Encyclopedia of Optimization

2009 Edition
| Editors: Christodoulos A. Floudas, Panos M. Pardalos

Multicriteria Decision Support Methodologies for Auditing Decisions

  • Chrysovalantis Gaganis
  • Constantin Zopounidis
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74759-0_408
How to cite

Article Outline

Keywords

Introduction

Sample

  Financial Variables

  Non-financial Variables

Method

Empirical Results

Conclusions and Further Research

References

Keywords

Qualified audit reports Multicriteria decision aid Auditing Classification 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Albrecht S, Romney M (1986) Red-flagging management: a validation. Adv Account 3:323–33Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman E (1983) Corporate financial distress: A complete guide to predicting, avoiding, and dealing with bankruptcy. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arens A, Loebbecke J (1994) Auditing: An Integrated Approach, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balvers R, McDonald B, Miller R (1988) Underpricing of New Issues and the Choice of Auditor as a Signal of Investment Banker Reputation. Account Rev 63:605–21Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnes P (1990) The prediction of takeover targets in the U.K. by means of multiple discriminant analysis. J Bus Finance Account 17(1):73–84MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartley JW, Boardman CM (1990) The relevance of inflation adjusted accounting data to the prediction of corporate takeovers. J Bus Finance Account 17(1):53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beasley SM, Carcello JV, Hermanson DR (1999) fraudulent financial reporting: 1987–1997: an analysis of US public companies, research report, Committee on Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, AICPA, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beatty R (1989) Auditor Reputation and the Pricing of Initial Public Offerings. Account Rev 64:693–709Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bell T, Tabor R (1991) Empirical analysis of audit uncertainty qualifications. J Account Res 29:350–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bell T, Szykowny S, Willingham J (1993) Assessing the likelihood of fraudulent financial reporting: a cascaded logic approach, Working Paper. KPMG Peat Marwick, MontvaleGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhargava M, Dubelaar C, Scott T (1998) Predicting bankruptcy in the retail sector: an examination of the validity of key measures of performance. J Retailing Consumer Services 5(2):105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bologna G, Lindquist R, Wells J (1996) The Accountant's Handbook of Fraud and Commercial Crime. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caramanis VC (1997) The enigma of the Greek auditing profession: some preliminary results concerning the impact of liberalization on auditor behaviour. Eur Account Rev 6(1):85–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caramanis VC (1999) International accounting firms versus indigenous auditors: Intra-professional conflict in the Greek auditing profession. Critical Persp Account 10:153–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caramanis C, Spathis C (2006) Auditee and audit firm characteristics as determinants of audit qualifications evidence from the Athens stock exchange. Managerial Auditing J 21(9):905–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chow CW, Rice SJ (1982) Notes: qualified audit opinions and auditor switching. Account Rev LVII(April):326–335Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Citron DB, Taffler RJ (1992) The audit report under going concern uncertainties: an empirical analysis. Account Bus Res 22(88/Autumn):337–345Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coderre GD (1999) fraud detection, using Data Analysis Techniques to detect fraud. Global Audit Publications, VancoverGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cosslett SR (1981) Efficient estimation of discrete choice models. In: Manski CF, McFadden D (eds) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Courtis JK (1978) Modelling a financial ratios categoric framework. J Bus Finance Account 5(4):371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Craswell AT (1988) The association between qualified opinions and auditor switches. Account Bus Res 19:23–31Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Craswell AT, Francis R, Taylor SL (1995) Auditor Brand Name Reputations and Industry Specialization. J Account Econ 20:297–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davia H, Coggins P, Wideman J, Kastantin J (1992) Management Accountant's Guide to Fraud Discovery and Control. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Angelo LE (1981) Auditor size and Audit Quality. J Account Econ 3:183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DeFond ML, Wong TJ, Li S (2000) The Impact of Improved Auditor Independence on Audit Market Concentration in China. J Account Econ 28:269–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dopouch N, Holthausen R, Leftwich R (1987) Predicting audit qualifications with financial and market variables. Account Rev 62(3):431–454Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Doumpos M, Gaganis C, Pasiouras F (2005) Explaining qualifications in audit reports using a support vector machine methodology. Intelligent Syst Account, Finance Manage 13:197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dye R (1993) Auditing Standards, Legal Liability and Auditor Wealth. J Polit Econ 101:887–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Espahbodi H, Espahbodi P (2003) Binary choice models for corporate takeover. J Banking Finance 27:549–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fanning K, Cogger KO (1998) Neural network detection of management fraud using published financial data. Int J Intelligent Syst Account, Finance Manage 7(1):21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fanning K, Cogger K, Srivastava R (1995) Detection of management fraud: a neural network approach. Int J Intelligent Syst Account, Finance Manage 4(2):113–26Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fanning K, Cogger K (1998) Neural network detection of management fraud using published financial data. Int J Intelligent Syst Account, Finance Manage 7(1):21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gaganis C, Pasiouras F, Spathis C, Zopounidis C (2005) Identifying qualified audit reports in UK firms: a nearest neighbours approach. In: 28th European Accounting Association Annual Congress, Göteborg, Sweden, 18–20 May 2005Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gaganis C, Pasiouras F, Tzanetoulakos A (2005) A Comparison and Integration of Classification Techniques for the Prediction of Small UK Firms Failure. J Financ Decis Making 1:55–69Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gaganis C, Pasiouras F (2006) Auditing models for the detection of qualified audit opinions in the UK public services sector, Int J Account, Auditing Perform Eval 3(4):471–493Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gaganis C, Pasiouras F, Doumpos M (2007) Probabilistic neural networks for the identification of qualified audit opinions. Expert Syst Appl 32:114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Government Gazette (1993) Law 2166/1993, A/137/24–8–1993. Ethniko Typographeio, AthensGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Green B (1991) Identifying management irregularities through preliminary analytical procedures, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kent State University, KentGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Green BP, Choi JH (1997) Assessing the risk of management fraud through neuralnetwork technology. J Pract Theory 16(1):14–28Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gul FA, Lee DS, Lynn M (1992) A note on audit qualification and switches: some further evidence from a small sample study. J Int Account, Auditing Taxation 1(1):111–120Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haskins M, Williams D (1990) A contingent model of intra-Big Eight auditor changes. J Pract Theory 3:55–74Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hoffman VB (1997) Discussion of the effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions. J Account Res 35(5):99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hollman VP, Patton JM (1997) Accountability, the dilution effect and conservatism in auditors fraud judgments. J Account Res 35(2):227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hopwood W, McKeown J, Mutchler J (1994) A Reexamination of Auditor versus Model Accuracy within Xontext of the Going-Concern Opinion Decision. Contemp Account Res 2(10):409–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Imbens W (1992) An efficient method of moments estimator for discrete choice models with choice-base sampling. Econ 60:1187–1214MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ireland J (2003) An empirical investigation of determinants of audit reports in the UK. J Bus Finance Account 30(7&8):975–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ireland JC, Lennox CS (2002) The Large Audit Firm Fee Premium: A Case of Selectivity Bias? J Account, Auditing Finance 17(1/Winter):73–91Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Keasey K, Watson R, Wynarzcyk P (1988) The Small Company Audit Qualification: A reliminary Investigation. Account Bus Res 18:323–33Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kida T (1980) An investigation into auditor's continuity and related qualification judgments. J Account Res Autumn:506–523Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kira D, Morin D (1993) Prediction of takeover targets of Canadian Firms. In: Janssen J, Skiadas CH (eds) Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis, pp 507–518. World Scientific Publ Co, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kirkos E, Spathis C (2006) Data mining techniques for the detection of fraudulent financial statements. Expert Systems with Application, ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Koh HC, Killough LN (1990) The Use of Multiple Discriminant Analysis in the assessment of the Going Concern status of an audit client. J Bus Finance Account 17(2):179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Koh HC (1991) Model predictions and auditor assessments of going concern status. Account Bus Res 21(84):331–338Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Krishnan J, Krishnan J (1996) The role of economic trade-offs in the audit opinion decision: an empirical analysis. J Account, Auditing Finance 11(4):565–586Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Krishnan J (1994) Auditor Switching and Conservatism. Account Rev 69:200–16Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Krishnan J, Krishnan J, Stephens RG (1996) The simultaneous relation between auditor switching and audit opinion: an empirical analysis'. Account Bus Res 26(Summer):224–236Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Laitinen EK, Laitinen T (1998) Qualified audit reports in Finland: evidence from large companies. Eur Account Rev 7(4):639–653MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Laitinen T, Kankaanpaa M (1999) Comparative analysis of failure prediction methods: the Finnish case. Eur Account Rev 8:67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lennox CS (1999) The Accuracy and Incremental Information Content of Audit Reports in Predicting Bankruptcy. J Bus, Finance Account 26(May–June):757–70Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Levitan AS, Knoblett JA (1985) Indicators of Expectations to the Going-Concern Assumption. J Pract Theory 5(1):26–39Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Loebbecke J, Eining M, Willingham J (1989) Auditor's experience with material irregularities: frequency, nature and detectability. J Pract Theory 9:1–28Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Louwers TJ (1998) The Relation Between Going-Concern Opinions and the Auditor's Loss Function. J Account Res 36(1):143–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Menon K, Schwartz KB (1987) An empirical investigation of audit qualification decisions in the presence of going-concern uncertainties. Contemp Account Res 3(2):302–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Menon K, Williams D (1991) Auditor Credibility and Initial Public Offerings. Account Rev 66:313–32Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Monroe G, The S (1993) Predicting Uncertainty Audit Qualifications in Australia Using Publicly Available Information. Account Finance 33(2):79–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mutchler JF (1985) A Multivariate Analysis of the Auditor's Going-Concern Opinion Decision. J Account Res 23(2):668–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nelson M, Elliot JA, Tarpley RL (2000) Where do companies attempt earnings management, and when do auditors prevent it? Working Paper, Cornell University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nieves GA, Eiliano RB (2003) Do Spanish firms changes auditor to avoid a qualified audit report? Int J Auditing 7:37–53Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Palepu KG (1986) Predicting Takeover Targets: A Methodological and Empirical Analysis. J Account Econ 8:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Palmrose Z (1987) Litigation and independent auditors: the role of business failures and management fraud. J Pract Theory 6(2):90–102Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pasiouras F, Gaganis C, Zopounidis C (2007) Multicriteria decision support methodologies for auditing decisions: the case of qualified audit reports in the UK. Eur J Oper Res 180(3):1317–1330CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pong CM, Whittington G (1994) The Determinants of Audit Fees: Some Empirical Models. J Bus Finance Account 21(8):1071–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Porter B, Cameron A (1987) Company fraud-what price the auditor? Account J December:44–47Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Reynolds J, Francis J (2001) Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. J Account Econ 30:375–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schilit H (1993) Financial Shenanigans: How to Detect Accounting Gimmicks and Fraud in Financial Reports. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Shank J, Murdock R (1978) Comparability in the Application of Reporting Standards: Some Further Evidence. Account Rev (October):824–35Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Skinner JD (1997) Earnings disclosures and stockholder law suits. J Account Econ 23(3):249–282MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Spathis C (2002) Detecting false financial statements using published data: some evidence from Greece. Managerial Auditing J 17(4):174–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Spathis C, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2003) Using client performance measures to identify pre-engagement factors associated with qualified audit reports in Greece. Int J Account 38:267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Spathis C (2003) Audit qualification, firm litigation, and financial information: an empirical analysis in Greece. Int J Auditing 7(1):71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Spathis C, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2002) Detecting falsified financial statements: a comparative study using multicriteria analysis and multivariate statistical techniques. Eur Account Rev 11(3):509–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Spronk J, Steuer RE, Zopounidis C (2005) Multicriteria Decision Aid/Analysis in Finance. In: Figueira, Greco, Ehrgott (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer, Boston, Dordrecht, London, pp 799–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Stein RM (2002) Benchmarking default prediction models: Pitfalls and Remedies in Model Validation Moody's KMV Technical Report #030124, June 13Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Stice J, Albrecht S, Brown L (1991) Lessons to be learned-ZZZZBEST Regina and Lincoln saving. CPA J April:52–54Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Stice J (1991) Using financial and market information to identify pre-engagement market factors associated with lawsuits against auditors. Account Rev 66(3):516–33Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Summers SL, Sweeney JT (1998) Fraudulently misstated financial statements and insider trading: an empirical analysis. Account Rev 73(1):131–146Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tanzi V, Shome P (1993) A primer on tax evasion. In: International Monetary Fund, Staff Papers 40(4)807–828Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Warren C (1980) Uniformity of auditing standards: a replication. J Account Res (Spring):312–24Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zimbelman MF (1997) The effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors attention to fraud risk-factors and audit planning decisions. J Account Res 35(5):75–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Zmijewski ME (1984) Methodological Issues Related to the Estimation of Financial Distress Prediction Models. J Account Res 22(Supplement):59–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2000) Building additive utilities for multi-group hierarchical discrimination: the M.H.D.I.S method. Optim Methods Softw 14:219–240CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Zopounidis C, Doumpos M, Gaganis C (2006) Prediction of firms' Bankruptcy: a Multicriteria Methodology. Rev Econ Sci (9):283–296Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chrysovalantis Gaganis
    • 1
  • Constantin Zopounidis
    • 1
  1. 1.Financial Engineering Laboratory, Department of Production Engineering and ManagementTechnical University of Crete, University CampusChaniaGreece