenure and Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. 23.2: 55-69

Carey, P., and R. Simnett. 2006. Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review. 81(3): 654-676.

Chi, W. and Huang, H. 2004. Discretionary accruals, audit-firm tenure and audit-partner tenure: empirical evidence from Taiwan. Working Paper, National Chengchi University, Taipei.

Choi, J.-H., Kim, J.-B., Liu, X. and Simunic, D. 2008. Auditing Pricing, Legal Liability Regimes, and Big 4 Premiums: Theory and Cross-country Evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research. Vol. 25, pp. 55-99.

Datar, S.M., Feltham, G.A., Hughes, J.S., 1991. The Role of Audits and Audit Quality in Valuing New Issues. Journal of Accounting and Economics. Vol 14. No 1. Pp 3–49.

DeAngelo, L. 1981. Auditor Size and Auditor Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics. Vol. 1, pp. 183-199.

DeAngelo, L. 1981. Auditor Independence, “Low Balling,” and Disclosure Regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 _2_: 113–127

De Angelo. 1986. Accounting Numbers as Market Valuation Substitutes: A Study of Management Buyouts of Public Shareholders. The Accounting Review. Vol. 61, 400-420.

Dye, R. 1993. Auditing Standards, Legal Liability, and Auditor Wealth. Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 10, pp. 887-914.

Flint, D. 1988. Philosophy and Principles of Auditing: An Introduction, Macmillan Education Ltd, London.

Francis, J. and Wang, D. 2008. The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality around the World. Contemporary Accounting Research. Vol. 25, pp. 1-39.

Francis, J., Maydew, E. and Sparks, H. 1999. The role of Big 6 Auditors in The Credible Reporting of Accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. Vol. 18, pp. 17-34.

Geiger, M. and Raghunandan, K. 2002. Auditor tenure and auditor reporting failures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 61-78.

Goodell W. J. (2020). COVID-19 and finance: Agendas for future research. Finance

Research Letters. In press.

Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 3, pp. 305-60.

Johnson, V.E., Khurana, I.K. and Reynolds, J.K. 2002. Audit-firm tenure and the quality of financial reporting. Contemporary Accounting Research. Vol. 19, winter, pp.637-60.

Juanda, A. 2007. Perilaku Konservatif Pelaporan Keuangan dan Risiko Litigasi Pada Perusahaan Go Publik di Indonesia. Naskah Publikasi Penelitian Dasar Keilmuan.

Juanda, A. 2008. Analisis Tipologi Strategi dalam Menghadapi Risiko Litigasi pada Perusahaan Go Publik di Indonesia. Naskah Publikasi Penelitian Dasar Keilmuan.

Jung, N. C., & Kim, H. A. (2019). The effect of litigation risk increase on big n auditor exits and audit quality in the Korean Savings Banking Industry. Australian Accounting Review, 29(3), 502-515.

Kothari, S.P., Leone, A.J. and Wasley, C.E. 2005.Performance matched discretionary accrual

Measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 39, pp. 163-97.

Khurana, I.K. and Raman, K.K. 2004. Litigation Risk and The Financial Reporting Credibility of Big 4 Versus Non-Big 4 Audits: Evidence from Anglo-American countries. The Accounting Review. Vol. 79, pp. 473-98.

Menteri Keuangan. 2008. Keputusan Menteri Keuangan Republik Indonesia Nomor 17/PMK.01/2008 tentang “Jasa Akuntan Publik” pasal 3. Jakarta

Nasser, Wahid, Nazri. 2006. Auditor – Client Relationship: The Case of Audit Tenure and Auditor Switching in Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal. Vol. 21 No. 7 pp 724-737.

Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keungan Nomor 13/POJK.03/2017 tentang Penggunaan Jasa Akuntan Publik dan Kantor Akuntan Publik Dalam Kegiatan Jasa Keuangan

Prabandari, Jeane Deart Meity dan Rustiana. 2007. “Beberapa Factor Yang Berdampak Pada Perbedaan Audit Delay (Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan-Perusahaan Keuangan Yang Terdaftar Di BEJ)”. Jurnal Kinerja. Vol 11. Hlm 27-39.

Shu, S. (2000), “Auditor resignations: clientele effects and legal liability”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 29, pp. 173-205.

Sun, J. dan G. Liu. 2011. Client-Specific Litigation Risk and Audit Quality Differentiation. Managerial Auditing Journal. Vol. 26. No. 4, pp. 300-316.

Venkataraman, R., Weber, J., & Willenborg, M. (2005). Litigation risk, audit fees and audit quality: Initial Public Offerings as a natural experiment. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(1), 1-42.

Watkins, A. L., W. Hillison, and S. E. Morecroft. 2004. Audit quality: A synthesis of theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Accounting Literature 23: 153-193.

Watts and Zimmerman. 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. Prentice_Hall In

Wong, R. M., Firth, M. A., & Lo, A. W. (2018). The impact of litigation risk on the association between audit quality and auditor size: Evidence from China. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 29(3), 280-311.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.35448/jrat.v15i2.18426

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


pISSN 1979-682X    eISSN 2528-7443

Creative Commons License

Jurnal Riset Akuntasi Terpadu (JRAT) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License