Individual auditor characteristics and audit quality: evidence from nonprofits in the US

Abstract

PurposeUsing a sample of US nonprofit organizations, where the identity of the auditor in charge of the audit is revealed, I investigate whether individual auditor characteristics (gender, engagement size and tenure) are associated with audit quality.Design/methodology/approachTo investigate how individual audit partner characteristics affect audit quality, I follow Petrovits et al. (2011) and Fitzgerald et al. (2018) who investigate client characteristics and partner tenure as determinants of ICDs in nonprofits. I add three characteristics of the auditor in charge – gender, engagement size and tenure – to their models. In additional analyses, I use subsamples partitioned by client risk and audit firm size, and find that individual auditor characteristics generally play a more significant role in the issuance of ICDs and QAOs for riskier clients than for less risky clients.FindingsMy results show that female auditors are more likely to report internal control deficiencies and issue qualified audit opinions (QAOs) to nonprofits. I also find that auditors with more Single Audit engagements within the same year are less likely to report ICDs. In addition, auditor tenure is negatively associated with the likelihood of issuing an ICD report, suggesting that auditors become complacent as the length of the auditor–client relationship lengthens or, alternatively, that they are better able to assist their clients in correcting ICDs and in maintaining stronger internal control environments as they gain client-specific knowledge over time. Additional analysis suggests tenure and engagement load results are sensitive to the sample specification employed.Research limitations/implicationsOne caveat of this study is that self-selection bias may be present when a client chooses an audit firm, the audit firm selects a client, and the audit firm assigns a partner to the engagement. Future study with more advanced econometric models is needed to mitigate self-selection bias. Another limitation is that my sample consists of nonprofit organizations and may not be generalizable to for-profit firms. Another caveat of this study is that the tenure variable is truncated compared to prior literature (e.g. Fitzgerald et al., 2018). Also given the rarity of audit quality measures in the nonprofit setting, internal control deficiencies and qualified opinions are used as proxies for audit quality because they reflect both the quality of audit work and the quality of organizations' internal control and financial reporting. Future studies with data including additional audit quality measures could shed more light on the topic.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, this study offers a more comprehensive examination on the impact that a broader set of individual auditor characteristics on audit quality in the nonprofit setting, compared to Fitzgerald et al.'s (2018) study. Second, the findings should be of interest to policymakers who recently mandated engagement partner disclosures from US audit firms (PCAOB, 2015b). Finally, another distinctive feature of this study is that I examine the impact of individual auditor characteristics on audit quality in a setting where Big 4 audit firms are not dominant.