Search results

This study aims to investigate the effects of COVID-19 working arrangements on role stress, burnout and turnover intentions in public accounting professionals. Additionally, while all professionals have had to adapt to this rapid change in working environment, this paper explores whether the impact of this transition differs depending on demographic factors, namely, rank, gender, firm size and service line.

The authors survey 159 public accountants working in audit and tax on their perceptions of role stress, burnout and turnover intentions before COVID-19 and since. The survey used validated instruments from prior literature to capture these measures.

Results show that role stress, burnout and turnover intentions increased significantly since remote work began. Specifically, the rank of accountants significantly affects this association, with staff experiencing the most significant increases in role stress and burnout and seniors reporting significantly higher intentions to leave their current firms. Females experience a significant increase in feelings of emotional exhaustion and turnover intention, while males experience a significant increase in feelings of depersonalization and role overload. Finally, there is a positive association between firm size and burnout, with employees from national/midsize firms experiencing the largest increase in feelings of emotional exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishment and depersonalization.

Given that all prior research on role stressors, burnout tendencies and turnover intentions in the context of public accounting was conducted in the pre-COVID-19 work environment, this paper examines a timely and significant event that is likely to have a long-lasting impact on the way in which people work. As accounting firms seek to develop new working models and promote well-being among their employees, they should take note of the findings of this study that gender, rank and firm size result in differential impacts on role stress, burnout and turnover intentions.

This study aims to identify characteristics of firms reporting multiple years of material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting (MWICFR), labeled “Repeat Offenders”, and examine their characteristics and the types of material weaknesses they report using both broad and COSO-based classification schemes. The analysis compares these firms with firms reporting only one year of MWICFR and examines the differences between Repeat Offenders reporting consecutive and non-consecutive weaknesses.

Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted on a sample of 1,793 firm-year observations, split into Repeat Offenders and non-Repeat Offenders, and collected from AuditAnalytics and Compustat from 2007 to 2015.

On average, 40% of adverse opinions in ICFR each year can be attributed to Repeat Offenders. Compared to one-time MWICFR firms, Repeat Offenders are significantly more likely to report general material weaknesses and, within the COSO framework, are significantly more likely to report issues with Segregation of Duties and Processes and Procedures. Repeat Offenders reporting consecutive years of MWICFR are significantly more likely to have general weaknesses than non-consecutive Repeat Offenders and are also significantly more likely to report issues with Segregation of Duties and Personnel.

Prior studies have examined unremediated ICFR issues in the periods immediately following SOX implementation. This study extends this literature with a longer, more current sample period, focusing on both broad and COSO-specific control issues, as well as examining consecutive and non-consecutive MWICFR and firms with more than two years of MWICFR.

This study underpins recent Securities and Exchange Commission and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board concerns regarding pervasive ICFR issues. This study identifies some of the characteristics of firms associated with weaker ICFR and pinpoints more specific areas within internal controls that frequently lead to adverse opinions.

This study aims to examine the impact of Financial Accounting Standard Board’s Accounting Standard Update (ASU) 2014–15 on auditors’ going concern reporting. ASU 2014–15 provides accounting guidance for managers related to going concern issues, but there is evidence that regulatory changes affect auditor behavior. The authors examine if auditors’ propensity to issue going concern opinions (GCOs) for non-bankrupt, financially distressed firms changes after ASU 2014–15 became effective, and if the proportion of client bankruptcies with prior GCOs changes after ASU 2014–15 became effective.

The authors examine audit reports for non-bankrupt, financially stressed firms three years before and after the effective date of ASU 2014–15 to see if the propensity to issue a GCO differs in the pre- vs post-period. The authors then examine bankrupt, financially stressed firms to determine if the proportion of bankruptcies preceded by a GCO differs in the pre- vs post-period.

The authors find a significant increase in GCO reporting for non-bankrupt, financially stressed firms in the post-ASU 2014–15 period, suggesting auditor conservatism increased. The propensity for auditors to issue a GCO to bankrupt firms also increased significantly in the post-ASU period, providing evidence that auditors became more accurate, as more bankruptcies were preceded by a GCO than in the pre-ASU period.

This study uses new legislation which creates an exogenous shock to going concern reporting. Models and techniques are combined from prior literature and extended to investigate auditors’ reporting behaviors using two important and distinct samples.