Was Arthur Andersen Different?: An Empirical Examination of Major Accounting Firm Audits of Large Clients
Was Arthur Andersen Different?: An Empirical Examination of Major Accounting Firm Audits of Large Clients
复制标题
安达信有何不同？：对主要会计师事务所大客户审计的实证检验
DOI：
10.2139/ssrn.468761
复制
发表时间：
2004
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
J. Macey
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Eisenberg;J. Macey
安然和其他公司的财务丑闻使人们的注意力集中在整个会计行业，尤其是安达信。对安达信（Andersen）的刑事起诉，是对安然（Enron）事件的部分政策回应，这使得为数不多的能够审计许多大型上市公司的大型审计公司之一不复存在。本文探讨了安达信的业绩（以财务重述的频率衡量）是否与其他大型审计机构存在显著差异。财务重述会引发重大的负面市场反应，其频率可以被视为会计业绩的衡量标准。我们分析了从1997年到2001年大约1000家大型上市公司的财务重述活动。在控制了客户规模、地区、时间和行业之后，我们发现安达信的绩效与其他大型会计师事务所没有显著差异的证据。
Enron and other corporate financial scandals focused attention on the accounting industry in general and on Arthur Andersen in particular. Part of the policy response to Enron, the criminal prosecution of Andersen, eliminated one of the few major audit firms capable of auditing many large, public corporations. This article explores whether Andersen's performance, as measured by frequency of financial restatements, measurably differed from that of other large auditors. Financial restatements trigger significant negative market reactions and their frequency can be viewed as a measure of accounting performance. We analyze the financial restatement activity of approximately 1,000 large, public firms from 1997 through 2001. After controlling for client size, region, time, and industry, we find no evidence that Andersen's performance significantly differed from that of other large accounting firms.