International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 5, Issue 7 (July 2018), Pages: 1-7

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Joint audit and financial scandal: The case of the French context

 Author(s): Jamel Azibi 1, 2, *

 Affiliation(s):

 1Accounting Department, Arab East College for Graduate Studies, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
 2Faculty of Law, Management and Economics Sciences of Jendouba, Jendouba, Tunisia

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.07.001

 Full Text - PDF          XML

 Abstract:

The European Commission issued a proposal that encouraged the practice of joint audit on a voluntary basis. It recommended that mandatory audit firm rotation is extended from six years to nine years if joint audits are performed. This is considered as a new mechanism that increases audit quality and auditor independence. This new orientation of the EC Green Paper has an important impact on investor perception during the financial scandal announcement. In order to answer this question, we investigate the stock market reaction of SBF 250 after the disclosure of the financial scandal in presence of joint audit. Our sample is composed of 140 French listed enterprises. We use event study method and OLS regression. The empirical results demonstrate that the stock market of Non Big-Four clients does not significantly react compared to the firms audited by at least one Big Four in France. Contrary to this finding, the stock market reaction of the firms audited by two Big Four was significantly reacted compared to the enterprises audited by one Big at least in France. Those results demonstrate that joint audit with at least one Non-Big encouraged and especially in the Financial scandal periods and resolve the problem associated with the audit market concentration. 

 © 2018 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Joint audit, Big four, Financial scandal, Market reaction

 Article History: Received 21 December 2017, Received in revised form 14 April 2018, Accepted 19 April 2018

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.07.001

 Citation:

 Azibi J (2018). Joint audit and financial scandal: The case of the French context. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(7): 1-7

 Permanent Link:

 http://www.science-gate.com/IJAAS/2018/V5I7/Azibi.html

----------------------------------------------

 References (23) 

  1. André P, Broye G, Pong C, and Schatt A (2016). Are joint audits associated with higher audit fees?. European Accounting Review, 25(2): 245-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2014.998016   [Google Scholar] 
  2. Azibi J and Rajhi MT (2013). Auditor's choice and earning management after Enron scandals: empirical approach in French context. International Journal of Critical Accounting, 5(5): 485-501. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCA.2013.058690   [Google Scholar] 
  3. Barbera CDF and Martinez MCP (2006). The stock market reaction to the enron‐andersen affair in Spain. International Journal of Auditing, 10(1): 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2006.00266.x   [Google Scholar] 
  4. Becker CL, DeFond ML, Jiambalvo J, and Subramanyam K (1998). The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(1): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1998.tb00547.x   [Google Scholar] 
  5. Chaney PK and Philipich KL (2002). Shredded reputation: The cost of audit failure. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4): 1221-1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00087   [Google Scholar] 
  6. Easton PD and Zmijewski ME (1989). Cross-sectional variation in the stock market response to accounting earnings announcements. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 11(2-3): 117-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(89)90003-7   [Google Scholar] 
  7. EC (2011). Summary of responses Green paper – audit policy: Lessons from the crisis. European Commission, Brussels, France.   [Google Scholar]     
  8. Evraert S and Trebucq S (2003). Crise de confiance et information comptable: une étude empirique des réactions du marché français à l'annonce des affaires Enron et worldcom. In 24th AFC Conference, Louvain La Neuve, Belgium.   [Google Scholar]     
  9. Francis JR, Maydew EL, and Sparks HC (1999). The role of Big 6 auditors in the credible reporting of accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 18(2): 17-34. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.1999.18.2.17   [Google Scholar] 
  10. Francis JR, Richard C, and Vanstraelen A (2009). Assessing France's joint audit requirement: Are two heads better than one?. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and theory, 28(2): 35-63. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.35   [Google Scholar] 
  11. Handley-Schachler M and Li S (2005). International effects of the Andersen accounting and auditing scandals: Some evidence from the US, UK and Australian stock markets. School of Economics and Finance Discussion Papers and Working Papers Series 202, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, Australia.   [Google Scholar]     
  12. Harford J, Mansi SA, and Maxwell WF (2012). Corporate governance and firm cash holdings in the US. In: Boubaker S, Nguyen B, and Nguyen D (eds.), Corporate governance: 107-138. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.   [Google Scholar]   
  13. Krishnamurthy S, Zhou J, and Zhou N (2006). Auditor reputation, auditor independence, and the stock‐market impact of Andersen's indictment on its client firms. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(2): 465-490. https://doi.org/10.1506/14P1-5QRR-1NAF-3CE1   [Google Scholar] 
  14. Lennox CS (1999). The accuracy and incremental information content of audit reports in predicting bankruptcy. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 26(5‐6): 757-778. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00274   [Google Scholar] 
  15. Lesage C and Ratzinger-Sakel N (2012). Are the findings of international studies reliable? The joint audit example. Working Paper, HEC Paris, France and Ulm University, Germany.   [Google Scholar]     
  16. Lesage C, Ratzinger-Sakel NV, and Kettunen JM (2012). Struggle over joint audit: On behalf of public interest?. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2176729   [Google Scholar] 
  17. Nelson KK, Price RA, and Rountree BR (2008). The market reaction to Arthur Andersen's role in the Enron scandal: Loss of reputation or confounding effects?. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46(2-3): 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2008.09.001   [Google Scholar] 
  18. Palmrose ZV (1988). 1987 Competitive manuscript co-winner: an analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. Accounting Review, 63(1): 55-73.   [Google Scholar]     
  19. Ratzinger-Sakel NV, Audousset-Coulier S, Kettunen J, and Lesage C (2013). Joint audit: Issues and challenges for researchers and policy-makers. Accounting in Europe, 10(2): 175-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2013.834725   [Google Scholar] 
  20. Sarbanes P and Oxley M (2002). Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. U.S. Congress, Washington, USA.   [Google Scholar]     
  21. Velte P and Azibi J (2015). Are joint audits a proper instrument for increased audit quality. British Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 7(6): 528-551. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/15599   [Google Scholar] 
  22. Zerni M, Haapamäki E, Järvinen T, and Niemi L (2012). Do joint audits improve audit quality? Evidence from voluntary joint audits. European Accounting Review, 21(4): 731-765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.678599   [Google Scholar] 
  23. Zerni M, KALLUNKI JP, and Nilsson H (2010). The entrenchment problem, corporate governance mechanisms, and firm value. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(4): 1169-1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01043.x   [Google Scholar]