Nordic Accounting Research Network

Norges Handelshøyskole | Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration

Instructor: Ole-Kristian Hope (CFA, CPA, CMA), Deloitte Professor of Accounting

E-mail: okhope@rotman.utoronto.ca

August 9-13, 2010

PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Course objectives

The objective of this course is to provide you with a brief introduction to the empirical financial accounting literature. (As such, note that at NHH, this is not considered a stand- alone course but rather is taken in conjunction with other accounting seminars.) We will focus on topics in disclosure “and international accounting.” Instead of studying “classics,” we will instead primarily read and discuss recent and current papers. In addition to discussing articles, an important part of the course is informal discussion related to how to conduct research and publish papers, as well as related career issues. We will not have much time (if any) to discuss methodological issues; thus it is imperative that you acquire methodological skills through other courses.

We will concentrate on articles that attempt to shed light on the factors underlying firms’ disclosure choices as well as studies that attempt to demonstrate the economic effects associated with differences in firms’ disclosure behavior. I do not apologize for including some of my own studies. I am not claiming that these are in any sense better than alternative papers; however, it makes sense for me for an instructor to focus on his strengths. More generally, we will not try to memorize the individual studies, but rather try to learn from them about topics, research design, methodology, the research process, etc. In fact, we should anticipate to learn more from each other than from the papers themselves.

Course style

This course will be conducted primarily as a seminar/workshop with only intermittent “lectures” given by the instructor. Although course participants are responsible for reading the assigned manuscripts for each class, the responsibility for leading the discussion will rotate among us. The discussion leader is not only to summarize the research, but also to help facilitate an in-depth understanding of the methodological innovations and problems in the manuscript.

Discussion Leader

Papers have been assigned to a student who will prepare a written summary (approx. two pages) that will be given to all participants at the beginning of that session, and which may serve as a reference during the discussion. This student will begin class discussion by summarizing the paper and placing it in context. I may interject and ask questions to the discussion leader or other participants at any time (i.e., expect “cold calling”). An outline for the written summary might include the following:

• research question and its importance
• research method (model, sample, statistical analysis)
• results
• critique
• contribution (relative to closely related papers – and related to overall importance of topic)

[Depending on enrollment, for some of the (more involved) papers we may also have a back-up. He/she will not present the paper, but will be available to answer detailed questions regarding the content of the paper.]

Other students

Every participant is expected to read all assigned papers carefully and to participate in our discussions. Each student ought to prepare questions and comments on each assigned paper.

Papers marked as Supplementary

Read if you’re interested in this line of research. Otherwise skim quickly or skip. We will generally not go through these papers. However, I may refer to some of them. (If you’re a serious PhD student, you should read these and many, many more…)

Course grade

Your grade will be based on the following:

1. Class participation, including presentations (67%). Course credit will not be granted unless you participate fully.

2. Research proposal (33%). This will be a maximum five page document (with reasonable font size, line spacing, and margins) that contains a description of an original research idea pertaining to the (preferably empirical financial) accounting literature. In particular, you should describe the research question, its potential contribution to the extant literature, the proposed research design, etc. Note that the proposal is required in order to obtain course credit.

Venue and time: Our sessions will be held in “Det Runde Vinduet” (close to the cafeteria on the lower level). Note we will start exactly when listed (not five or ten minutes after the hour).

Monday 1-4: Introduction and background (general; introducing each other; research tools; research process; dissertation and publishing) plus one disclosure paper

Botosan. 1997. Disclosure Level and the Cost of Capital. The Accounting Review. A simple but very well cited paper (first in this line of research).

Supplementary reading:

Lang, M. and R. Lundholm. 1996. Corporate disclosure policy and analyst behavior. The Accounting Review (October). Very well cited and you definitely need to know this article.

Ball. 2009. “Market and political/regulatory perspectives on the recent accounting scandals.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Verrecchia. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics (especially 141-175).

Tuesday 9-12: Hope on disclosure and agency costs (and intro to segment disclosure; pay-for-performance; private firms and financing constraints)

Hope and Thomas. 2008. “Managerial Empire Building and Firm Disclosure.” Journal of Accounting Research. [Note the research design.]

De Franco, Hope, and Larocque. 2010. “The Effects of Disclosure on the Pay- Performance Relation.” Working paper, University of Toronto.

Hope, Thomas, and Vyas. 2010. “Transparency, Ownership, and Financing Constraints in Private Firms.” Working paper, University of Toronto and University of Oklahoma.

Supplementary reading:

Hope, Kang, Thomas, and Vasvari. 2009. “The Effects of SFAS 131 Geographic Segment Disclosures by U.S. Multinational Companies on the Valuation of Foreign Earnings.” Journal of International Business Studies

Bebchuk. L.A. and J.M. Fried. 2005. Pay without performance: Overview of the issues. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 17 (4): 8-23.

Dyck, A., and L. Zingales. 2004. “Private benefits of control: An international comparison.” Journal of Finance Vol. 59: 537-600.

Rajan, R., and L. Zingales. 1998. “Financial Dependence and Growth”. The American Economic Review Vol. 88: 559-586.

Tuesday 2-4: Disclosure variations and cost of capital effects

Francis, Khurana, and Pereira. 2005. “Disclosure Incentives and Effects on Cost of Capital Around the World.” Accounting Review Vol. 80 No. 4: 1125-1162.

Hail and Leuz. 2006. “International differences in the cost of equity capital: Do legal institutions and securities regulation matter?” Journal of Accounting Research.

Supplementary reading:

Francis, Nanda, and Olsson. 2008. “Voluntary Disclosure, Earnings Quality, and Cost of Capital.” Journal of Accounting Research. This is a long paper but you should be aware of (1) the results and (2) the methodologies employed.

Hope, Kang, Thomas, and Yoo 2009. “Impact of excess auditor remuneration on cost of equity capital around the world. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance.

Wednesday 9 – 12: Disclosure and agency and proprietary costs Note that this will likely be our “toughest” session, so be well prepared so we can focus on important issues.

Berger and Hann. 2007. “Segment Profitability and the Proprietary and Agency Costs of Disclosure.” Accounting Review. [Since this is a long (but very nice) paper, the write-up and discussion should focus on main issues and tests and briefly describe sensitivity analyses.]

Bens, Berger, and Monahan. 2009. “Discretionary Disclosure in Financial Reporting: An Examination Comparing Internal Firm Data to Externally Reported Segment Data.” Working paper, University of Arizona, University of Chicago, and INSEAD. Make sure you carefully read Berger and Hann (2007) first. This is another long article, so let’s make sure we focus on the most important issues.

Bova, Dou, and Hope. 2010. “Employee Ownership and Firm Disclosure.” Working paper, University of Toronto.

Wednesday 1-4: International variations in earnings quality

Burgstahler, Hail, and Leuz. 2006. “The importance of reporting incentives: Earnings management in European private and public firms.” The Accounting Review.

Chen, Hope, Li, and Wang. 2010. Financial reporting quality and investment efficiency of private firms in emerging markets. Working paper.

Dou, Hope, and Thomas. 2010. Relationship-Specificity, Incomplete Contracts, and Income Smoothing: An International Study. Working paper, University of Toronto and University of Oklahoma.

Supplementary reading:

Leuz, Nanda, Wysocki. 2003. “Earnings management and investor protection: An international comparison.” Journal of Financial Economics 69. Widely cited (and note subtle inferences in Dou, Hope, and Thomas).

Thursday: 10 – 12: Brief intro to cross-listing literature

Lang, Ready, and Wilson. Earnings management and cross listing: Are reconciled earnings comparable to U.S. earnings? 2006. Journal of Accounting & Economics

Piotroski and Srinivasan. 2008. “Regulation and Bonding: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Flow of International Listings.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Supplementary reading:

Hope, Kang, Kim, and Pereira. 2010. “Voluntary disclosure practices by foreign firms cross-listed in the United States. Working paper.

Hope, Kang, and Zang. 2007. “Bonding to the Improved Disclosure Environment in the United States and the Capital Market Consequences.” Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics. A nice paper even though published in a small journal.

Thursday 2-4: Financial analysts

Bae, Tan, and Welker. 2008. “International GAAP Differences: The Impact on Foreign Analysts.” The Accounting Review (long but nice paper).

Ke and Yu. 2009. Why Don’t Analysts Use Their Earnings Forecasts in Generating Stock Recommendations? Working paper, Pennsylvania State University and University of T exas.

Supplementary reading: Hope.” 2003. “Disclosure practices, enforcement of accounting standards and analysts’

forecast accuracy: An international study. Journal of Accounting Research.

Barniv, Hope, Myring, and Thomas. 2009. Do Analysts Practice What They Preach and Should Investors Listen? Effects of Recent Regulations. The Accounting Review Vol. 84 No. 4.

Barniv, Hope, Myring, and Thomas. 2010. International Evidence on Analyst Stock Recommendations, Valuations, and Returns. Forthcoming, Contemporary Accounting Research.

Friday 8:30 – 10:30: More on international variations

Barth, Landsman and Lang. 2008. “International Accounting Standards and Accounting Quality.” Journal of Accounting Research Vol. 46 No. 3.

Lang, Lins, and Maffett. 2009. “Transparency, Liquidity, and Valuation: International Evidence.” Working paper, UNC and University of Utah.

Supplementary reading:

Ball. 2006. “IFRS – pros and cons for investors.” Accounting and Business Research. An easy to read and beautiful article!

Bradshaw and Miller. 2008. “Will harmonizing accounting standards really harmonize accounting? Evidence from non-U.S. firms adopting US GAAP.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance. Note the very useful appendix!

Bradshaw, Bushee, and Miller 2004. “Accounting choice, home bias and U.S. investment in non-U.S. firms.” Journal of Accounting Research.

Covrig, DeFond, and Hung. 2007. Home bias, foreign mutual fund holdings, and the voluntary adoption of International Accounting Standards. Journal of Accounting Research.

Daske, Hail, Leuz, and Verdi. 2009. “Adopting a Label: Heterogeneity in the Economic Consequences of IFRS Adoptions.” Working paper, Mannheim, Wharton, Chicago, and MIT.

There are obviously a very large number of recent/current papers on IFRS adoption. However, I personally find many of these to be dreadfully boring…

We should have time to think about and discuss whether there still are interesting financial reporting differences left to examine… Let’s try to brainstorm. For example, what’s special about the Nordic countries (or Europe) with respect to accounting and institutional factors?

Friday 10:35 – 12: Voluntary brief individual meetings to discuss your research and PhD studies

ACCT 8610
SEMINAR IN AUDITING RESEARCH
SPRING 2010 SYLLABUS

Time: Week starting May 31

Luleå University of Technology

Professor:                       Dr. Zabi Rezaee

Course Philosophy and Objectives

This course is designed as a discussion-based seminar to provide doctoral students with an understanding of auditing theory, practice and empirical research methods. However, the primary focus of the course is on empirical auditing research. Students are assumed to have had basic knowledge of accounting (financial and managerial), auditing and some research methodology. This course also assumes you are familiar with basic research terminology, fundamental principles of designing and doing research, the use of databases in accounting and auditing and tools for analyzing and critiquing accounting research studies. The specific course objectives are: (1) to develop the skills to read and critique accounting research; (2) to apply these skills to auditing research literature; and (3) to foster the ability to independently formulate academic research projects.

Grading

Given that doctoral students are highly motivated, work hard and dedicated, I expect them to get an A in the course. However A’s will be earned and assessment is based on the following components: written assignments (20%), seminar participation (20%), research project (40 %); and final exam (20 %).

Written Assignments (20 %)

There is a short written assignment each class meeting covering the readings. Students are expected to have read all required assignments and should be prepared to lead the discussion for the papers assigned.

Class Participation (20%)

We will collectively discuss each assigned paper, focusing on the paper’s research question, motivation, objectives and contribution, research design, empirical results, interpretation, implications and limitations of the study. My role will be a facilitator, but you should come to class prepared to discuss each paper in depth. The remaining class time will be devoted to discussing your written assignments. We normally will discuss three papers per class meeting, but more or fewer papers may be assigned, depending on the topic and nature of the papers. Each assigned research paper should be evaluated for the specific criteria below. When you review a paper, you should evaluate it for the following issues as a minimum:

1. Research questions and objectives (are the objectives well motivated).
2. Research design (is the design appropriate to achieve the objectives; are hypotheses supported sufficiently).
3. Review of related studies and use of relevant literature.
4. Research design and use of research data in testing hypotheses.
5. Style and clarity of the exposition.
6. Relevance, contribution and practical, educational and policy implications.

In addition to these issues, you should consider the objectives of the paper and try to identify either (1) a way to extend the paper’s results, (2) dispute the findings of the paper or (3) identify a different research design to achieve the research objectives specified by the author(s).

Research Project (40%)

You are required to complete an updated replication of a prior published study as part of the course requirement; or, alternatively, a pilot study of new research idea. Your project must be approved in advance. The write-up should be include (a) the study’s motivation and background (why the research is interesting and relevant), and (b) the research question/hypothesis to be investigated, and (c) a description of the data/sample and method of analysis (research design), and (d) results of the analysis. The mini-project is in the form of a term-paper and students may choose to replicate an experiment, examine in the research format a particular audit issue, use an empirical database, or any other relevant project approved by the instructor. The objective of the mini-project is to provide participants with an experience in audit research. The mini-project is due the last day of classes and projects not received at the beginning of that class will be assigned a failing grade.

Final Exam (20%)

There will be a comprehensive final exam.

Course Coverage:

Auditing topics that are addressed in this course include, but not limited to, the following:

Topic 1: Auditing Research

DeFond, Mark L. and Jere R. Francis. 2005. Audit Research after Sarbanes-Oxley. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 5-30.

Carcello, Joseph V. 2005. DISCUSSION OF Audit Research after Sarbanes-Oxley. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 31-40.

Nelson, Mark and Hun-Tong Tan. 2005. Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person, and Interpersonal Interaction Perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 41-71.

Trotman, Ken T. 2005. DISCUSSION OF Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing: A Task, Person, and Interpersonal Interaction Perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 73-87.

Mutchler, Jane F. 2003. Independence and Objectivity: A Framework for Research Opportunities in Internal Auditing. In Research Opportunities in Internal Auditing, edited by Andrew D. Bailey, Jr., Audrey A. Gramling, and Sridhar Ramamoorti, 231-268. Altamonte Springs, FL: The Institute of Internal Auditors.

Mock, T. and J. Turner. 2001. Issues and Opportunities in Archival Audit Research. International Journal of Auditing 5: 237-249.

Kinney, William R., Jr. 2000. Research Opportunities in Internal Control Quality and Quality Assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19(Supplement): 83-90.

Weidenmier, Marcia L. and Sridhar Ramamoorti. 2006. Research Opportunities in Information Technology and Internal Auditing. Journal of Information Systems 20(1): 205–219.

Jorgensen, Bjorn N., Cheryl L. Linthicum, Andrew J. McLelland, Mark H. Taylor, and Teri Lombardi Yohn. 2007. Recent Developments at the Securities and Exchange Commission: Academic Contributions and Opportunities. Accounting Horizons 21(3): 313–323.

Topic 2: Supply and demand of Audit Services

DeAngelo, L. “Auditor Size and Audit Quality,” Journal of Accounting and Economics (December 1981): 183-199.

Simunic, D. “The Pricing of Audit Services: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Accounting Research (Spring 1980): 161-190.

Francis, J. and E. Wilson. “Auditor Changes: A Joint Test of Theories Relating to Agency Costs and Auditor Differentiation,” The Accounting Review (October 1988): 663-682.

Beatty, R. “Auditor Reputation and the Pricing of Initial Public Offerings,” The Accounting Review (October 1989): 693-709.

Banker, R., H, Chang, and R. Cunningham. “The Public Accounting Industry Production Function,” Journal of Accounting & Economics 35 (2003): 255–281.

Topic 3: Industry Specialization

Eichenseher, J. and P. Danos. “The Analysis of Industry-Specific Auditor Concentration: Towards an Explanatory Model,” The Accounting Review (July 1981): 479-492.

Hogan, C. and D. Jeter. “Industry Specialization by Auditors,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring 1999): 1-17.

Kwon, S. “The Impact of Competition within the Client’s Industry on the Auditor Selection Decision,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring 1996): 53-70.

Craswell, A., J. Francis and S. Taylor. “Auditor Brand Names and Industry Specializations,” Journal of Accounting and Economics (November 1995): 297-322.

Cahan, S., J. Godfrey, J. Hamilton, and D. Jeter. “Auditor Specialization, Auditor Dominance and Audit Fees: The Role of Investment Opportunities,” The Accounting Review (November 2008): 1393-1423.

Krishnan, G. V. 2003. Does big 6 auditor Industry expertise constrain earnings management? Accounting Horizons (Supplement): 1-16.

Balsam, S., J. Krishnan, and J. S. Yang. 2003. Auditor industry specialization and earnings quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (22/2): 71-97.

Casterella, J. R. Francis, B. L. Lewis, and P. L. Walker. 2004. Auditor industry specialization, client bargaining power, and audit pricing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (23/1): 123-140.

Knechel, W. R., V. Naiker, and G. Pacheco. 2007. Does industry specialization matter? Evidence from market reaction to auditor switches Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (26/1): 19-45.

Topic 4: Audit Quality

Francis, J., E. Maydew and C. Sparks. “The Role of Big Six Auditors in Credible Reporting of Accruals,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall 1999): 17-34.

Khurana, I., and K. Raman. “Litigation Risk and the Financial Reporting Credibility of Big 4 versus non-Big 4 Audits: Evidence from Anglo-American Countries,” The Accounting Review (April 2004): 473-496.

Mansi, S., W. Maxwell, and D. Miller. “Does Auditor Quality Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market,” Journal of Accounting Research (September 2004): 755-793.

Balsam, S., J. Krishnan, and J, Yang. “Auditor Industry Specialization and Earnings Quality.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (September 2003): 71-98.

Ahmed, A., S. Rasmussen, and S. Tse. “Audit Quality, Alternative Monitoring Mechanisms, and Cost of Capital: An Empirical Analysis,” SSRN Working Paper, 2008.

Frankel, R.M., M.F. Johnson, and K.K. Nelson. 2002. The relation between auditors’ fees for nonaudit services and earnings quality. The Accounting Review 77 (Supplement): 71-105.

Chung, H., and S. Kallapur. 2003. Client importance, nonaudit services, and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review 78(4): 931-956.

Higgs, J. L., and T. R. Skantz. 2006. Audit and nonaudit fees and the market’s reaction to earnings announcements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (25/1): 1-26.

Francis, J., and M. Yu. “The Effect of Big Four Office Size on Audit Quality.” The Accounting Review (2009, forthcoming).

Johnson, V., I. Khurana, and J.K. Reynolds. “Audit Firm Tenure and the Quality of Accounting Earnings,” Contemporary Accounting Research (Winter 2002): 637-660.

Carey, P., and R. Simnett. “Audit Partner Tenure and Audit Quality,” The Accounting Review (May 2006): 653-676.

Frankel, R., M. Johnson, and K. Nelson. “The Relation Between Auditors’ Fees for Nonaudit Services and Earnings Management.” The Accounting Review (Supplement 2002): 71-105.

Menon, K., and D. Williams, “Former Audit Partners and Accruals,” The Accounting Review (October 2004): 1095-1118

Topic 5: Audit Committees and Corporate Governance

Bedard, J., S. Chtourou, and L. Courteau. “The Effect of Audit Committee Expertise, Independence, and Activity on Aggressive Earnings Management,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (September 2004): 13-36.

Carcello, J., and T. Neal. “Audit Committee Characteristics and Auditor Dismissals following ‘New’ Going-Concern Reports,” The Accounting Review (January 2003): 95-217.

Aggrawal, A., and S. Chandra. “Corporate Governance and Accounting Scandals,” Journal of Law and Economics (October 2005): 371-406.

Abbott, L., S. Parker, G. Peters, and D. Rama. “Corporate Governance, Audit Quality, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” The Accounting Review (July 2007): 803-836.

Fan, J., and T. Wong. “Do External Auditors Perform a Corporate Governance Role in Emerging Markets? Evidence from East Asia,” Journal of Accounting Research (March 2005): 35-72.

Wilson, T. E., and R. A. Grimlund. 1990. An examination of the importance of an auditor’s reputation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (9/2): 43-59.

Chaney, P.K., and K.L. Philipich. 2002. Shredded reputation: The cost of audit failure. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (September): 1221-1245.

Krishnamurthy, S., J. Z. Zhou, and N. Z. Zhou. 2006. Auditor reputation, auditor independence, and the stock-market impact of Anderson’s indictment on its clients. Contemporary Accounting Research (23/2): 465-490.

Francis, J., I. Khurana, and R. Pereira, “The Role of Accounting and Auditing in Corporate Governance and the Development of Financial Markets Around the World,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics (2003), Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-30.

Francis, J., and D. Wang. “The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality Around the World.” Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring 2008): 1-39.

Choi, J., and T. Wong. “Auditors’ Governance Functions and Legal Environments: An International Investigation,” Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring 2007): 1-36.

Kwon, S., C. Lim, and P. Tan. “Legal Systems and Earnings Quality: The Role of Auditor Industry Specialization,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (November 2007): 25-56.

DeFond, M., T. Wong and S. Li 2000. “The Impact of Improved Auditor Independence on Audit Market Concentration in China,” Journal of Accounting & Economics 28 (2000): 269-305.

Topic 6: Internal auditing

Church, Bryan K., Jeffrey J. McMillan, and Arnold Schneider. 2001. Factors Affecting Internal Auditors’ Consideration of Fraudulent Financial Reporting during Analytical Procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20(1): 65-80.

Krishnamoorthy, Ganesh. 2002. A Multistage Approach to External Auditors’ Evaluation of the Internal Audit Function. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21(1): 95-121.

Ahlawat, Sunita S. and D. Jordan Lowe. 2004. An Examination of Internal Auditor Objectivity: In-House versus Outsourcing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 23(2): 147-158.

Topic 7: Analytical Procedures

O’Donnell, Ed and Joseph J. Schultz, Jr. 2003. The Influence of Business-Process-Focused Audit Support Software on Analytical Procedures Judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22(2): 265-279.

Glover, Steven M., Douglas F. Prawitt, and T. Jeffrey Wilks. 2005. Why Do Auditors Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? The Role of Outcome and Precision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 197–220.

McDaniel, Linda. 2005. DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditors Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? The Role of Outcome and Precision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 221-228.

Glover, Steven M., Douglas F. Prawitt, and T. Jeffrey Wilks. 2005. REPLY TO DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditors Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures? The Role of Outcome and Precision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(Supplement): 229-232.

Kinney, “Attention-Directing Analytical review Using Accounting Ratios: A Case Study, Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1987, 59.73.

Darocca & Holder, “The Use of Analytical Procedures in Review and Audit Engagements,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1985: 80-92.

Heintz & White, “Auditor Judgment in Analytical Review,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Spring 1989, pp. 22-39.

Heiman, V. “Auditors’ Assessment of Likelihood of Error Explanation in Analytical Review,” The Accounting Review,” Vol. 65, No. 4, October 1990, pp. 875-890.

Tabor & Willis, “Empirical Evidence on the Changing Role of Analytical Review Procedures,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1985: 93-103.

Biggs & Wild, “A Note on the Practice of Analytical Review, “Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1984: 68-79.

Kinney & Felix, “Analytical Review Procedures,” Journal of Accountancy, Oct. 1980: 95-105.

Kinney, “The Predictive Power of Limited Information in Preliminary Analytical Review: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Accounting Research, Supl. 1979: 148-165

Topic 8: Financial Statement Fraud

Shelton, Sandra Waller, O. Ray Whittington, and David Landsittel. 2001. Auditing Firms’ Fraud Risk Assessment Practices. Accounting Horizons 15(1): 19–33.

Glover, Steven M., Douglas F. Prawitt, Joseph J. Schultz, Jr., and Mark F. Zimbelman. 2003. A Test of Changes in Auditors’ Fraud-Related Planning Judgments since the Issuance of SAS No. 82. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22(2): 237-251.

Mock, Theodore J. and Jerry L. Turner. 2005. Auditor Identification of Fraud Risk Factors and Their Impact on Audit Programs. The International Journal of Auditing 9: 59-77.

Carcello, Joseph V. and Albert L. Nagy. 2004. Audit Firm Tenure and Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 23(2): 55-69.

Zeff, Stephen A. 2003. How the U.S. Accounting Profession Got Where It Is Today: Part I. Accounting Horizons 17(3): 189-205.

Zeff, Stephen A. 2003. How the U.S. Accounting Profession Got Where It Is Today: Part II. Accounting Horizons 17(4): 267-286.

Kinney, William R. Jr. 2005. Twenty-Five Years of Audit Deregulation and Re-Regulation: What Does it Mean for 2005 and Beyond? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 89–109.

Simunic, Dan A. 2005. DISCUSSION OF Twenty-Five Years of Audit Deregulation and Re-Regulation: What Does it Mean for 2005 and Beyond?  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 111–113.

Elliot, Robert K. 2002. Twenty-first Century Assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice 21(1): 139-146.

Francis, Jere R. and Dechun Wang. 2005. Impact of the SEC’s Public Fee Disclosure Requirement on Subsequent Period Fees and Implications for Market Efficiency. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory24 (Supplement): 145–160.

Rezaee. Z. 2002. Internal auditors’ roles in prevention, detection, and correction of financial statement fraud. Internal Auditing 17 (3) (May/June), 13–20.

Rezaee, Z, Crumbley, L. and R. Elmore. 2004. Forensic accounting education: A survey of academics and practitioners. Advances in Accounting Education Teaching and Curriculum Innovations 6, 193–232

Topic 9: Materiality

Turner,Jl, , The Impact Of Materiality Decisions On Financial Ratios: A Computer Simulation, Sp, 97, 125, 147, Jaaf

Fisher, The Effects of Reporting Auditor Materiality Level Publicly, Privately or Not at All in an Experimental Market Setting,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 1990 Supplement: 184-223.

Whittington & Margheim, The Effects of Risk, Materiality, and Assertion Subjetivity on Externa; Auditor Reliance on Internal Auditors” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1993, pp. 50-64..

Mayper, Doucet & Warren, “Auditors’ Materiality Judgment of Internal Accounting Control Weaknesses,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Fall 1989: 72-88.

Loebbecke, Eining & Willingham, “Auditors’ Experience with Material Irregularities: Frequency, Nature and Detectability, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Spring 1989, pp. 90-100.

Holstrum & Messier, “A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on Materiality,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Fall 1982: 45-63.

Moriarity & Barron, “Modeling the Materiality Judgments of Audit Partners,” Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn 1976: 320-341.

Messier, W. F., Jr., N. Martinov-Bennie, and A. Eilifsen. 2005. A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on Materiality: Two Decades Later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(2): 153–187.

Wright, A. and S. Wright. 1997. An Examination of Factors Affecting the Decision to Waive Audit Adjustments. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 12(1): 15–36.

Nelson, M. W., S. D. Smith, Z-V Palmrose. 2005. The Effect of Quantitative Materiality Approach on Auditors’ Adjustment Decisions. The Accounting Review 80: 897–920.

Brody, R., D. Lowe and K. Pany. 2003. Could $51 Million Be Immaterial When Enron Reports Income of $105 Million? Accounting Horizons 17(2): 153-160.

Kinney, William, David Burgstahler and Roger Martin. 2002. Earnings Surprise “Materiality” as Measured by Stock Returns. Journal of Accounting Research 40(5): 1297-1329.

Turner, Jerry L. 1997. The Impact of Materiality Decisions on Financial Ratios—A Computer Simulation, Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Spring 12(2): 125-147.

Turner, Jerry L. 2007. Aligning Auditor Materiality Choice and the Needs of a Reasonable Person. Journal of Forensic Accounting VIII(2): 29-52.

Topic 10: Auditor Independence

Ashbaugh, H., R. LaFond, and B. Mayhew. 2003. Do nonaudit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. The Accounting Review 78(3): 611-639.

Ruddock, C., S. J. Taylor, and S. L. Taylor. 2006. Nonaudit services and earnings conservatism: Is auditor independence impaired? Contemporary Accounting Research (23/3): 701-746.

Zhang, Y., J. Zhou, and N. Zhou. 2007. Audit committee quality, auditor independence, and internal control weaknesses. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (26): 300-327.

Gul, F. A., B. L. Jaggi, and G. V. Krishnan. 2007. Auditor independence: Evidence on the joint effect of auditor tenure and nonaudit fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (26/2): 117-142.

Glazer, A. and H. Jaenicke. 2002. A Pathology of the Independence Standard Board’s Conceptual Framework Project. Accounting Horizons 16(4): 329-352.

Krishnan, Jayanthi, Heibatollah Sami, and Yinqi Zhang. 2005. Does the Provision of Nonaudit Services Affect Investor Perceptions of Auditor Independence? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (24)2: 111–135.

Geiger, Marshall A. and Dasaratha V. Rama. 2003. Audit Fees, Nonaudit Fees, and Auditor Reporting on Stressed Companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22(2): 53-69.

Srivastava, Raj, Ted Mock and Jerry Turner. 2007. Bayesian and Belief Functions Formulas for Auditor Independence Risk Assessment (working paper): University of Kansas.

Cushing, Barry E. and David L. Gilbertson. 2002. Strategic Analysis of Securities Litigation Against Independent Auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21(2): 57-80.

Khurana, Inder K. and K. K. Raman. 2004. Litigation Risk and the Financial Reporting Credibility of Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 Audits: Evidence from Anglo-American Countries. The Accounting Review 79(2): 473–495.

Choi, Jong-Hag, Rajib K, Doogar, and Ananda R. Ganguly. 2004. The Riskiness of Large Audit Firm Client Portfolios and Changes in Audit Liability Regimes: Evidence from the U.S. Audit Market. Contemporary Accounting Research 21(4): 747-785.

Defond, Mark L. 2004. DISCUSSION OF The Riskiness of Large Audit Firm Client Portfolios and Changes in Audit Liability Regimes: Evidence from the U.S. Audit Market. Contemporary Accounting Research 21(4): 787-794

Geiger, Marshall A. and Dasaratha V. Rama. 2006. Audit Firm Size and Going-Concern Reporting Accuracy. Accounting Horizons 20(1): 1–17.

Geiger, Marshall A., K. Raghunandan, and Dasaratha Rama. 2005. Recent Changes in the Association between Bankruptcies and Prior Audit Opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(1): 21-35.

Behn, Bruce K., Steven E. Kaplan, and Kip R. Krumwiede. 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.

Beaulieu, Philip R. 2001. The Effects of Judgments of New Clients’ Integrity upon Risk Judgments, Audit Evidence, and Fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20(2): 85-99.

Kizirian, Timothy G., Brian W. Mayhew, and L. Dwight Sneathen, Jr. 2005. The Impact of Management Integrity on Audit Planning and Evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24(2): 49-67.

Chan, K. Hung, Kenny Z. Lin, and Phyllis Lai Lan Mo. 2003. An Empirical Study on the Impact of Culture on Audit-Detected Accounting Errors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22(2): 281-295.

Alles, Michael G., Alexander Kogan, and Miklos Vasarhelyi. 2003. Feasibility and Economics of Continuous Assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21(1): 125-138

Biggs, S. F., and T. J. Mock. 1983. An investigation of auditor decision processes in the evaluation of internal controls and audit scope decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 21(1): 234–255.

Topic 11: Continuous audit

Rezaee. Z, Elam, R. A. Sharbatoghlie and P. McMickle. 2002. Continuous auditing: Building automated auditing capabilities. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 21 (1) (March), 147–163

Alles, Kogan, & Vasarhelyi, Feasibility and Economics of Continuous Assurance, Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, March 2002: 125-138.

Elliott And Jacobson, “The Evolution of the Knowledge Professional,” Accounting Horizons, Vol 16, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 69-80.

Elliot, “Twenty first Century Assurance,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, March 2002: 140-146.

Rezaee. Z and Hoffman, C. 2001. XBRL: Standardized electronic financial reporting. Internal Auditor LVIII (IV) (August), 46–51.

Rezaee. Z, Elam, R. and A. Sharbatgholi. 2001. Continuous auditing: The audit of the future. Management Auditing Journal 16 (3).

Topic 12: Audit Risk

Holt, D. L. & Morrow, P.C., “Risk Assessment Judgments of auditors and Bank Lenders: a comparative analysis of conformance to Bayes’ theorem,” Accounting Organizations & Society, Vol. 17, Number 6, August 1992, pp. 549-560.

Jiambalvo & Waller, “Decomposition and Assessments of Audit Risk,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1984: 1-16.

Wilson & Glezen, “Regression Analysis in Auditing: A Comparison of Alternative Investigation Rules,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Spring 1989, pp. 90-100.

Houghton, C. W. & Fogarty, J. A., “Inherent Risk,” Auditing : A Journal of Practice & Theory, Spring 1991, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Cushing & Loebbecke, “Analytical Approaches to Audit Risk: A Survey and Analysis,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Fall 1983: 23-41.

Grobstein & Craig, “A Risk Analysis Approach to Auditing,” Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Spring 1984: 1-16.

Topic 13: Audit Fee

Simunic, D. A. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research (18/1): 161-190.

Whisenant, S., S. Sankaraguruswamy, and K. Raghunandan. 2003. Evidence on the joint determination of audit and non-audit fees. Journal of Accounting Research (41/4): 721-744.

Larcker, D. and S. Richardson. 2004. Fees paid to audit firms, accrual choices, and corporate governance. Journal of Accounting Research. 42(3): 625-658.

Ghosh, A., and S. Lustgarten. 2006. Pricing of initial audit engagements by large and small audit firms. Contemporary Accounting Research 23 (2): 333-368.

Topic 14: Auditor Tenure

Johnson, V. E., I. K. Khurana, and J. K. Reynolds. 2002. Audit firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemporary Accounting Research (19/4): 637-660.

Carey, P., and R. Simnett. 2006. Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review (81/3): 653-676.

Kealey, B. T., H. Y. Lee, and M. T. Stein. 2007. The association between audit-firm tenure and audit fees paid to successor auditors: Evidence from Arthur Anderson. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (26/2): 95-116.

Jenkins, D. S., and U. Velury. 2008. Does auditor tenure influence the reporting of conservative earnings? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (27): 115-132.

Ashton, R. H., J. J. Willingham, and R. K. Elliott. 1987. An empirical analysis of audit delay, Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 275-292.

Ashton, R. H., P. R. Graul, and J. D. Newton. 1989. Audit delay and the timeliness of corporate reporting, Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring): 657-673.

Ettredge, M. L., L. Siu, and C. Li. 2006. The impact of SOX section 404 internal control quality assessment on audit delay in the SOX era. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (November): 1-23.

Note: I reserve the right to change the contents of the syllabus. However, any changes will be announced.

COURSE OUTLINE
SPRING 2010, LTU
Z. REZAEE

Time: Week starting May 24

Luleå University of Technology

Instructor: Zabi Rezaee, Ph.D., CPA, CMA, CIA, CFE, CGFM
Thompson/Hill Chair of Excellence, Professor of Accountancy

Course Philosophy

In teaching this doctoral seminar course, I act as a facilitator in developing your understanding and appreciation for empirical research in financial reporting. I have high expectations for what we will accomplish in this course based on the assumption that:

1. You have already been exposed to the tenets of accounting research in an introductory seminar.
2. The quality of the class discussions and the ultimate value to be gained in this course are determined largely by the effort put in prior to class.
3. You have taken all prerequisite econometrics courses and have sufficient understanding of the primary research tools and databases used in empirical research.

Course Objectives

The objective of this course is to develop and improve your ability to assess and conduct empirical research in financial reporting by examining past and current research and exploring future research. This course intends to provide students with a fundamental understanding and appreciation of:

(1) The role of theory and anecdotal evidence in applied work and empirical research.

(2) The nature of accounting research questions addressed in an empirical research setting.

(3) The methods commonly used in accounting and business research.

(4) The skills required to design and conduct empirical research.

Course Conduct

This course will be conducted using a seminar format which requires students to take an active part in discussing and evaluating the assigned materials for each class session. I will have the role of the facilitator, providing overall guidance and structure to each class session, offering background information and opening remarks, helping with difficult issues, asking questions, and evaluating the presenter.

1. I will present some background material regarding the assigned topics and issues.
2. Students will present several papers (approximately four papers per student).
3. Each presenter will submit a copy of the presentation materials (e.g., PowerPoint slides), along with a list of at least five discussion questions, two weeks before the forthcoming class.
4. Each student should be prepared with a verbal response to each question on the list (supporting written notes are recommended). The lists are not intended to be exhaustive as we will discuss other issues related to the assigned material.

I will assign a set of papers to each student to evaluate, summarize, and present to the rest of class. Each student is expected to participate fully in class discussions. Student participation in discussions will be assessed on the basis of quality of comments, questions, and ideas, and not simply on the quantity of comments. Students are expected to ask questions of the presenter and engage in demanding and lively discussion. Unless otherwise indicated, assume you are to work individually on all graded assignments. Students address the content of the assigned papers by answering questions such as;

1. What did the authors do?
   1. Research question
   2. Relevance to the academic and business community
2. Why did they do it?
   1. Motivation
   2. Relevance to the prior literature
3. How did they do it?
   1. Theoretical framework
   2. Hypothesis development
   3. Data sources
   4. Sample selection including biases
   5. Empirical test including shortcomings (low power)
4. What are the results and contributions?
   1. Supporting hypothesis
   2. Policy implications
   3. Contributions to the literature
5. What are the major strengths and weaknesses?
6. Is the research question still relevant in the post-SOX era?
7. What is an alternative way to address this topic?
   1. Problems with the tests
   2. Better tests
8. What are the shortcomings of this approach?
9. What are the big unresolved issues in this area?
   1. Alternative explanations for the results
10. How can this study be extended, improved, and made more relevant to the post-SOX regime?
    1. Extensions
    2. Incremented research questions