Logo image
Back
Bank Audit Fees and Asset Securitization Risks
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Bank Audit Fees and Asset Securitization Risks

G. Cullen, D. Gasbarro, G.S. Monroe, G. Shailer and Y. Zhang
AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol.37(1), pp.21-48
2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51751
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

We examine whether bank auditor effort, proxied by audit fees, is related to asset securitization risks (ASR) and whether the incremental auditor effort attributed to ASR is related to audit quality. Our sample period encompasses the global financial crisis (GFC) and the introduction of FAS No. 166 and FAS No. 167, which were intended to constrain accounting for asset securitizations as sales. Using U.S. bank holding company (BHC) data from 2003 to 2013, we find significantly positive associations between ASR and audit fees for Big N auditors but not for non-Big N auditors. Pre-GFC audit fees have a positive association with ASR, and are more significant for BHCs reporting a loss. After the implementation of FAS Nos. 166 and 167, this positive association persists, mainly driven by BHCs reporting a loss. With respect to the incremental auditor effort attributed to ASR, we find that, prior to the GFC, the incremental audit effort by Big N auditors, but not by non-Big N auditors, reduced the likelihood of subsequent restatements and constrained reported gains on securitizations.

Details

Metrics

97 Record Views
15 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Citation topics
6 Social Sciences
6.10 Economics
6.10.63 Corporate Governance
Web Of Science research areas
Business, Finance
ESI research areas
Economics & Business
Logo image