Costs and Benefits of Requiring an Engagement Partner Signature: Recent Experience in the United Kingdom

194 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Auditor Independence and Audit Quality (2015, background): “For example, in the U.K. setting, the engagement partner signature requirement leads to improved audit quality (Carcello & Li, 2013); in Sweden, investors react to different reporting patterns of individual audit partners (Knechel, Vanstraelen, & Zerni, 2013); in Australia, individual audit…”
Capital Market Consequences of Audit Partner Quality (2015, unknown): “5 Studies that use accrual quality to proxy for audit quality include, but not limited to, Reynolds and Francis (2001), Balsam, Krishnan, and Yang (2003), Krishnan (2003), Myers, Myers, and Omer (2003), Chen et al. (2008), Lim and Tan (2008), Chi, Huang, Liao, and Xie (2009), Francis and Yu (2009), ”
Does the identity of engagement partners matter? An analysis of audit partner reporting decisions (2015, background): “… Limitations:  Endogeneity  Big 4 audit partners only  Small sample of bankrupt clients  Cannot test effect of mandated disclosure of partner identity [Carcello and Li 2013] Conclusions  We observe systematic (rather than randomly distributed) differences across audit partners in terms…”