Do PCAOB Inspections Change the Effect of Litigation Risk on Audit Quality?
Synopsis The research problem This study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection regime. Motivation The establishment of the PCAOB under the Sarba...
Saved in:
Published in | The International journal of accounting Vol. 60; no. 1 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Urbana
World Scientific Publishing Company
01.03.2025
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte., Ltd |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Synopsis
The research problem
This study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection regime.
Motivation
The establishment of the PCAOB under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act marked a fundamental change in the regulatory environment for the auditors. At the core of the PCAOB’s oversight of the audits of public companies are the inspections of individual audit engagements. While prior studies have found a positive effect of the PCAOB inspection program on audit quality, little is known about whether and how the regulatory risk imposed by PCAOB inspections influences the effect of litigation risk on audit quality. To the extent that both regulatory oversight and litigation threat share the common objective of motivating auditors to exert sufficient effort and perform high-quality audits, we are motivated to examine whether and how the stringent regulatory environment under the PCAOB regime affects auditors’ perception of, and response to, litigation risk.
Hypothesis
We posit that the significant and constant regulatory threat imposed by PCAOB inspections may change auditors’ perception of litigation, which is more remote and less frequent relative to regulatory inspections, such that litigation risk has a smaller effect on audit quality/effort when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk arising from the PCAOB inspections. However, there also exists opposing arguments that would suggest a nondecreasing effect of litigation risk on audit quality in the presence of high regulatory risk. Thus, we present our hypothesis in the null form: the effects of litigation risk on audit quality are not associated with regulatory risk under the PCAOB inspection regime.
Target population
Researchers, audit practitioners, regulatory authorities, policymakers, and firms.
Adopted methodology
We employ multivariate regression analysis featuring the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation to test our hypothesis. In additional tests, we also use the probit estimation for binary dependent variables.
Analyses
Using a sample of 34,559 client-firm year observations for the period between 2005 and 2019, we estimate a multivariate regression model to examine whether and how the audit deficiencies identified in the PCAOB inspections influence the effect of litigation risk on audit quality exhibited at the client level.
Findings
Our main findings show that, while regulatory risk (proxied by PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies) and litigation risk (proxied by lawsuits filed against auditors/firms) each has a positive effect on audit quality, the interaction term of the two is negatively associated with audit quality. This rejects our null hypothesis and indicates that litigation risk has a smaller motivational effect when the auditors are faced with greater regulatory risk. Similar results are obtained using audit fees, financial restatements, and the propensity to report small profits as the alternative measures of audit quality. We further validate those results with alternative measures of regulatory risk and litigation risk. Our empirical evidence corroborates the views of audit practitioners, surveyed in Westermann et al. (2019), that auditors are increasingly concerned about regulatory risk, as opposed to litigation risk, under the PCAOB regime. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Synopsis
The research problem
This study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection regime.
Motivation
The establishment of the PCAOB under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act marked a fundamental change in the regulatory environment for the auditors. At the core of the PCAOB’s oversight of the audits of public companies are the inspections of individual audit engagements. While prior studies have found a positive effect of the PCAOB inspection program on audit quality, little is known about whether and how the regulatory risk imposed by PCAOB inspections influences the effect of litigation risk on audit quality. To the extent that both regulatory oversight and litigation threat share the common objective of motivating auditors to exert sufficient effort and perform high-quality audits, we are motivated to examine whether and how the stringent regulatory environment under the PCAOB regime affects auditors’ perception of, and response to, litigation risk.
Hypothesis
We posit that the significant and constant regulatory threat imposed by PCAOB inspections may change auditors’ perception of litigation, which is more remote and less frequent relative to regulatory inspections, such that litigation risk has a smaller effect on audit quality/effort when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk arising from the PCAOB inspections. However, there also exists opposing arguments that would suggest a nondecreasing effect of litigation risk on audit quality in the presence of high regulatory risk. Thus, we present our hypothesis in the null form: the effects of litigation risk on audit quality are not associated with regulatory risk under the PCAOB inspection regime.
Target population
Researchers, audit practitioners, regulatory authorities, policymakers, and firms.
Adopted methodology
We employ multivariate regression analysis featuring the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation to test our hypothesis. In additional tests, we also use the probit estimation for binary dependent variables.
Analyses
Using a sample of 34,559 client-firm year observations for the period between 2005 and 2019, we estimate a multivariate regression model to examine whether and how the audit deficiencies identified in the PCAOB inspections influence the effect of litigation risk on audit quality exhibited at the client level.
Findings
Our main findings show that, while regulatory risk (proxied by PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies) and litigation risk (proxied by lawsuits filed against auditors/firms) each has a positive effect on audit quality, the interaction term of the two is negatively associated with audit quality. This rejects our null hypothesis and indicates that litigation risk has a smaller motivational effect when the auditors are faced with greater regulatory risk. Similar results are obtained using audit fees, financial restatements, and the propensity to report small profits as the alternative measures of audit quality. We further validate those results with alternative measures of regulatory risk and litigation risk. Our empirical evidence corroborates the views of audit practitioners, surveyed in Westermann et al. (2019), that auditors are increasingly concerned about regulatory risk, as opposed to litigation risk, under the PCAOB regime. SynopsisThe research problemThis study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk under the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection regime.MotivationThe establishment of the PCAOB under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act marked a fundamental change in the regulatory environment for the auditors. At the core of the PCAOB’s oversight of the audits of public companies are the inspections of individual audit engagements. While prior studies have found a positive effect of the PCAOB inspection program on audit quality, little is known about whether and how the regulatory risk imposed by PCAOB inspections influences the effect of litigation risk on audit quality. To the extent that both regulatory oversight and litigation threat share the common objective of motivating auditors to exert sufficient effort and perform high-quality audits, we are motivated to examine whether and how the stringent regulatory environment under the PCAOB regime affects auditors’ perception of, and response to, litigation risk.HypothesisWe posit that the significant and constant regulatory threat imposed by PCAOB inspections may change auditors’ perception of litigation, which is more remote and less frequent relative to regulatory inspections, such that litigation risk has a smaller effect on audit quality/effort when auditors face high versus low regulatory risk arising from the PCAOB inspections. However, there also exists opposing arguments that would suggest a nondecreasing effect of litigation risk on audit quality in the presence of high regulatory risk. Thus, we present our hypothesis in the null form: the effects of litigation risk on audit quality are not associated with regulatory risk under the PCAOB inspection regime.Target populationResearchers, audit practitioners, regulatory authorities, policymakers, and firms.Adopted methodologyWe employ multivariate regression analysis featuring the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation to test our hypothesis. In additional tests, we also use the probit estimation for binary dependent variables.AnalysesUsing a sample of 34,559 client-firm year observations for the period between 2005 and 2019, we estimate a multivariate regression model to examine whether and how the audit deficiencies identified in the PCAOB inspections influence the effect of litigation risk on audit quality exhibited at the client level.FindingsOur main findings show that, while regulatory risk (proxied by PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies) and litigation risk (proxied by lawsuits filed against auditors/firms) each has a positive effect on audit quality, the interaction term of the two is negatively associated with audit quality. This rejects our null hypothesis and indicates that litigation risk has a smaller motivational effect when the auditors are faced with greater regulatory risk. Similar results are obtained using audit fees, financial restatements, and the propensity to report small profits as the alternative measures of audit quality. We further validate those results with alternative measures of regulatory risk and litigation risk. Our empirical evidence corroborates the views of audit practitioners, surveyed in Westermann et al. (2019), that auditors are increasingly concerned about regulatory risk, as opposed to litigation risk, under the PCAOB regime. |
Author | Moul, Charles Chen, Po-Chang Reffett, Andrew |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Po-Chang surname: Chen fullname: Chen, Po-Chang – sequence: 2 givenname: Charles surname: Moul fullname: Moul, Charles – sequence: 3 givenname: Andrew surname: Reffett fullname: Reffett, Andrew |
BookMark | eNplkM1OwzAQhC0EEm3hAbhZ4hzwepM6PqESClRUKr_nyHHs1qXEJU6E-vYkKuLS00g78-1qZ0iOK18ZQi6AXQHE_PoNmIxjNmY8ThgDKY7IgHPACCXiMRn0dtT7p2QYwpoxztOED8jTnafP2WRxS2dV2BrdOF8Fmq1UtTS0WRk6tbabUm_p3DVuqfoAfXXhk3Y6aUvX0JdWbVyzuzkjJ1Ztgjn_0xH5uJ--Z4_RfPEwyybzSCNHEcUo0rHUsjDCSsZBS1HaFK0CrVX3ixRQKG7HhShASK0TBCPiRKWYpgVCiSNyud-7rf13a0KTr31bV93JHCFFTKCrokvBPqVrH0JtbL6t3ZeqdzmwvO8sP-isY9ie-fH1pgzamapx1ul_9BD5BXrCbTA |
Cites_doi | 10.2308/ajpt-10292 10.2308/acch.2010.24.2.189 10.1093/rfs/hhn053 10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.779 10.1506/car.25.1.6 10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.11.002 10.1111/1911-3846.12454 10.1016/0165-4101(94)90008-6 10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.001 10.1016/S0278-4254(97)00023-9 10.2307/2491047 10.1080/16081625.2002.10510607 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01041.x 10.1111/1911-3846.12300 10.2308/accr.2009.84.5.1521 10.2308/accr-51054 10.2308/accr.2008.83.5.1315 10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.04.002 10.2308/accr.2006.81.3.653 10.2308/acch-50077 10.2308/aud.2003.22.1.93 10.1016/j.racreg.2011.10.001 10.2308/aud.2005.24.s-1.5 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2012.11.002 10.1111/1475-679X.12485 10.1111/1911-3846.12467 10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002 10.1016/j.jacceco.2016.02.001 10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.11.006 10.2308/accr-51642 10.2308/accr-51948 10.2308/ciia-51484 10.1016/S0165-4101(97)00017-7 10.1111/1911-3846.12480 10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.009 10.1111/1475-679X.12151 10.1506/4XR4-KT5V-E8CN-91GX 10.2308/ajpt-51832 10.2307/2491218 10.2308/ajpt-50003 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1998.tb00547.x 10.2308/acch-50323 10.1506/5FQ9-ANEA-T8J0-U6GY 10.2308/TAR-2018-0151 10.1506/LLTH-JXQV-8CEW-8MXD 10.1506/E023-337T-180P-18U4 10.1111/1475-679X.12041 10.1177/0148558X13505596 10.2308/ajpt-50374 10.2308/ajpt-52333 10.2308/accr-10217 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00273.x 10.2307/2491438 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2025, Board of Trustees, Vernon K. Zimmerman Center, University of Illinois 2025. Board of Trustees, Vernon K. Zimmerman Center, University of Illinois |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2025, Board of Trustees, Vernon K. Zimmerman Center, University of Illinois – notice: 2025. Board of Trustees, Vernon K. Zimmerman Center, University of Illinois |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION 8BJ FQK JBE |
DOI | 10.1142/S1094406024500197 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) International Bibliography of the Social Sciences International Bibliography of the Social Sciences |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) |
DatabaseTitleList | CrossRef International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Education Business |
EISSN | 2213-3933 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10_1142_S1094406024500197 S1094406024500197 |
GroupedDBID | --K --M -~X .~1 0R~ 1B1 1~. 29J 4.4 457 4G. 7-5 8P~ AAOAW AAQXK AAYOK ABDPE ABFRF ABMVD ABWVN ACHRH ACNCT ACNTT ACRPL ADBBV ADEZE ADMHG ADMUD ADNMO ADSJI AEFWE AEKER AFTJW AGUBO AGYEJ AHQJS AI. AKVCP ALEQD ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ASPBG AVWKF AZFZN BLXMC BNSAS DU5 EBS EJD EO8 EO9 EP2 EP3 FDB FGOYB FIRID FNPLU G-Q GBLVA HZ~ H~9 IHE J1W M41 MO0 MS~ NEJ O9- OAUVE P-8 P-9 PC. PQQKQ Q38 R2- RIG ROL RPZ RWJ SDF SDG SDH SDP SEB SES TN5 TWZ UNMZH UPT VH1 WH7 YYQ ZUP AAYXX AGQPQ CITATION 8BJ FQK JBE |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3237-437869c9be7f9021c97df83fa1cca142971ba2f6b7b179cc531e745a8388b31d3 |
ISSN | 1094-4060 |
IngestDate | Mon Jun 30 11:57:11 EDT 2025 Tue Aug 05 12:05:38 EDT 2025 Sun Mar 30 10:49:04 EDT 2025 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Keywords | audit quality PCAOB inspections regulatory risk litigation risk |
Language | English |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3237-437869c9be7f9021c97df83fa1cca142971ba2f6b7b179cc531e745a8388b31d3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 |
ORCID | 0000-0001-5080-3088 0000-0001-6628-8228 |
PQID | 3183351944 |
PQPubID | 36357 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_journals_3183351944 worldscientific_primary_S1094406024500197 crossref_primary_10_1142_S1094406024500197 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 20250300 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2025-03-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2025 text: 20250300 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | Urbana |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Urbana |
PublicationTitle | The International journal of accounting |
PublicationYear | 2025 |
Publisher | World Scientific Publishing Company World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte., Ltd |
Publisher_xml | – name: World Scientific Publishing Company – name: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte., Ltd |
References | S1094406024500197BIB025 S1094406024500197BIB024 S1094406024500197BIB023 S1094406024500197BIB022 S1094406024500197BIB062 S1094406024500197BIB029 S1094406024500197BIB028 S1094406024500197BIB027 S1094406024500197BIB026 Pratt J. (S1094406024500197BIB057) 1994; 69 S1094406024500197BIB060 S1094406024500197BIB014 S1094406024500197BIB013 S1094406024500197BIB012 S1094406024500197BIB056 S1094406024500197BIB011 S1094406024500197BIB055 S1094406024500197BIB010 S1094406024500197BIB054 S1094406024500197BIB052 S1094406024500197BIB019 S1094406024500197BIB018 S1094406024500197BIB017 S1094406024500197BIB016 Cox J. D. (S1094406024500197BIB021) 2006; 106 S1094406024500197BIB015 S1094406024500197BIB050 Schwartz R. (S1094406024500197BIB063) 1997; 72 S1094406024500197BIB003 S1094406024500197BIB047 S1094406024500197BIB002 S1094406024500197BIB046 S1094406024500197BIB001 S1094406024500197BIB044 S1094406024500197BIB043 S1094406024500197BIB042 S1094406024500197BIB041 S1094406024500197BIB040 S1094406024500197BIB009 S1094406024500197BIB008 S1094406024500197BIB007 S1094406024500197BIB006 S1094406024500197BIB005 S1094406024500197BIB049 S1094406024500197BIB004 S1094406024500197BIB048 Shakespeare C. (S1094406024500197BIB067) 2008; 3 S1094406024500197BIB034 S1094406024500197BIB033 S1094406024500197BIB032 S1094406024500197BIB031 S1094406024500197BIB030 Hackenbrack K. (S1094406024500197BIB038) 1996; 71 S1094406024500197BIB039 S1094406024500197BIB037 S1094406024500197BIB072 S1094406024500197BIB071 S1094406024500197BIB070 |
References_xml | – ident: S1094406024500197BIB033 doi: 10.2308/ajpt-10292 – volume: 3 start-page: 333 issue: 2 year: 2008 ident: S1094406024500197BIB067 publication-title: Journal of Business & Technology Law – ident: S1094406024500197BIB022 doi: 10.2308/acch.2010.24.2.189 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB056 doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhn053 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB054 doi: 10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.779 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB030 doi: 10.1506/car.25.1.6 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB046 doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.11.002 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB071 doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12454 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB025 doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(94)90008-6 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB004 doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.09.001 – volume: 69 start-page: 639 issue: 4 year: 1994 ident: S1094406024500197BIB057 publication-title: The Accounting Review – ident: S1094406024500197BIB009 doi: 10.1016/S0278-4254(97)00023-9 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB044 doi: 10.2307/2491047 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB029 doi: 10.1080/16081625.2002.10510607 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB023 doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01041.x – ident: S1094406024500197BIB001 doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12300 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB031 doi: 10.2308/accr.2009.84.5.1521 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB005 doi: 10.2308/accr-51054 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB070 doi: 10.2308/accr.2008.83.5.1315 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB032 doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.04.002 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB015 doi: 10.2308/accr.2006.81.3.653 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB019 doi: 10.2308/acch-50077 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB049 doi: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.1.93 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB014 doi: 10.1016/j.racreg.2011.10.001 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB024 doi: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.s-1.5 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB037 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2012.11.002 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB072 doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12485 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB042 doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12467 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB027 doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB048 doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2016.02.001 – volume: 106 start-page: 1587 issue: 7 year: 2006 ident: S1094406024500197BIB021 publication-title: Columbia Law Review – ident: S1094406024500197BIB017 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.11.006 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB047 doi: 10.2308/accr-51642 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB003 doi: 10.2308/accr-51948 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB040 doi: 10.2308/ciia-51484 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB013 doi: 10.1016/S0165-4101(97)00017-7 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB034 doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12480 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB028 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.009 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB026 doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12151 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB039 doi: 10.1506/4XR4-KT5V-E8CN-91GX – ident: S1094406024500197BIB016 doi: 10.2308/ajpt-51832 – volume: 71 start-page: 43 issue: 1 year: 1996 ident: S1094406024500197BIB038 publication-title: The Accounting Review – ident: S1094406024500197BIB052 doi: 10.2307/2491218 – volume: 72 start-page: 385 issue: 3 year: 1997 ident: S1094406024500197BIB063 publication-title: The Accounting Review. – ident: S1094406024500197BIB011 doi: 10.2308/ajpt-50003 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB008 doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1998.tb00547.x – ident: S1094406024500197BIB041 doi: 10.2308/acch-50323 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB010 doi: 10.1506/5FQ9-ANEA-T8J0-U6GY – ident: S1094406024500197BIB018 doi: 10.2308/TAR-2018-0151 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB043 doi: 10.1506/LLTH-JXQV-8CEW-8MXD – ident: S1094406024500197BIB050 doi: 10.1506/E023-337T-180P-18U4 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB006 doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12041 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB060 doi: 10.1177/0148558X13505596 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB002 doi: 10.2308/ajpt-50374 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB012 doi: 10.2308/ajpt-52333 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB062 doi: 10.2308/accr-10217 – ident: S1094406024500197BIB007 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00273.x – ident: S1094406024500197BIB055 doi: 10.2307/2491438 |
SSID | ssj0022852 |
Score | 2.3716218 |
Snippet | Synopsis
The research problem
This study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory... SynopsisThe research problemThis study examines whether the effect of litigation risk on audit quality changes when auditors face high versus low regulatory... |
SourceID | proquest crossref worldscientific |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
SubjectTerms | Audit quality Auditor changes Audits Dependent variables Financial restatements Hypotheses Inspections Litigation Motivation Null hypothesis Policy making Profits Regression analysis Regulatory reform Threats |
Title | Do PCAOB Inspections Change the Effect of Litigation Risk on Audit Quality? |
URI | http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1094406024500197 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3183351944 |
Volume | 60 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3NS-wwEA8-hce7iB9P3vpFDl5Uur4mbZOcxE9EQcW3grfSNCkIshVdD3rwb3fy0bTad1Av3SWE6W7m1-lM5jcThDYkKcEL4BCm6phG8L5VUaH-VlEqFJFSKyaUZfmeZyfXyelNetNu6Nvqkokcli__rSv5jlZhDPRqqmS_oNkgFAbgO-gXrqBhuH5Kx4f19uXB3sW-SfnbiknDe3H1Atah9K2JTRrg1vXSAF1fWTK52eVQt5Nt10Pj-QO_bxQolc1eYafDRBEOmGi5Ac54XdaRvXvQYv1018nph-SOIZG4pFSHT-m3Hkjacq-cgbN0H2uDLK-pu3PWs2YxxJEQrLrDA4bajhEC-KDCdcJozLGf0YFd38onpmvsPyPSSCRJajxV1r7SAtGwN-cHmiEQUBiLOHwNZCBCeOry4v5H-vw33GinJ-K9B9OGJbO2x-1jWI6OnzKaQ7M-wMB7Di3zaEqPF9DPpr5hwRzT7Sk9i-jssMYWQLgDIOwAhAFA2AEI1xVuAYQNgDB8WgBhD6Dd3-j6-Gh0cBL50zWikhLKooQynolSSM0qAZ5eKZiqOK2KGB5q-OOCxbIgVSaZBKNdlmCsNUvSglPOJY0VXULT43qs_yCsMproishCgUMODz-n4KZL41sLnVHKB2irWbH83jVRyV1BPMl7yztAq82a5h7bj7l585ijJJNkgDY_rHMQ2RO1_IW5K-hXC_FVND15eNJr4G9O5LqFyhtgmXmT |
linkProvider | Elsevier |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do+PCAOB+Inspections+Change+the+Effect+of+Litigation+Risk+on+Audit+Quality%3F&rft.jtitle=The+International+journal+of+accounting&rft.au=Chen%2C+Po-Chang&rft.au=Moul%2C+Charles&rft.au=Reffett%2C+Andrew&rft.date=2025-03-01&rft.pub=World+Scientific+Publishing+Company&rft.issn=1094-4060&rft.eissn=2213-3933&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1142%2FS1094406024500197&rft.externalDocID=S1094406024500197 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1094-4060&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1094-4060&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1094-4060&client=summon |