Audit Report Lags after Voluntary and

Involuntary Auditor Changes

Paul Tanyi, K. Raghunandan, and Abhijit Barua
SYNOPSIS: We nd that the audit report lag is signicantly higher for former Andersen
clients that did not follow their Andersen partner to the new audit rm than for clients
voluntarily changing auditors from another Big 5 predecessor for the scal year ended
December 31, 2002 the rst year with the new auditor for ex-Andersen clients. The
differences in audit reporting lags between the two groups are not signicant for scal
years ended December 31, 2000 the last year before Andersens Enron related prob-
lems surfaced, or 2003 the second year with the successor auditor. We also nd that
clients with voluntary i.e., non-Andersen auditor changes have only marginally higher
audit reporting lags compared to clients without auditor changes. Our results, focusing
on a cost component of involuntary auditor changes, thus provide relevant empirical
evidence for debates surrounding mandatory auditor rotation. We also nd that ex-
Andersen clients that followed the Andersen partner to the new audit rm had shorter
audit report lags than ex-Andersen clients that did not follow their Andersen partner.
Our ndings highlight the importance of individual relationships in the auditing process,
and suggest new avenues for future research.
INTRODUCTION
S
ection 207 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act SOX, U.S. House of Representatives 2002 requires
the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study and review of the potential
effects of requiring the mandatory rotation of registered public accounting rms. This
requirement was spurred by concerns that the independence of a public accounting rm is
adversely affected by a rms long-term relationship with the client and the desire to retain the
client GAO 2003.
Some recent studies have sought to derive implications about the effect of mandatory rotation
by investigating the association between auditor tenure and various measures of audit quality.
These studies examine measures such as earnings management by clients Johnson et al. 2002;
Myers et al. 2003, forecast errors Ghosh and Moon 2005, and the likelihood of issuing going-
concern modied audit opinions Geiger and Raghunandan 2002; Choi and Doogar 2005. Gen-
erally, these studies have concluded that contrary to the concerns expressed by legislators and
Paul Tanyi is a Ph.D. student, K. Raghunandan is a Professor, and Abhijit Barua is an Assistant Professor,
all at Florida International University.
We thank two anonymous reviewers and Karla Johnstone associate editor for their many useful and constructive com-
ments on earlier versions of this paper.
Accounting Horizons American Accounting Association
Vol. 24, No. 4 DOI: 10.2308/acch.2010.24.4.671
2010
pp. 671688
Submitted: July 2009
Accepted: March 2010
Published Online: December 2010
Corresponding author: K. Raghunandan
Email: raghu@u.edu
671
regulators auditor tenure has a positive association with audit quality and that the empirical
evidence does not support calls for mandatory rotation. The auditor tenure studies note that their
results may be relevant to the debate about mandatory auditor rotation.
The studies cited above have examined instances where auditor tenure has been impacted by
voluntary decisions of the client to dismiss the auditor or the auditor to resign from a client.
The controversy about auditor tenures, fueled by legislators and regulators comments and ac-
tions, relates to mandatory auditor turnover. While relevant, the ndings of auditor tenure studies
noted above do not directly provide evidence about the consequences of involuntary auditor
changes because of the endogenous nature of the decision in voluntary auditor changes Nagy
2005; Krishnan et al. 2007.
The auditor changes that occurred following the collapse of Arthur Andersen in 2002 provide
a unique situation of involuntary auditor changes. The indictment of the rm in March 2002
created considerable uncertainty about the ability of Andersen to survive, which led to forced
auditor changes for the vast majority of Andersens clients. The forced auditor changes that
occurred after the demise of Arthur Andersen reect some elements of the mandatory auditor
changes advocated by legislators and regulators. This unique setting enables researchers to provide
empirical evidence about auditor decisions and audit quality in the context of involuntary auditor
changes.
Some prior studies have examined if successor auditors treated former Andersen clients dif-
ferently than other clients by focusing on accruals quality and audit opinions Nagy 2005; Cahan
and Zhang 2006; Krishnan et al. 2007. These studies compare former Andersen clients with other
continuing clients of other Big 4 rms. The latter group typically includes only a small proportion
of clients that had a voluntary auditor change in the same period as the forced change from
Andersen.
In this paper we compare the effects of mandatory versus voluntary auditor changes by
examining audit report lagsthat is, the time lag between the scal year-end and the date of the
audit report. We focus on audit report lag admittedly an imperfect proxy because it is the only
publicly observable quantitative proxy for the extent of auditors work.
1
Audit report lag, and the
associated nancial reporting lag, has recently been an issue of signicant concern to regulators
and the auditing profession SEC 2002b, 2002c.
We recognize that clients changing auditorsvoluntarily or involuntarilyare quite different
from other continuing clients. Hence, we compare the audit report lags for former Andersen
clients and other clients voluntarily changing auditors during 2002. We argue that mandatory
auditor changes would lead to higher reporting lags than voluntary auditor changes; hence, the
audit reporting lag would be greater for ex-Andersen clients than other clients that voluntarily
changed auditors, in the initial year with the successor auditor. Our tests thus examine a cost
component of mandatory auditor changes.
Some recent studies have sought to differentiate between former Andersen clients by classi-
fying such rms into followers i.e., those that followed their former Andersen partner to a new
audit rm and non-followers. Blouin et al. 2007 nd that discretionary accruals are greater
that is, higher levels of earnings management are present for companies that followed their
former Andersen partner; further, non-followers were likely to have greater agency and switching
related costs. Kohlbeck et al. 2008 and Vermeer et al. 2008 nd that audit fees are lower for
follower former Andersen clients than for non-follower former Andersen clients in the rst year
1
Audit fees also are publicly observable after February 5, 2001, but audit fees represent a product of both quantity audit
work and price dollars per unit of work.
672 Tanyi, Raghunandan, and Barua
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
with the new auditor. In the non-prot sector, Vermeer 2008 nds that switching costs, the
nancial condition of a non-prot, and the size of the market are associated with the likelihood of
a non-prot audit client being a follower.
Following prior research, we argue that follower former clients of Andersen would be
treated differently than the non-follower former Andersen clients. Further, we argue that fol-
lower switches by ex-Andersen clients represent auditor changes in form, but perhaps not in
substance. This suggests that for a proper examination of the differences arising from voluntary
versus involuntary auditor changes the comparisons should be between non-follower ex-
Andersen clients and non-Andersen clients that switched auditors during the same period. In
addition, we also examine the partner change effect by comparing the two types of ex-Andersen
clients: we argue that the audit reporting lag will be smaller for follower ex-Andersen clients
than for non-follower ex-Andersen clients.
The latter tests, examining differences between ex-Andersen clients that did or did not follow
their Andersen partner to the new audit rm, are also relevant in the context of the mandatory audit
partner change rules of SOX. Section 203 of SOX states that:
It shall be unlawful for a registered public accounting rm to provide audit services to an issuer if
the lead or coordinating audit partner having primary responsibility for the audit, or the audit
partner responsible for reviewing the audit, has performed audit services for that issuer in each of
the 5 previous scal years of that issuer.
Thus, we also provide empirical evidence about the costs associated with the mandatory audit
partner rotation rules of SOX.
We test our hypotheses by comparing the audit report lags for the following three groups:
ex-Andersen clients that followed their partner to the new audit rm followers, ex-Andersen
clients that did not follow their Andersen partner to the new audit rm non-followers, and
clients that switched auditors during 2002 from a Big 5 predecessor other than Andersen non-
Andersen switchers. Given the rapid demise of Andersen, we limit our analysis to rms with
scal year ends of December 31, 2002.
We nd that non-follower ex-Andersen clients had longer audit report lags 62.57 days versus
56.08 days than clients of other Big 5 auditors who switched to a new auditor in 2002. This
provides empirical evidence related to the differences between mandatory and voluntary auditor
changes. Further, we nd also that audit report lags are, on average, 4.56 days 7.8 percent lower
for follower clients than for non-follower clients. This nding quanties some of the benets
associated with partner familiarity, or the costs associated with mandatory audit partner changes.
Finally, we compare clients without an auditor change against the three types of clients with
an auditor change discussed above. We nd that clients with voluntary auditor changes have only
marginally higher audit reporting lags p 0.10 compared to clients without auditor changes; in
contrast, both types of clients with mandatory auditor changes ex-Andersen followers and
ex-Andersen non-followers have signicantly higher p 0.01 audit report lag than clients
without auditor changes. Overall, our results provide evidence that voluntary auditor changes lead
to modest increases in audit report lags, and that mandatory auditor changes signicantly increase
the audit report lag when compared with voluntary auditor changes.
We recognize that the post-Andersen auditor changes are different from those under a man-
datory auditor rotation regime. First, under mandatory rotation, everyone knows ahead of time
when a change is scheduled. Second, incoming auditors following mandated changes also would
know that their tenure is limited to a maximum period specied by the rotation regime rules. Yet,
the failure of Andersen represents a unique situation that captures some elements of a mandatory
auditor rotation regime in that the clients were involuntarily required to go with a new auditor at
a specied time.
Audit Report Lags after Voluntary and Involuntary Auditor Changes 673
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
Our paper adds to the auditing literature along several different streams. First, given the
interest of legislators and the public in mandatory auditor rotation, we provide empirical evidence
about differences in audit report lags arising from voluntary and involuntary auditor changes.
Second, audit report lags have been of recent interest to the SEC, auditors, and public companies;
we provide empirical evidence about audit report lags following three different types of auditor
changes: voluntary auditor changes by clients of other Big 5 rms; involuntary auditor changes
in form, but perhaps not in substance follower ex-Andersen clients; and involuntary auditor
changes in form and substance non-follower ex-Andersen clients. Third, our paper adds to
research about the personal nature of auditing relationshipsnamely, clients associations with
specic audit partners and the production efciencies arising from such relationships.
The next section discusses the background and develops the hypotheses. This is followed by
a discussion of data and method. The results follow, and the paper ends with a summary and
discussion.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Mandatory Rotation of Auditors
More than a quarter century before SOX, the Metcalf Committee report had expressed similar
concerns about the effects of long tenure on auditor judgments. The Staff Report of the Committee
on Government Affairs U.S. Senate 1976, 21 noted:
Long association between a corporation and an accounting rm may lead to such close identica-
tion of the accounting rm with the interests of its clients management that truly independent
action by the accounting rm becomes difcult. One alternative is mandatory change of accoun-
tants after a given period of years.
Even earlier, nearly 50 years ago, Mautz and Sharaf 1961 suggested that long associations with
the same client can lead to problems with independence. Though Mautz and Sharaf 1961, 208
did not call for mandatory auditor rotation, they noted that the greatest threat to his the auditors
independence is a slow, gradual, almost casual erosion of his honest disinterestedness.
Periodically, the SEC continued to express its concerns about the possible adverse effects
from long auditor tenures SEC 1994; Turner and Godwin 1999. However, the SEC did not take
any regulatory action related to mandatory auditor rotation.
Proponents of auditor rotation suggest that long-term relationships between the auditor and
the client could undermine perceptions of auditor independence U.S. Senate 2002. Since the
incentives associated with keeping a particular client are smaller, and since there would be another
audit rm reviewing the work within a specied period of time, auditors might be less likely to
succumb to management pressure GAO 2003.
The opposition to mandatory auditor rotation is based on the fact that effective audits require
a thorough understanding of the clients business and processes; such understanding develops over
time and there is a steep learning curve that lasts a year or more. Hence, audit quality is likely to
be lower in the initial years of an audit GAO 2003. Along these lines, Loebbecke et al. 1989
nd that irregularities are more likely in the initial years of an audit engagement.
A related point is that the disruption to the client caused by rotation leads to nontrivial
commitment of resources personnel and nancial in educating the auditor about the clients
operational and accounting matters. In addition, Geiger and Raghunandan 2002 note an
incentive-related argument: incumbent auditors earn quasi-rents due to the start-up costs associ-
ated with audits and lowballing the pricing of initial-year audits below economic cost arises as a
natural phenomenon. Hence, auditors would be interested in recouping their initial-year losses in
the future; consequently, the threats to auditor independence may in fact be higher in the initial
years of an audit engagement.
674 Tanyi, Raghunandan, and Barua
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
Legislators considered imposing mandatory auditor changes during the hearings that preceded
SOX; many former SEC chairs supported such a rule U.S. Senate 2002. Nevertheless, in the face
of opposition from auditors and others, the nal rules adopted a compromise. With respect to audit
rm rotation, Section 207 of SOX required the GAO to conduct a study and review of the
potential effects of requiring the mandatory rotation of registered public accounting rms and
report back to Congress within one year of enactment of the law. However, Section 203 of SOX
required mandatory rotation of the audit partner every ve years.
Related Research
Some recent studies have examined the association between auditor tenure and various mea-
sures of audit quality. Johnson et al. 2002 and Myers et al. 2003 use clients abnormal accruals
as a measure of audit quality and document a positive association between tenure and audit
quality. Davis et al. 2009 nd that rms with both short and long tenure are more likely to use
discretionary accruals to meet or beat earnings forecasts, suggesting that audit quality is lower in
rms with short or long tenures. Ghosh and Moon 2005 show a positive association between
auditor tenure and investors perceptions of earnings quality as measured by the earnings re-
sponse coefcient. Geiger and Raghunandan 2002 nd, for a sample of bankrupt rms, that
going-concern modied audit opinions are positively associated with auditor tenure. However,
Choi and Doogar 2005 use a general sample of stressed rms and nd that there is no association
between auditor tenure and the likelihood of a going-concern opinion.
The auditor tenure variable in all of the above studies is impacted by voluntary decisions
made by the clients to dismiss the auditor or the auditor to resign. Voluntary auditor changes
are quite different from involuntary auditor changes, such as those arising from mandatory auditor
turnover Nagy 2005; Krishnan et al. 2007. It is this difference that makes the auditor changes
that occurred in the aftermath of Andersens failure unique. The forced auditor change for ex-
Andersen clients provides a unique opportunity to empirically examine issues related to involun-
tary auditor changes.
Audit Report Lag, Auditor Changes, and Andersens Demise
Audit report lag, and the associated nancial reporting lag, has recently been an issue of
signicant concern to regulators and the auditing profession SEC 2002b, 2002c.
2
As part of the
changes made to nancial reporting subsequent to SOX, the SEC reduced the 10-K ling lag i.e.,
the number of days from the scal year-end to the ling of the 10-K with the SEC starting in
2003 SEC 2002c. Krishnan and Yang 2009 nd that audit report lags have increased in recent
years, both prior to the introduction of new rules shortening the 10-K ling lag and also after the
introduction of the new rules.
Any auditor change creates disruption; both the client and the auditor incur substantial switch-
ing costs. In the aftermath of an auditor switch the client spends a signicant amount of
resourcesboth nancial and humaneducating the new auditor about company operations and
accounting matters GAO 2003. The new auditor has to learn about the business practices,
operations, and nancial reporting systems of the client, and incur substantial extra effort becom-
ing familiar with the client in the year following an auditor change Flanigan 2002. Hence, the
audit risk is also higher in an initial-year engagement; in turn, this suggests that the auditor would
likely perform more work in an initial-audit engagement.
2
For example, the SEC 2002b sought to shorten the ling due dates for annual and quarterly reports led with the
commission as a step in modernizing the periodic reporting system and improving the usefulness of quarterly and
annual reports to investors. Following concerns expressed by auditors and others, the SEC 2002c modied the
proposals but noted that technological advances have made it easier for registrants to capture, process, and dissemi-
nate nancial information.
Audit Report Lags after Voluntary and Involuntary Auditor Changes 675
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
A former chief accountant of the SEC noted in congressional testimony that on average, you
provide about a third additional hours in the rst year Turner 2002. To the extent at least a part
of such additional work is done at the end of the scal year as opposed to interim work, the audit
reporting lag should be higher following auditor changes. This argument also suggests that if
ex-Andersen clients are to be compared with other clients on audit-related issues in general, or
audit reporting lag in particular, then the appropriate comparison group should be clients that also
had voluntarily an auditor change around the same time as the involuntary auditor changes that
occurred due to Andersens demise.
On October 16, 2001, Enron announced major restatements; events unfolded rapidly, with
Enron declaring bankruptcy on December 2, 2001. Almost immediately, legislators and the media
began asking questions about the role of Andersen in Enrons failure. Andersen admitted to
shredding Enron-related documents on January 10, 2002, and was indicted for such document
destruction on March 14, 2002; the SEC 2002a issued a special release in which it required
companies to obtain extra assurances fromAndersen for audit reports signed after March 14, 2002.
The special release made references to clients who may wish to leave Andersen and to the need for
orderly transitions to new auditors. Andersen was found guilty of criminal wrong doing on June
15, 2002, and the rm responded by formally announcing it would cease to practice.
3
Thus, Andersen clients had to involuntarily switch auditors and do so quite quickly. Such
switches were made somewhat easier by the fact that many Andersen ofces were purchased by
the other large audit rms see Kohlbeck et al. 2008 for a more detailed description of the
acquisition process. Many former Andersen clients followed their former Andersen partner to the
new audit rm, thereby easing the transition.
Blouin et al. 2007, Kohlbeck et al. 2008, Vermeer 2008, and Vermeer et al. 2008 use
publicly available data about the purchase of former Andersen ofces to document differences
between ex-Andersen clients who likely followed their former partner to the successor auditor
follower and those who did not follow their former Andersen partner non-followers.
4
In
the context of our study, it is likely that the typical extra work associated with a new client would
be much less for a follower client than for a non-follower client. This is because the prior
experience with a follower client means that for such clients the audit team will not have to
navigate the steep learning curve typically experienced in initial-audit engagements. That is, for
the follower ex-Andersen clients the auditor change after Andersens demise can be viewed as
an auditor change in form, but not in substance. This in turn means that the extra audit effort
associated with new audit clients should be either nonexistent or lower if the client followed the
Andersen partner than if the client switched to a different rm with a new audit partner and team.
Hypotheses
In this study, we examine if the audit reporting lag differs for clients with mandatory auditor
changes when compared clients with voluntary auditor changes. We do this by comparing the audit
reporting lags for ex-Andersen clients that did not follow their Andersen partner against audit
reporting lags for other clients that changed auditors during the same period. This leads to the rst
hypothesis in the null form:
H1: There would be no differences in audit reporting lag, in the rst scal year with the new
auditor, between non-follower ex-Andersen clients and non-Andersen clients changing
auditors.
3
On May 31, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Andersens conviction.
4
We use the qualier likely because publicly available data about the purchase of Andersen ofces are only at the rm
level; it is possible that a former Andersen partner decided not to go to the new rm. However, such actions by
individual partners would introduce a bias against nding differences between follower and non-follower ex-Andersen
clients.
676 Tanyi, Raghunandan, and Barua
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
The follower Andersen clients can be viewed as simply having an auditor change in form,
but not in substance. Therefore, we expect that follower ex-Andersen clients would have a lower
audit reporting lag in the rst year with a new audit rm than non-follower ex-Andersen clients.
This leads to the following hypotheses in the null form:
H2: Audit reporting lag in the rst scal year with the new audit rm would not be higher for
non-follower ex-Andersen clients than for follower ex-Andersen clients.
Thus, H1 examines the effect of mandatory, as opposed to voluntary, auditor changes. Hy-
pothesis 2 examines the partner familiarity effect and thus provides evidence related to manda-
tory audit partner rotation.
METHOD AND DATA
We compare the audit reporting lags for scal year 2002, which is the rst year with the
successor auditor following Andersens demise. Further, since Andersen was a member of the Big
5, in our tests we restrict the control group to those clients that had another non-Andersen Big 5
rm as the predecessor auditor and had an auditor change in 2002. We use the same model to
explain audit report lags as Krishnan and Yang 2009 and add one specic variable to the
regression model depending on the research question of interest.
5
Thus, to test the rst hypothesis
we use the following regression model:
SQLAG=
0
+
1
AA +
2
EXTRAORD+
3
SEGMENTS +
4
FOREIGN+
5
HIGROWTH
+
6
HILITIG+
7
HITECH+
8
FINCOND+
9
LOSS +
10
GC+
11
LNTA + error
1
where:
SQLAGsquare root of the number of days between scal year-end and the date of
the audit report;
AA 1 if the rm is an ex-Andersen client, 0 otherwise;
EXTRAORD1 if the rm has extraordinary items on its nancial statement, 0 otherwise;
SEGMENTS square root of the number of business segments;
FOREIGN1 if the rm has foreign operations, 0 otherwise;
HIGROWTH1 if the rm belongs to high-growth industries two-digit SIC codes 35, 45,
48, 49, 52, 57, 73, 78, and 80, 0 otherwise;
HILITIG1 if the rm belongs to litigious industries two-digit SIC codes 28, 35, 36,
38, and 73, 0 otherwise;
HITECH1 if the rm belongs to high-tech industries three-digit SIC codes 283,
284, 357, 366, 367, 371, 382, 384, and 737, 0 otherwise;
FINCONDprobability of bankruptcy, estimated from Zmijewskis 1984 model for
nonnancial rms calculated as of the end of the scal year;
LOSS 1 if the rm reports a loss before extraordinary items, 0 otherwise;
GC1 if the rm receives a going-concern opinion, 0 otherwise; and
LNTA natural log of total assets measured as of the end of the scal year.
5
Krishnan and Yang 2009 have three additional variables: FIN nance industry client, BIG4 whether auditor is a Big
4 auditor, and BUSYYREND whether scal year-end is in December or January. We do not have these three variables
in our model because our sample includes only nonnancial rms having a Big 4 auditor and with a December 31 scal
year end.
Audit Report Lags after Voluntary and Involuntary Auditor Changes 677
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
Since we are using the same model as Krishnan and Yang 2009, our discussion of the
control variables is relatively brief. Briey, audit report lag is expected to be higher for rms with
more complex operations, so we include EXTRAORD, SEGMENTS, and FOREIGN in the model.
Financial problems and going-concern uncertainties add to the auditors work, so we expect that
FINCOND, LOSS, and GC will have positive coefcients. High growth is typically with more
changes, leading to more new things to audit so we expect the coefcient of HIGROWTH to be
positive. We also control for the fact that the auditors business risk varies across industries, and
hence include HILITIG and HITECH. We include our nal control variable, LNTA, for two rea-
sons. First, larger clients can exercise greater inuence on their auditor to complete the audit
quicker e.g., Ashton et al. 1989. Second, almost all prior accounting and auditing research
includes client size as a control factor.
The treatment sample for testing H1 includes ex-Andersen clients that did not follow their
former Andersen partner to the new audit rm. The control sample includes clients that changed
auditors from another other than Andersen Big 5 auditor during 2002.
Our second hypothesis compares audit reporting lags for follower and non-follower ex-
Andersen clients. We use the same model as for hypothesis one but with two changes. First, the
sample now includes all and only ex-Andersen clients. Second, since we are only comparing two
groups of ex-Andersen clients, we replace the AA variable in the model with a variable called
FOLLOW that takes a value of 1 when the client follows the former Andersen partner to a new
audit rm, and is 0 otherwise.
Data
The Andersen sample consists of all nonnancial rms that had a December 31 scal year-end
in 2002, and have data available about 1 audit report lag, audit rm name, and audit opinion type
for scal year 2002 available in the Audit Analytics database; and 2 relevant nancial and other
control variables in the Compustat database. The control sample consists of all rms that 1 had
a December 31 scal year-end for 2002; 2 had an auditor change during 2002 from a Big 5
predecessor other than Andersen; and 3 meet the same data requirements as the Andersen sample
i.e., data available in Audit Analytics and Compustat databases. We use a December 31 scal
year-end restriction because of the relatively rapid nature of Andersens collapse; hence, it would
not be appropriate to compare a client with a December 31, 2002 scal year-end with a client that
had a scal year ending June 30, 2002. We examine also the change in audit report lags from scal
year 2000; hence, to simplify the analysis and presentation we require that the data be available for
sample rms for both scal years 2000 and 2002.
Our analyses partition the ex-Andersen clients based on whether they followed their Andersen
partner to a new audit rm. Kohlbeck et al. 2008 and Vermeer et al. 2008 provide detailed
instructions based on data provided by PAR 2002 about classifying ex-Andersen clients as
followers or non-followers both studies use data provided by PAR 2002. We use the data
provided in Kohlbeck et al. 2008 and Vermeer et al. 2008 to classify our sample of ex-
Andersen clients as followers or non-followers.
RESULTS
Panel A of Table 1 presents descriptive statistics about two groups of rms changing auditors
in 2002: 198 ex-Andersen clients that did not follow their Andersen partner to the new audit rm
and 120 clients that switched from another Big 5 auditor other than Andersen. The average audit
report lag for ex-Andersen clients is 6.49 days higher than for clients of other Big 5 auditors
changing auditors during 2002 62.57 versus 56.08; ex-Andersen clients are less likely to be in
nancial distress, and are signicantly larger than the control sample of other companies that
changed auditors.
678 Tanyi, Raghunandan, and Barua
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
TABLE 1
Comparison of Ex-Andersen (Non-Follower) Clients with other Auditor Change Clients
Panel A: Descriptive Data: Mean (Median) Values of Variables for Fiscal Year 2002
Variable
Ex-Andersen (Non-
Follower) Clients
(n 198)
Other Big 5 Clients with
Auditor Change
(n 120)
p-values from t
(median) [Chi-square]
Test
LAG 62.57 56.08 0.01
62.00 49.00 0.01
SQLAG 7.76 7.26 0.01
7.72 7.07 0.01
EXTRAORD 0.37 0.34 0.35
0.0 0.0
SEGMENTS 1.41 1.33 0.28
1.0 1.0 0.93
FOREIGN 0.31 0.26 0.17
0.0 0.0
HIGROWTH 0.42 0.42 0.96
0.0 0.0
HILITIG 0.43 0.55 0.23
0.0 1.0
HITECH 0.30 0.41 0.01
0.0 0.0
FINCOND 0.32 0.51 0.02
0.16 0.53 0.02
LOSS 0.50 0.71 0.01
1.0 1.0
GC 0.16 0.33 0.01
0.0 0.0
LNTA 5.92 3.48 0.01
5.77 3.08 0.01
(continued on next page)
A
u
d
i
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
L
a
g
s
a
f
t
e
r
V
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
I
n
v
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
6
7
9
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Panel B: Audit Report Lag Regression Results
Model:
SQLAG=
0
+
1
AA +
2
EXTRAORD+
3
SEGMENTS +
4
FOREIGN+
5
HIGROWTH+
6
HILITIG+
7
HITECH+
8
FINCOND+
9
LOSS +
10
GC
+
11
LNTA + error
Variable
Analysis of SQLAG in FY
2002
Analysis of Change in
SQLAG (FY2002
FY2000)
Analysis of SQLAG in FY
2003
Coefcient p-value Coefcient p-value Coefcient p-value
Intercept 7.30 0.01 0.20 0.62 7.51 0.01
AA 0.38 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.21 0.23
EXTRAORD 0.73 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.49 0.04
SEGMENTS 0.19 0.40 0.52 0.11 0.19 0.31
FOREIGN 0.40 0.07 0.09 0.85 0.10 0.53
HIGROWTH 0.17 0.41 0.34 0.04
HILITIG 0.06 0.86 0.04 0.72
HITECH 0.39 0.19 0.06 0.46
FINCOND 1.34 0.01 0.45 0.01 1.23 0.01
LOSS 0.26 0.01 0.35 0.17 0.32 0.10
GC 0.26 0.43 0.81 0.04 0.57 0.05
LNTA 0.05 0.43 0.06 0.57 0.04 0.42
Model F 7.6 Model F 3.5 Model F 6.3
p 0.01 p 0.01 p 0.01
Adj. R
2
= 0.17 Adj. R
2
= .04 Adj. R
2
= 0.16
Panel Aprovides descriptive data about 198 ex-Andersen clients that did not follow their former Andersen partner to the new audit rm and 120 other rms that had an auditor change
with a Big4 predecessor in 2002. All rms included in the analyses had 1 scal years ending December 31, 2002, 2 audit report lag data for both 2002 and 2000 available in Audit
Analytics, and 3 accounting data available in Compustat to estimate the regression model.
Panel B provides the results from three regressions. In the regressions for scal years 2002 and 2003, the dependent variable is the square root of audit report lag i.e., number of
days between scal year-end and the audit report date. In the changes regression i.e., the second of the three regressions, the dependent variable is the change in square root of
the audit report lag 2002 minus 2000. The sample for the rst two regressions for FY 2002 and the change from FY 2000 includes 198 ex-Andersen clients that did not follow
their auditor and 120 other rms that had an auditor change with a Big 4 predecessor. All rms included in the analyses had 1 scal years ending December 31, 2002, 2 audit
report lag data for both 2002 and 2000 available in Audit Analytics, and 3 accounting data available in Compustat to estimate the model. The last regression FY 2003 excludes,
from the preceding, ve ex-Andersen clients and four non-Andersen clients that had an auditor change in 2003.
(continued on next page)
6
8
0
T
a
n
y
i
,
R
a
g
h
u
n
a
n
d
a
n
,
a
n
d
B
a
r
u
a
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
p-values are two-tailed.
Variable Denitions:
LAG number of days between scal year-end and the date of the audit opinion;
SQLAG the square root of LAG;
EXTRAORD 1 if the rm has extraordinary items on its nancial statement, 0 otherwise;
SEGMENTS the square of the number of business segments;
FOREIGN 1 if the rm has foreign operations, 0 otherwise;
HIGROWTH 1 if the rm belongs to high-growth industries two-digit SIC codes 35, 45, 48, 49, 52, 57, 73, 78, and 80, 0 otherwise;
HILITIG 1 if the rm belongs to industries two-digit SIC codes 28, 35, 36, 38, and 73, 0 otherwise;
HITECH 1 if the rm belongs to industries three-digit SIC codes 283, 284, 357, 366, 367, 371, 382, 384, and 737, 0 otherwise;
FINCOND probability of bankruptcy estimated fromZmijewskis 1984 model for nonnancial rms;
LOSS 1 if the rm reports a loss before extraordinary items, 0 otherwise;
GC 1 if the rm receives a going-concern opinion, 0 otherwise;
LNTA the natural log of total assets; and
AA 1 of the rm is an ex-Andersen non-follower client, 0 otherwise.
A
u
d
i
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
L
a
g
s
a
f
t
e
r
V
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
I
n
v
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
6
8
1
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Panel B of Table 1 provides results from three different regressions. The rst regression
relates to scal year ending December 31, 2002, or the rst year for ex-Andersen clients with the
new auditor. The overall model is signicant, with an adjusted R
2
of 17 percent; the coefcients of
EXTRAORD and FINCOND are positive and signicant. The variable of interest, AA, is positive
and signicant p 0.01 indicating that when compared with other clients changing auditors
during 2002 with another Big 5 predecessor the non-follower, ex-Andersen clients have a higher
audit report lag for scal year 2002 after controlling for other factors.
A competing argument is that such ex-Andersen clients always had higher reporting lags.
Hence, we compute the change in audit reporting lag from scal year 2000 to scal year 2002 and
test if the change is different for ex-Andersen and other clients; we examine scal year 2000
because that is the last full year prior to the disclosure of Andersens problems. For such analysis,
we use the same model as the one above but instead of data for scal year 2002 we use the
corresponding values of audit report lag and the dependent variables from scal year 2000.
The second regression in Panel B of Table 1 is the changes regression. The dependent
variable here is the difference in square root of audit report lags of 2002 and 2000. The explana-
tory variablesexcept AAare changes in the levels of the independent variables from 2002 to
2000.
6
The overall model is signicant; FINCOND and GC have the expected coefcient signs
and are signicant at conventional levels. The signicant positive coefcient of AA indicates that
the change in audit report lag from 2000 to 2002 was higher for the non-follower, ex-Andersen
clients compared to clients of other Big 5 auditors that changed auditors during 2002.
7
The last regression in Panel B of Table 1 examines the audit reporting lag during 2003. The
sample for this third regression excludes ve ex-Andersen clients and four non-Andersen clients
that either had an auditor change in 2003 or had missing data for 2003. The coefcient of AA is
positive but not signicant at conventional levels in this regression. This suggests that by the
second year with the new auditor the ex-Andersen clients who experienced an involuntary auditor
change were not at a disadvantage compared to clients of other Big 5 rms that voluntarily
changed auditors during 2002. These ndings suggest that the differential costs associated with
mandatory auditor changes when compared to voluntary auditor may be short-lived.
Overall, the results in Panel B of Table 1 indicate that the mandatory auditor change i.e.,
ex-Andersen clients: 1 had higher audit report lag for scal year 2002; and 2 had a greater
increase in audit lag from 2000 to 2002, compared to clients of other Big 5 rms that had an
auditor change during 2002. Together the results provide strong evidence in support of the hy-
pothesis that the non-follower ex-Andersen clients were treated by auditors differently than other
clients that switched from a Big 5 predecessor in scal year 2002.
Partition of Ex-Andersen Clients by Follower Status
Panel A of Table 2 provides descriptive data about ex-Andersen clients, partitioned by fol-
lower status. The audit report lag for follower ex-Andersen clients is, on average, 4.56 days
lower than for non-follower clients 58.01 versus 62.57. The two subsamples do not differ
along any of the other control variables, except that the follower group has a lower proportion
in high-growth industries.
6
We measure changes, for the dependent and independent variables, from 2002 to 2000 as opposed to vice versa simply
for the sake of expositional convenience.
7
We also examined the regression for scal year 2000 using a levels approachthat is, we measured the level of the
dependent and independent variables as in the rst regression for scal 2002 and used such variables in the regression.
In such a regression, the AA coefcient is not signicant in the scal year 2000 regression, conrming the ndings from
the changes regression.
682 Tanyi, Raghunandan, and Barua
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
TABLE 2
Comparison of Follower versus Non-Follower Ex-Andersen Clients
Panel A: Descriptive Data: Mean (Median) Values of Variables for Fiscal Year 2002
Variable
Follower Clients
(n 186)
Non-Follower Clients
(n 198)
p-values from t
(median) [Chi-square]
Test
LAG 58.01 62.57 0.01
57.00 62.00 0.01
SQLAG 7.24 8.147 0.01
7.14 7.62 0.01
EXTRAORD 0.34 0.37 0.73
0.0 0.0
SEGMENTS 1.38 1.41 0.81
1.0 1.0 0.92
FOREIGN 0.26 0.31 0.29
0.0 0.0
HIGROWTH 0.40 0.42 0.34
0.0 0.0
HILITIG 0.41 0.43 0.84
0.0 0.0
HITECH 0.31 0.30 0.93
0.0 0.0
FINCOND 0.35 0.32 0.89
0.27 0.16 0.58
LOSS 0.48 0.50 0.82
0.0 1.0
GC 0.13 0.16 0.95
0.0 0.0
LNTA 5.80 5.92 0.86
5.66 5.77 0.33
(continued on next page)
A
u
d
i
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
L
a
g
s
a
f
t
e
r
V
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
I
n
v
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
6
8
3
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Panel B: Regression Results
Model:
SQLAG=
0
+
1
FOLLOW+
2
EXTRAORD+
3
SEGMENTS +
4
FOREIGN+
5
HIGROWTH+
6
HILITIG+
7
HITECH+
8
FINCOND+
9
LOSS
+
10
GC+
11
LNTA + error
Variable
Analysis of SQLAG in FY
2002
Analysis of Change in
SQLAG (FY2002
FY2000)
Analysis of SQLAG in FY
2003
Coefcient p-value Coefcient p-value Coefcient p-value
Intercept 7.14 0.01 0.55 0.01 7.26 0.01
FOLLOW 0.45 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.25 0.14
EXTRAORD 0.53 0.01 0.54 0.02 0.30 0.28
SEGMENTS 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.31
FOREIGN 0.45 0.03 1.58 0.23 0.19 0.29
HIGROWTH 0.04 0.85 0.19 0.24
HILITIG 0.22 0.43 0.13 0.50
HITECH 0.17 0.53 0.03 0.94
FINCOND 1.12 0.01 1.07 0.01 0.68 0.01
LOSS 0.17 0.38 0.09 0.14 0.01 0.97
GC 0.67 0.05 0.16 0.01 0.89 0.01
LNTA 0.14 0.01 0.03 0.83 0.04 0.33
Model F 8.4 Model F 3.1 Model F 4.0
p 0.01 p 0.01 p 0.01
Adj.R
2
= 0.16 Adj. R
2
= 0.04 Adj. R
2
= 0.06
Panel A provides descriptive data for scal year 2002 for ex-Andersen clients partitioned by follower status.
Follower rms followed their former Andersen partner to the new audit rm, while non-follower rms did not do so.
Panel B provides the results from three regressions. In the regressions for scal years 2002 and 2003, the dependent variable is the square root of audit report lag i.e., number of
days between scal year-end and the audit report date. In the changes regression i.e., the second of the three regressions, the dependent variable is the change in square root of
the audit report lag 2002 minus 2000. The sample for the rst two regressions includes 186 follower and 198 non-follower ex-Andersen rms that had 1 scal years ending
December 31, 2002, 2 audit report lag data for both 2002 and 2000 available in Audit Analytics, 3 information about FOLLOW available, and 4 accounting data available in
Compustat to estimate the model. The last regression FY 2003 excludes, from the preceding, ve ex-Andersen non-follower clients that had an auditor change in 2003. FOLLOW
1 if the client followed the Andersen partner to the new audit rm, 0 otherwise.
Other variables are dened as in Table 1.
p-values are two-tailed.
6
8
4
T
a
n
y
i
,
R
a
g
h
u
n
a
n
d
a
n
,
a
n
d
B
a
r
u
a
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
0
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
Panel B of Table 2 provides results from three different regressions. The dependent variable in
the rst regression is the square root of the audit report lag for scal year 2002. The overall
regression is signicant, with an adjusted R
2
of 16 percent. The FOLLOW variable is negative and
signicant p 0.01. This indicates that ex-Andersen clients who followed the Andersen partner
to the new audit rm had signicantly lower audit report lag for scal year 2002.
The second regression in Panel B of Table 2 has the change in square root of the audit report
lag as the dependent variable; all control variables except for FOLLOW also are measured in terms
of the change value for scal year 2002 minus the corresponding value for scal year 2000. The
overall model is signicant, and the coefcient of FOLLOW is negative and signicant. This
conrms that ex-Andersen clients who followed their former audit partner to the new audit rm
had signicantly lower audit report lag in the rst year with the new audit rm.
The third regression in Panel B of Table 2 examines the audit reporting lag during scal year
2003 for the ex-Andersen clients. The coefcient of FOLLOW is negative but not signicant p
0.14 in this regression. This indicates that the follower effect is also short-lived, and that by the
second year with the new auditor the non-follower ex-Andersen clients were not at a signicant
disadvantage compared to the follower ex-Andersen clients.
The above ndings suggest that the differential costs associated with new audit partners may
be short-lived. The results can also be viewed as indirectly providing evidence that the costs
associated with mandatory audit partner changes may be short-lived.
When the SEC was considering implementation of SOX Section 203 relating to mandatory
audit partner rotation the Big 4 and others provided input about the direct dollar costs associated
with mandatory audit partner rotation. Our results, focusing on audit report lag, provide another
perspective on the costs associated with mandatory audit partner rotation.
Further Analysis: Comparing No-Change Clients with Change Clients
We compare audit report lags for clients without an auditor change in 2002 against the three
types of clients with auditor changes discussed above non-Andersen changes, ex-Andersen non-
followers, and ex-Andersen followers. The no-change sample includes all other clients of the
other Big 5 non-Andersen rms that meet the same selection criteria outlined earlier for the
auditor change rms. This procedure yields a sample of 1,919 no-change rms.
The mean audit report lag for the no-change sample is 54.81 days; univariate t-tests indicate
that audit report lag for the no-change clients is marginally lower p 0.08 than for the voluntary
change i.e., change from a non-Andersen Big 5 predecessor clients, and signicantly lower p
0.01 than for either type of ex-Andersen clients followers or non-followers.
We then perform three different regressions examining audit report lag for 2002; the models
are similar to those in Panel B of Tables 1 and 2, except that we now use a dummy variable called
CHANGE 1 if there is an auditor change, 0 otherwise to examine the effects of having an auditor
change on the audit report lag. The coefcient of CHANGE is marginally signicant p 0.10 in
the regression comparing the no-change and non-Andersen change clients, but is highly signicant
p 0.01 in the regression comparing the no-change clients and either type of ex-Andersen
follower or non-follower clients.
Overall, the results indicate that voluntary auditor changes have a marginal effect on audit
report lags. The effects are magnied when the changes are involuntary, and are highest when the
mandatory auditor change also includes an audit partner change.
Further Analysis: Timing of Dismissal of Arthur Andersen
Some clients dismissed Andersen even before the criminal indictment; conversely, at least a
few ex-Andersen clients did not switch from Andersen until they were alerted by the SEC in
August 2002 that since Andersen was prohibited from being the certifying accountant, they had to
Audit Report Lags after Voluntary and Involuntary Auditor Changes 685
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
switch. It is likely that the timing of Andersens dismissal will affect the audit report lag with the
new auditor. Hence, we calculate the number of days from the end of the last scal year with
Andersen to the date when Andersen was dismissed. In the regression analyzing ex-Andersen
clients, we include a variable called TIMING measured as the square root of the number of days
to dismiss Andersen calculated as above. This new variable is positive and signicant, indicating
that those clients who took their time to dismiss Andersen and appoint a new auditor had longer
audit delays for scal year 2002. Importantly, the FOLLOW variable continues to remain negative
and signicant in the regression as in Table 2, Panel B.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Legislators and regulators have long expressed an interest in restricting auditor tenures be-
cause of perceptions that such long tenures can impair auditor independence. During the congres-
sional hearings that preceded the enactment of SOX, mandatory auditor rotation was examined in
some detail. Section 207 of SOX required the Comptroller General of the United States to con-
duct a study and review of the potential effects of requiring the mandatory rotation of registered
public accounting rms. Long before SOX, the Metcalf Committee U.S. Senate 1976 report had
expressed concerns about the effects of long audit rm tenure on auditor judgments. Periodically,
the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC continued to express its concerns about the
possible adverse effects from long auditor tenures SEC 1994; Turner and Godwin 1999. Thus, it
is clear that auditor tenure and mandatory auditor rotation has been, and continues to be, an issue
of interest to legislators and regulators.
Some recent studies have examined the association between auditor tenure and various mea-
sures, including audit opinions Geiger and Raghunandan 2002, abnormal accruals Johnson et al.
2002; Myers et al. 2003, and earnings response coefcient Ghosh and Moon 2005. The auditor
tenure variable in such studies is impacted by voluntary decisions made by the clients to dismiss
the auditor or the auditor to resign. Nagy 2005 argues that the involuntary auditor changes
following Andersens failure capture some elements of mandatory auditor rotation, and thus enable
researchers to provide empirical evidence about various issues such as, auditor decisions, audit
cost, and audit quality arising from involuntary auditor changes.
Opponents of mandatory auditor rotation argue that involuntary auditor changes impose sig-
nicant costs and that there is a steep learning curve associated with new audit engagements,
because effective audits require a thorough understanding of the clients business and processes;
such understanding develops over time and there is a learning curve that lasts a year or more
GAO 2003. In this study we provide empirical evidence about the extent of the extra audit work
following involuntary auditor changes by examining audit reporting lags after the forced auditor
changes arising from Andersens demise.
Some ex-Andersen clients followed their former Andersen partner to the new audit rmthat
is, there was an auditor change in form but perhaps not in substance. Hence, we compare non-
follower that is, not following the former Andersen partner to the new audit rm ex-Andersen
clients with other clients that switched from another non-Andersen Big 5 predecessor during
2002. Our hypothesis is that audit report lag would be greater for non-follower ex-Andersen
clients in their rst full year with the successor auditor than for clients who switched from another
non-Andersen Big 5 audit rm.
We test our hypothesis using data for the scal year ending December 31, 2002. The empirical
results indicate that the non-follower ex-Andersen clients had a signicantly longer audit report
lag for scal year 2002 than clients that switched from another non-Andersen Big 5 auditor, after
controlling for other factors associated with audit report lag. However, there were no signicant
differences in audit report lags between the two groups of rms during scal years 2000 or 2003.
Together, the results indicate that the clients who experienced in substance a forced auditor change
686 Tanyi, Raghunandan, and Barua
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
had a higher audit reporting lag during the year of the change when compared with clients that
voluntarily changed auditors.
8
The results also indicate that the effect is relatively short-lived and
does not persist beyond the rst year.
Some recent studies have examined if ex-Andersen clients who followed their audit partner to
the new audit rm were treated differently than ex-Andersen clients who did not follow the
partner. We argue that familiarity with the audit partner would lead to a lower audit report lag for
the follower clients when compared with clients that did not follow the former Andersen partner
to the new audit rm. Our analysis indicates that the audit report lag was signicantly lower for
follower ex-Andersen clients than for non-follower clients.
Our ndings reinforce the importance of personal relationships in auditing, and suggest that
examining the effect of individual relationships in other auditing settings may be worthwhile. For
example, Section 203 of SOX requires audit partner rotation; the SEC 2003 subsequently issued
rules related to the rotation of lead and concurring audit partners for scal years beginning after
May 6, 2003. Will the audit report lag be higher when there is a partner rotation pursuant to the
new SEC rules? More generally, to what extent does partner familiarity with the client affect
auditor actions and judgments in a variety of audit contexts? The other side of partner changes is
auditor familiarity with individual executives; hence, one can think about auditor familiarity with
specic individuals serving as the CFO or CEO affecting audit judgments. This is also relevant in
the context of auditors evaluations of tone at the top. To what extent does turnover of the CEO
or CFO affect audit judgments, such as those related to audit program planning, nature and extent
of testing, and audit opinions? These are some interesting issues for future research.
REFERENCES
Ashton, R. H., P. R. Graul, and J. D. Newton. 1989. Audit delay and the timeliness of corporate reporting.
Contemporary Accounting Research 5 2: 657673.
Blouin, J., B. Grein, and B. Rountree. 2007. An analysis of forced auditor change: The case of former Arthur
Andersen clients. The Accounting Review 82 May: 621650.
Cahan, S. F., and W. Zhang. 2006. After Enron: Auditor conservatism and ex-Andersen clients. The Account-
ing Review 81 January: 4982.
Choi, C. H., and R. Doogar. 2005. Auditor tenure and audit quality: Evidence from going-concern quali-
cations issued during 19962001. Working paper, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Davis, L. R., B. Soo, and G. Trompeter. 2009. Auditor tenure and the ability to meet or beat earnings
forecasts. Contemporary Accounting Research Summer: 517548.
Flanigan, J. 2002. Andersens pain will strengthen system. Los Angeles Times March 24: C, 1.
Geiger, M. A., and K. Raghunandan. 2002. Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Auditing: A Journal
of Practice & Theory 21 March: 6778.
General Accounting Ofce GAO. 2003. Public Accounting Firms: Mandated Study on Consolidation and
Competition. GAO-03864. Washington, DC: GAO.
Ghosh, A., and D. C. Moon. 2005. Auditor tenure and perceptions of audit quality. The Accounting Review
80 April: 585612.
Johnson, V. E., I. K. Khurana, and J. K. Reynolds. 2002. Audit-rm tenure and the quality of nancial
reports. Contemporary Accounting Research 19 Winter: 637660.
Kohlbeck, M., B. Mayhew, P. Murphy, and M. Wilkins. 2008. Competition for Andersens clients. Contem-
porary Accounting Research 25 Winter: 10991136.
Krishnan, J., K. Raghunandan, and J. Yang. 2007. Were former Andersen clients treated more leniently than
8
A limitation of our study is that the higher audit report lag could also be because successor auditors may have wanted
to be more careful or do extra audit work for former Andersen clients if ex-Andersen clients were perceived as being
riskier than other new audit clients or due to perceptions that Andersen audits were of lower quality.
Audit Report Lags after Voluntary and Involuntary Auditor Changes 687
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
other clients? Evidence from going-concern modied audit opinions. Accounting Horizons Decem-
ber: 423435.
, and J. Yang. 2009. Recent trends in audit report and earnings announcement lags. Accounting Hori-
zons September: 265288.
Loebbecke, J. K., M. M. Eining, and J. J. Willingham. 1989. Auditors experience with material irregularities:
Frequency, nature, and detectability. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory Fall: 128.
Mautz, R. K., and H. A. Sharaf. 1961. The Philosophy of Auditing. American Accounting Association
Monograph No. 6. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
Myers, J. N., L. A. Myers, and T. C. Omer. 2003. Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the
quality of earnings: A case for mandatory auditor rotation? The Accounting Review 78 July: 779
800.
Nagy, A. L. 2005. Mandatory audit rm turnover, nancial reporting quality, and client bargaining power:
The case of Arthur Andersen. Accounting Horizons June: 5168.
Public Accounting Report PAR. 2002. Special Section: Guilty Verdict for Andersen. River Woods, IL: CCH
Incorporated.
Securities and Exchange Commission SEC. 1994. Staff Report on Auditor Independence. Washington,
D.C.: SEC.
. 2002a. Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP Auditing Clients. Release Nos. 33-8070, 34-45590.
Washington, D.C.: SEC.
. 2002b. Proposed Rule: Acceleration of Periodic Report Filing Dates and Disclosure Concerning
Website Access to Reports. Release Nos. 33-8089, 34-45741. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
. 2002c. Final Rule. Acceleration of Periodic Report Filing Dates and Disclosure Concerning Website
Access to Reports. Release Nos. 33-8128, 34-46464, FR-63. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
. 2003. Final Rule. Strengthening the Commissions Requirements Regarding Auditor Independence.
Release Nos. 33-8183, 34-47265, FR-68. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
Turner, L. E. 2002. H.R. 3763The Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transpar-
ency Act of 2002. Hearings before the Committee on Financial Services. March 13, 20, April 9, 2002.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives.
, and J. H. Godwin. 1999. Auditing, earnings management, and international accounting issues at the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Accounting Horizons 13 September: 281297.
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services. 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public
Law No. 107204. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Ofce.
U.S. Senate. 1976. The Accounting Establishment. A Staff Study. Subcommittee on Reports, Accounting, and
Management of the Committee on Government Operations. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Ofce.
. 2002. Oversight Hearing on Accounting and Investor Protection Issues Raised by Enron and Other
Public Companies. Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. U.S. Senate February 12,
26, 27; March 6, 14, 19, 20, 21. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Ofce.
Vermeer, T. 2008. Market for former Andersen clients: Evidence from government and non-prot sectors.
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 27: 394408.
, D. Rama, and K. Raghunandan. 2008. Partner familiarity and audit fees: Evidence from former
Andersen clients. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 27 November: 217219.
Zmijewski, M. E. 1984. Methodological issues relating to the estimation of nancial distress prediction
models. Journal of Accounting Research 22 Supplement: 5982.
688 Tanyi, Raghunandan, and Barua
Accounting Horizons December 2010
American Accounting Association
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.