Scope of Auditors' Liability, Audit Quality, and Capital Investment
40 Pages Posted: 3 Aug 2001
There are 2 versions of this paper
Scope of Auditors' Liability, Audit Quality, and Capital Investment
Date Written: July 2001
Abstract
One of the fundamental issues in the discussion of auditors' liability is to whom auditors should be held liable for ordinary negligence under common law. Three judicial viewpoints prevail: the restrictive privity approach, the more liberal Restatement approach, and the most liberal foreseeability approach. To compare these three approaches from an efficiency perspective, this paper develops a model that features an owner-managed firm, an independent auditor, a continuum of unrelated lenders, and an impartial court. Double effort-incentive problems appear for the firm and the auditor. The firm has an additional incentive problem due to the sequential nature of its borrowing. This paper shows that the effort-incentive problem and the sequential borrowing problem of the firm render unambiguous improvements in audit effort/quality, capital investment, and social welfare as the judicial approach governing the scope of auditors' liability becomes more conservative.
Keywords: Auditors' liability; Audit quality; Double moral hazard; Sequential borrowing; Underinvestment
JEL Classification: D62, D82, K13, L51, M41, M49
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Legal Implications and Research Opportunities
-
Auditor Liability and Client Acceptance Decisions
By Volker Laux and Paul Newman
-
The Ultimate Form of Mandatory Auditor Rotation: The Case of Former Arthur Andersen Clients
By Jennifer Blouin, Barbara M. Grein, ...
-
Is Joint Audit Bad or Good? Efficiency Perspective Evidence from Three European Countries
By Cédric Lesage, Nicole V.s. Ratzinger-sakel, ...
-
By Christopher Koch and Daniel Schunk
-
Do Joint Audits Improve or Impair Audit Quality?
By Mingcherng Deng, Tong Lu, ...
-
Auditor Litigation: Evidence that Revenue Restatements Are Determinative