The role of management changes in the auditor's report

  • Authors

    • Shaban Mohammadi Department of Accounting,Hakim nezami University, Quchan, Iran
    • Hamid Saremi
    • Mina Almasi
    2015-07-02
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijaes.v3i2.4830
  • Report Auditing, Change Management, Company Size Semicolon.

  • Abstract

    The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between the company management and auditors have commented. This in-clouds the period from 2002 to 2012. The study sample included 100 companies from a number of listed companies on the Stock Ex-change in Tehran. This research is a correlation. Test hypotheses based on multivariate regression was performed. research findings indicate that the auditor's opinion the most affected factors such as change management, audit fees, auditor's term of office, firm size, debt ratio, the ratio of profit and loss is reported. The results emphasize that the management of change increases, the number of items before the said paragraph comments reduced.

  • References

    1. [1] Aronada and Steven Rice (1982) “Qualified Audit Opinion and Audi tor†European Accounting Review, Vol 19, pp. 131-159.

      [2] Blay. A. D. (2005) Independence threats. Litigation risk. And the auditors decision process. Contemporary Accounting Research.22.759-89.

      [3] Cahan S. F. w. Zhang. 2006. After Enron: Auditor conservatism and ex- Andersen clients. The Accounting Review 81 (January): 49- 82.

      [4] Change. Wenching and Helen Choy (2010) “ Audit partner Chracteristics and Going- concern

      [5] Chen Changling and Sati p. Bandyopadhyay and YingminYu (2013) Mandatory audit partner rotation, audit market concentration, and audit qual ty:Evidence from china, Advances in Accounting, incorporating Advances in International Accounting, forthcoming.

      [6] Chi W, Lisic, L. Long. X and Wang, K. (2013) Do regulations limiting management influence over auditors improve audit quality? Evidence from china, J. Account.Public policy 32. Pp. 176-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2013.02.001.

      [7] Fafatas. Stephan A. (2010) “Auditor conservatism following audit faures†Managerial Auditing Journal. Vol .25.

      [8] Frankel, J., (1996). The role of economic trade-offs in the audit opinion decision: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting Auditing and F nance, 11(4).

      [9] Firth, M., Rui, O. M., & Wu, X. (2012). How do various from of auditor rotation affect audit quality? Evidence from china.The International Journal of Accounting, 47, 109-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2011.12.006.

      [10] Geigr Marshall A. and K. Raghunandan. (2002) “Going- Concern Opin ions in the “NEW†Legal Environment†Accounting Horizons .Vol. 16 NO. 16.

      [11] Jenkins, D.S. and Velury, U. (2008) Does auditor tenureinfluenc e the reporeing of conservative earnings? Journal of Accounting and public policy 27, pp.

      [12] Kim. J.B., AND CH. Yi (2006) “Does auditorrotation improve a qulity in Emrrging markets? Korean evidence†Working paper Cocordia University and Hong Kong polytechnic University.

      [13] Myers J, Myers L,(2003)omer T. Exploring the term of the auditor – client relationship and the quality of earnings: a case for mandatory auditor rotation? The Accounting Review. 78: 779-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.779.

      [14] Meyer, J John T .Rigsby, Jeff Boone, (2007) “The impact of auditor- client relationship on the revesal of first- time audit qualificationsâ€, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 22 Iss: 1, pp. 53- 79.

      [15] Tu, G, (2012) Controller changes and auditor changes China Journal of Accounting Research pp. 45-58.

      [16] Walker, M (2003) . Principal/ agency theory when some agents are trustworthy, Accounting and Finance working paper, Manchester: Manchester Business School, Manchester University.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Mohammadi, S., Saremi, H., & Almasi, M. (2015). The role of management changes in the auditor’s report. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 3(2), 117-119. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijaes.v3i2.4830

    Received date: 2015-05-26

    Accepted date: 2015-06-21

    Published date: 2015-07-02