Abstract
We extend research on the effects of local audit office characteristics on audit quality by investigating whether audit offices in highly religious U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) exhibit going concern decisions that reflect heightened professional skepticism relative to audit offices in less religious MSAs. Prior research links religiosity to risk aversion and ethical development and suggests audit practice offices in more religious MSAs are more likely to issue going concern opinions because they will assess the effects of mitigating factors in a more skeptical manner. Our results indicate that audit practice offices located in highly religious MSAs are more likely to issue going concern audit opinions, consistent with a more skeptical assessment of mitigating factors. Additional tests provide direct evidence consistent with the argument that these audit offices are more risk averse in issuing going concern opinions. Our findings are relevant to auditors, audit clients, researchers, and regulators.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For convenience, we use the terms “audit firm” and “audit office” interchangeably throughout the paper. Our analyses are conducted at the local audit practice office level.
A related stream of behavioral literature examines the effects of social influence within audit firms on auditor judgment (e.g., Lord and DeZoort 2001; Thorne and Hartwick 2001). We extend this literature by examining the social influence that arises from the religiosity of the geographic area surrounding local audit practice offices.
For parsimony, we refer to audit offices located in highly religious MSAs as “religious audit offices.”
This result is similar to the finding in DeFond et al. (2011) that non-Big 4 auditors are more likely than Big 4 auditors to be affected by the local environment. Specifically, DeFond et al. (2011) show that only non-Big 4 auditors are more likely to issue going concern opinions when the engagement offices are closer to SEC regional offices.
In highly religious locations, individual auditors are more likely to be religious, and they are more likely to be influenced by the religion of the community in which they live.
We use the varimax rotation technique, and the factor loadings are as follows: REL_AFFILIATION 0.84, REL_IMP 0.96, and ATTEND_WEEKLY 0.92. Results are robust to alternative specifications of religiosity.
We present results using both first-time going concern opinions (e.g., DeFond et al. 2002) and all going concern opinions in the Audit Analytics database.
We retain observations that do not report an audit opinion on the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting and create a variable that equals 1 if the audit opinion on internal control effectiveness is unobservable and 0 otherwise. These observations are primarily non-accelerated filers.
The correlation coefficients are greater than 0.50. As a robustness test, we drop College_Grad and Repub from the models and repeat all regressions. Inferences are not affected.
The calculation is the natural exponential of (−0.074 − (−0.784)) × 0.455 minus one: e0.323– 1 = 0.381.
The issues giving rise to lawsuits include accounting and auditing enforcement releases, accounting malpractice, financial reporting issues, and stock options backdating. These classifications are obtained from Audit Analytics.
Inferences are not affected if we create an indicator variable equal to one if the client’s audit fees in year t are greater than the median of audit fees for all clients in year t and zero otherwise.
For example, Table 2 Panel A shows that the percent of Republicans in an MSA and the religiosity of the MSA are highly correlated (0.612).
Its minimum and maximum values are − 2.5 and 2.5 (in $1000).
References
Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., & Peters, G. F. (2003). The effects of post-bankruptcy financing on-going concern reporting. Advances in Accounting, 20, 1–22.
Altman, E. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23, 589–609.
Altman, E. I., & McGough, T. (1974). Evaluation of a company as a going concern. Journal of Accountancy, 138(6), 50–57.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1988). The auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 59. New York, NY: AICPA.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2002). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York: AICPA.
Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1996). Religiosity, ethical ideology and intentions to report a peer’s wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1161–1175.
Behn, B. K., Kaplan, S. E., & Krumwiede, K. R. (2001). Further evidence on the auditor’s going-concern report: The influence of management plans. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(1), 13–28.
Blay, A. D., & Geiger, M. A. (2013). Auditor fees and auditor independence: Evidence from going-concern opinions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(2), 579–606.
Bowlin, K. O., Hobson, J. L., & Piercey, M. D. (2015). The effects of auditor rotation, professional skepticism, and interactions with managers on audit quality. The Accounting Review, 90(4), 1363–1393.
Butler, M., Leone, A. J., & Willenborg, M. (2004). An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37, 139–166.
Carcello, J. V., Vanstraelen, A., & Willenborg, M. (2009). Rules rather than discretion in audit standards: Going-concern opinions in Belgium. The Accounting Review, 84, 1395–1428.
Carson, E., Fargher, N. L., Geiger, M. A., Lennox, C. S., Raghunandan, K., & Willekens, M. (2013). Audit reporting for going-concern uncertainty: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(Supplement 1), 353–384.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Pyschology, 55, 591–621.
Cornwall, M., Albrecht, S. L., Cunningham, P. H., & Pitcher, B. L. (1986). The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual model with an empirical test. Review of Religious Research, 27(3), 226–244.
DeFond, M.L., J.R. Francis, and X. Hu. 2011. The geography of SEC enforcement and auditor reporting for financially distressed clients. Working Paper. University of Southern California, University of Missouri, University of Oregon. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1132885.
DeFond, M. L., & Lennox, C. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(1), 21–40.
DeFond, M. L., Raghunandan, K., & Subramanyam, K. R. (2002). Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern opinions. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4), 1247–1274.
Dyreng, S. D., Mayew, W. J., & Williams, W. J. (2012). Religious social norms and corporate financial reporting. Journal of Business, Finance, and Accounting, 39(7–8), 845–875.
Ferguson, A., Francis, J. R., & Stokes, D. J. (2003). The effects of firm-wide and office-level industry expertise on audit pricing. The Accounting Review, 78(2), 429–448.
Firth, M., Mo, P., & Wong, R. (2012). Auditors’ organizational form, legal liability and reporting conservatism: Evidence from China. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 57–93.
Francis, J. R., Reichelt, K., & Wang, D. (2005). The pricing of national and city-specific reputations for industry expertise in the U.S. audit market. The Accounting Review, 80(1), 113–136.
Francis, J. R., & Yu, M. D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1521–1552.
Gallup. (2011). In U.S., very religious Americans still align more with GOP. by Frank Newport. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148274/religious-americans-align-gop.aspx.
Geiger, M. A., & Raghunandan, K. (2002). Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(1), 67–78.
Geiger, M. A., Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. V. (2006). Audit decision-making in different litigation environments: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, audit reports, and audit firm size. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 332–353.
Geiger, M. A., & Rama, D. V. (2003). Audit fees, nonaudit fees, and auditor reporting on stressed companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22, 53–69.
Goh, B. W., Krishnan, J., & Li, D. (2012). Auditor Reporting Under Section 404: The Association Between the Internal Control and Going Concern Audit Opinions. Contemporary Accounting Research, Forthcoming.
Gow, I. D., Ormazabal, G., & Taylor, D. J. (2010). Correcting for cross-sectional and time-series dependence in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 85(2), 483–512.
Grullon, G., Kanatas, G., & Weston, J. (2010). Religion and corporate (mis)behavior. Working paper. Rice University.
Guiral, A., Ruiz, E., & Rodgers, W. (2010). Ethical dilemmas in auditing: Dishonesty or unintentional bias? Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 151–166.
Guiral, A., Ruiz, E., & Rodgers, W. (2011). To what extent are auditors’ attitudes toward the evidence influenced by the self-fulfilling prophecy? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(1), 173–190.
Hilary, G., & Hui, K. W. (2009). Does religion matter in corporate decision making in America? Journal of Financial Economics, 93(3), 455–473.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2001). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). Newyork: Wiley-Interscience.
Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1998). Religiousness and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 163–175.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development vol. 2, the psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Krishnan, J. (1994). Auditor switching and conservatism. The Accounting Review, 69(1), 200–215.
Krishnan, G.,V., & Wang, C. (2014). The relation between managerial ability and audit fees and going concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory In-Press.
Layman, G. (1999). “Culture Wars” in the American party system: Religious and cultural change among partisan activists since 1972. American Politics Research, 27, 89–121.
Layman, G. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lennox, C. (2000). Do companies successfully engage in opinion-shopping? Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29(3), 321–337.
Lim, C. Y., & Tan, H. T. (2008). Non-audit service fees and audit quality: The impact of auditor specialization. Journal of Accounting Research, 46, 199–246.
Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (2004). Religious intensity, evangelical Christianity, and business ethics: an empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 373–386.
Lord, A. T., & DeZoort, F. T. (2001). The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on auditors’ responses to social influence pressure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 215–235.
Louwers, T. J., Messina, F. M., & Richard, M. D. (1999). The auditor’s going-concern disclosure as a self-fulfilling prophecy: a discrete-time survival analysis. The Decision Sciences, 30(3), 805–824.
McGuire, S. T., Omer, T. C., & Sharp, N. Y. (2012). The impact of religion on financial reporting irregularities. The Accounting Review, 87(2), 645–673.
Miller, A., & Hoffman, J. (1995). Risk and religion: an explanation of gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 63–75.
Moore, D. A., Tetlock, P. E., Tanlue, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). Conflicts of interest and the case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 10–29.
Mutchler, J. F. (1985). A multivariate analysis of the auditor’s going-concern opinion decision. Journal of Accounting Research, 23(2), 668–682.
Mutchler, J. F., Hopwood, W., & McKeown, J. M. (1997). The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 295–310.
Myers, L. A., Schmidt, J. J., & Wilkins, M. S. (2014). An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and Non-Big N auditors. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 43(1), 155–172.
Nelson, M. W. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 1–34.
Osoba, B. M. (2004). Risk, discounting, and religious choice: Evidence from panel data. Working Paper. University of Texas at El Paso.
Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. (2008). Ethics and religion: An empirical test of a multidimensional model. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 387–398.
Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.
Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. (1995). Audit reports for companies in financial distress: Before and after SAS No. 59. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 14, 50–63.
Ratzinger-Sakel, N. V. S. (2013). Auditor fees and auditor independence—evidence from going concern reporting decisions in Germany. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(4), 129–168.
Reichelt, K. J., & Wang, D. (2010). National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(3), 647–686.
Reynolds, J. K., & Francis, J. R. (2001). Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30, 375–400.
Robinson, D. (2008). Auditor independence and auditor-provided tax service: Evidence from going-concern audit opinions prior to bankruptcy filings. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 27(2), 31–54.
Rodgers, W., Guiral, A., & Gonzalo, J. A. (2009). Different pathways that suggest whether auditors’ going concern opinions are ethically based. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 347–361.
Rogers, W. (1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints, 13. Stata Press: College Station, TX.
Statement of Auditing Standard (SAS) No. 59. (1998). The auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. New York: AICPA.
Sunstein, C. R. (1996). Social norms and social rules. Columbia Law Review, 96(4), 903–968.
Terpstra, D. E., Rozell, E. J., & Robinson, R. K. (1993). The influence of personality and demographic variables on ethical decisions related to insider trading. The Journal of Psychology, 127(4), 375–389.
Thorne, L., & Hartwick, J. (2001). The directional effects of discussion on auditors’ moral reasoning. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(2), 337–361.
Venuti, E. K. (2004). The going-concern assumption revisited: assessing a company’s future viability. The CPA Journal, LXXIV(5), 40.
Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77–97.
Weber, J., & Willenborg, M. (2003). Do expert informational intermediaries add value? Evidence from auditors in microcap IPOs. Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 681–720.
Zahn, G. C. (1970). The commitment dimension. Sociological Analysis, 31, 203–208.
Acknowledgments
We are thankful for helpful comments received from Kathleen Bentley, Jere Francis, Jaime Schmidt, and David Wood. We are grateful to Gallup, Inc. for providing data support and to Texas A&M University and the Mays Business School’s mini-grant support program for financial support. Thomas Omer acknowledges financial support from the Delmar Lienemann Sr. Chair of Accounting at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Omer, T.C., Sharp, N.Y. & Wang, D. The Impact of Religion on the Going Concern Reporting Decisions of Local Audit Offices. J Bus Ethics 149, 811–831 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3045-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3045-6