Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study investigates the effects of joint audit work allocation on audit quality, fees, and report delays. It analyzes data from 347 non-financial listed firms in France and Morocco. Audit fee shares serve as a proxy for workload distribution. The findings reveal notable differences between France and Morocco. At the macro level, there is no statistically significant relationship between joint audit work allocation and either audit quality or audit report delays in France. However, greater imbalances in work allocation are associated with higher audit fees. In Morocco, greater imbalances in the allocation of work are associated with lower audit quality, higher fees, and longer delays. At the joint audit pair level, most pairs in both countries exhibit no significant relationship between work allocation and audit quality, fees, or report delays. Nevertheless, specific French and Moroccan pairs with greater imbalances in work allocation experience higher audit fees and longer delays. Regarding company size, joint audit work allocation has a minimal effect on audit quality, fees, and delays among large firms. As unbalanced joint audits have parallels to single audits, our findings contribute to current discussions of their comparative advantages and disadvantages. This study provides valuable and practical insights for a wide audience, including investors, board members, practitioners, academics, and policymakers.

Conventional wisdom holds that joint audits would improve audit quality by enhancing audit evidence precision because \"Two heads are better than one.\" Our paper challenges this wisdom. We show that joint audits by one big firm and one small firm may impair audit quality, because, in that situation, joint audits induce a free-riding problem between audit firms and reduce audit evidence precision. We further derive a set of empirically testable predictions comparing audit evidence precision and audit fees under joint and single audits. This paper, the first theoretical study of joint audits, contributes to a better understanding of the economic consequences of joint audits on audit quality.

Our study examines whether gender-diverse engagement partners constrain unethical earnings management behavior in a French mandatory joint audit setting. The investigation of the joint audit setting, by raising concerns about audit team organization and management, provides new insights into how gender-diverse audit partners contribute to the effectiveness of audit decision-making, resulting in reduced earnings management. The need for effective collaboration and communication between joint auditors may foster a transformational leadership style on the part of audit engagement partners. In this regard, we argue that better interaction between male and female lead audit partners confers a comparative advantage on gender-diverse audit partners compared to all-male audit partners. In line with our expectation, our empirical results show that gender-diverse audit partners are negatively associated with discretionary accruals of client firms. Gender-diverse audit partners are also found to constrain earnings management irrespective of whether clients hire one or two brand-name audit firms. Finally, we find that the pervasiveness of earnings management declines when client firms switch from all-male audit partners to gender-diverse audit partners. Our findings underline the importance of considering audit partner gender by policy makers in contexts where joint audits are required or in countries that are considering introducing joint audits.

Purpose This paper aims to examine the link between audit(or) type and restatements in Egypt, a complex and multifaceted auditing market. The usual big 4 versus non-big 4 comparison is insufficient as Egypt has a unique mix of private audit firms, one governmental agency (Accountability State Authority) and mandatory/nonmandatory audit services, including single, joint and dual audits. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a sample of listed companies in Egypt and analyzes the impact of auditor type and audit type on explicit, implicit and total restatements. The study uses logistic regression model to examine the underlying relationship. Findings Results show no relationship between auditor type and audit quality, positive association between non-big foreign CPA firms and total/implicit restatements and mixed results for the impact of dual audits on audit quality. The study found no link between auditor type and audit quality in Egypt. Egyptian audit firms linked to non-big 4 foreign Certified Public Accounting firms were positively linked to total and implicit restatements. Joint audits did not improve audit quality and were directly related to total and explicit restatements. Dual audits showed mixed results, positively associated with implicit restatements but inversely associated with explicit restatements. Originality/value The study provides valuable insights into the complexities of the auditing market in emerging markets and offers valuable insights for stakeholders in the financial statement users, audit firms and governmental agencies.

This empirical study examines the impact of auditor attributes and firm size on financial reporting timeliness among listed firms in Nigeria. The study employs an ex-post facto type of research, with a quantitative design covering a ten-year period (2013–2022). The sample size comprises sixty-six (66) non-financial firms listed on the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX). Based on data extracted from the audited annual reports of the sampled sixty-six firms, the robust regression model results reveal that joint audits contributed considerably to shorter financial reporting lags, underscoring the value of collaborative audit efforts in streamlining the audit process. Audit fees maintained a positive significant effect on the reporting lag of listed Nigerian firms. However, audit switch, client firm size, audit opinion, and audit firm size all maintained insignificant effects on the financial reporting timeliness of the Nigerian listed firms investigated. Therefore, the study recommends that listed firms should rather opt for affordable joint audits due to their efficiency in streamlining the audit process. Equally, the study recommends that listed firms should maintain long-term relationships with auditors to leverage increased familiarity, yet remain cautious of likely complacency and breach of auditing ethical guidelines that can arise from prolonged engagements.

This study investigates the impact of joint audits on accounting conservatism among non-financial firms listed on the Egyptian Stock Exchange. Using balanced panel data from 93 companies over the 2015 -2021 period (651 firm-year observations), the research applies the Khan and Watts (2009) model to measure conservatism. Employing dynamic panel data and fixed effects models, the study finds no statistically or practically significant effect of joint audits on firms' accounting conservatism, even after adjusting for dynamic biases. This outcome supports the hypothesis that joint audits, as currently implemented in Egypt, lack the regulatory strength and auditor coordination necessary to influence conservative financial reporting. The findings suggest that joint audits are largely formalistic, with limited integration between auditors and insufficient regulatory oversight, thereby failing to shape firms' accounting policies meaningfully. In contrast, prior-period conservatism shows a strong, positive influence on current conservatism levels, indicating that conservative reporting is a persistent behavior. This continuity may stem from managerial preferences, internal accounting culture, or established control systems aimed at ensuring financial reliability and minimizing earnings volatility. Cohen's effect size analysis further confirms the lack of practical impact from joint audits, prompting a call for deeper research into the institutional and regulatory barriers that hinder their effectiveness. Future studies should explore auditor relationships, coordination mechanisms, corporate governance, and regulatory frameworks to better understand how joint audits might be restructured to enhance accounting conservatism.

This study focuses on the distinctive Egyptian setting, where firms could use multiple audit mechanism voluntarily or mandatory under certain circumstances. We investigate the effects on audit quality and cost of debt. A sample of 1699 firm-year observations of Egyptian listed firms for the 2009–2019 period is used. Abnormal accruals are employed as proxies of audit quality through abnormal working capital accruals and modified Jones models. Results suggest that joint audits are not associated with both proxies of audit quality. In contrast, the dual audit is positively associated with abnormal accruals leading to conclude that dual audits are not providing a high level of audit quality. But this result holds only in companies with income-decreasing discretionary accruals. These results are in line with litigation and reputational risk fears offering motivations for auditors to favour conservative accounting alternatives (i.e. income-decreasing discretionary accruals). This implies that firms opting to employ dual audits have a higher level of earnings conservatism. Our evidence also indicates that the choice of multiple audit mechanisms, especially joint audits, is related to significant increases in the cost of debt, implying a higher perceived level of risk. Further, dual audits decrease the cost of debt only in companies with high earnings management. This study adds to the literature on whether the preference of income-increasing or income-decreasing discretionary accruals is related to multiple audit mechanism and consequently affected the cost of debt. Together, our results support the view that voluntary joint audits are not related to audit quality in Egypt compared to mandatory dual audits, which consequently affect the pricing of debt. Our results have important implications for policymakers, audit firms and investors.

PurposeThe main aim of the present study is to assess the moderating effect of joint audit (JA) on the relationship between audit committee effectiveness (ACEFF) and audit quality (AQ) in Egypt.Design/methodology/approachThe sample included 61 non-financial corporations listed on the Egyptian Exchange from 2016 through 2020. The results are estimated using panel data analysis with fixed-effect models.FindingsThe findings exhibit that audit committee (AC) independence, ACEFF; and audit firm size negatively affect AQ. Conversely, the influence of AC meetings on AQ is positive and significant. The findings also reveal that JA moderates the relation between the ACEFF and AQ.Research limitations/implicationsThe study offers theoretical contributions to corporate governance mechanisms, JA; and AQ by using data from listed firms in Egypt. The study is the first one that examines the moderating role of JA on ACEFF and AQ.Practical implicationsThe study has practical implications for investors, board members, practitioners, academicians; and policymakers. Moreover, the study contributes using a composite measure for the ACEFF score.Originality/valueThe findings, supported by agency, resource dependence; and signaling theories, contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between ACEFF, AQ; and JA. The evidence about JA is still unknown in developing countries. Further, revisiting AQ with different measures, particularly accounting conservatism, has not been a subject of prior studies.

PurposeThis study examines joint audits’ impact on financial statement timeliness in emerging markets in Kuwait.Design/methodology/approachWe use a sample of nonfinancial firms listed on the Kuwait Stock Exchange from 2000 to 2020.FindingsWe find that joint audits are significantly negatively associated with financial statements’ timeliness. This suggests that firms employing two auditors (joint audits) issue their financial statements in relatively shorter periods. Our results are robust and consistent with our initial findings, even after assessing the impacts of the Big 4, profitability and firm size on them.Practical implicationsThe findings show that mandating joint audits decreases audit report lag (ARL). We recommend that regulators and policymakers consider the potential implications of removing mandated joint audits, such as longer ARL.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the limited literature on joint audits and timeliness by exploring their relationship in the context of listed nonfinancial firms in an emerging market. The findings contribute to the ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of joint audits by showing the improvement of financial reporting timelines. Our findings assist regulators and policymakers in determining whether to implement or abolish joint audits.