The Effect of Client Importance and Auditor Tenure on Accounting Conservatism: Evidence from Chinese Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concern over accounting regulation has resulted in studies of auditor independence and audit quality, as measured by auditor tenure, accounting conservatism, and the type of audit firm the client employs (Big 4 or non-Big 4).In this study, we continue the line of research on conservatism and auditor tenure by examining whether accounting conservatism is related to auditor tenure for Chinese firms. We extend the studies by Jenkins and Velury (2008) and Li (2010) in order to examine Chinese firms that have non-Big 4 auditors, and we investigate whether the association exists for the most important and least important clients of these audit firms. Our findings indicate that least important clients employ more conservative accounting techniques as auditor tenure increases. For the most important clients, there is less conservatism, compared to the least important clients, in the early years of the auditor’s tenure. Our study provides more information about the regulatory issue of mandatory audit firm rotation because our results suggest that mandatory auditor rotation may have an adverse effect on the least important clients of these Chinese audit firms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".