1. Erbil Polytechnic University, Iraq; salahmehadi@gmail.com
2. Erbil Polytechnic University, Iraq; muhammadIbrahim8921@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: salahmehadi@gmail.com

Keywords: audit quality, modifications, Iraq, adjustmentsation

1. INTRODUCTION

Authorities have long been concerned about the quality of audit services, which is why standard-setters worldwide have made significant changes to audit reporting requirements to improve the process’ overall quality and increase the transparency of audited financial reports. For instance, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) in the UK set a new standard in 2013 requiring audit firms to disclose risks of material misstatement in their audit reports [2], and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the US implemented a new auditor reporting standard in 2017 that required the auditors to describe the key audit matters in the audit report [1]. These two mandated procedures highlight the significance of high-quality audit reports, especially in situations when there is a higher chance of financial report misstatements. In other words, the PCAOB Final Rule in the 2019 Auditor’s Report makes the case that auditors may be further motivated to exhibit the degree of professional skepticism required for high-quality audits in the areas of significant audit topics if they are communicated to them. [3]. The importance of audit quality in financial reporting systems is also demonstrated by empirical research. In this context, the size, specialization, and duration of the audit firm are more likely to enhance the quality of audit services, according to a thorough meta-analysis by [4]. Furthermore, in an additional attempt, [5] demonstrate that variables like financial reporting quality and audit fee stickiness are less likely to impact the audit quality level. Scholars also note that other factors including audit fees [6–8], business performance [9], and corporate governance procedures [10] may be significantly impacted by audit quality. On the other hand, since firm managers make the majority of their investment decisions based on the auditor’s report and opinion on these financial statements, it is highly expected that the auditors will stop making inflated financial statements about the company. As a result, it’s crucial to talk about the auditing adjustments and the substantial financial statement misstatements. Because the population and users seek out auditors of the greatest caliber so that they may rely on their report when making the most important investment decisions, the current study looks at the phenomenon’s impact on the audit quality of financial statements. The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board’s (IAASB) core value is audit quality. Therefore, the board claims that “the board’s purpose is to focus on professional complaints and control the audit quality” and that “it is necessary to increase the audit quality in line with the public interests” in order to give the auditors’ observation. The auditors’ and auditing firms’ roles, as well as the audit quality of other stakeholders, are taken into consideration in the board’s 2014 audit quality framework. It provides an explanation of the content elements that matter. The inputs, procedures, and results that impact the audit quality at the business unit, audit firm, and global levels that impact the audited financial statements are outlined in this framework. This framework also highlights the significance of many aspects and the need for adequate stakeholder involvement. [11]. After the reported failures in this profession in recent years, the audit quality and deciding variables have gained importance in the academic and supervisory discourse on auditing. As a result, the quality of the auditor is improved by several advancements in the auditing profession, financial reporting, and the regulatory boards for rules and standards. The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) is one of these authorities; in 2014, it released a framework for audit quality that addressed the relevant aspects of audit quality in real-world settings. The most important elements of audit quality were outlined in a 2008 Financial Reporting Council essay on the goals and framework of auditor quality. Similar to this, a report on audit performance principles and determinants was released by the Institute of Chartered Accountants’ England [12]. Various academic researchers [13–15] have looked at audit quality firms. The impact of audit adjustments on the caliber of services rendered by Iraqi audit firms is examined in this study because, given the significance of audit quality, users base their decisions about whether to sell or keep their investments based on the auditor’s commentary on the financial statements. Stated differently, the goal of this study is to determine whether or not these audit adjustments have an impact on the audit quality. Audit adjustments are included with the quality of reported earnings and other data in financial statements when the auditor requests that the firms give results prior to the year-end audit. The combined index of accounting earnings, accruals quality, earnings volatility, earnings smoothing, and earnings liquidity are the criteria for measuring audit adjustments that are outlined in the financial accounting and auditing literature [16]. By enhancing the legitimacy and dependability of financial statements, auditing them is a crucial instrument for the financial markets, offering trustworthy and insightful information about the decisions made in the financial statements. It is regarded as one of the primary objectives of financial reporting. Meanwhile, experts have been interested in the annual adjustments phenomenon over the past few decades. It is crucial to comprehend the state of the auditing services market and the degree of competition in the auditing industry. According to [17], auditing will be able to recognize, assess, and communicate these important audit modifications. The degree of his or her freedom is also mentioned in the following dimension. Since the audit adjustments result in the restatement of the financial statements due to substantial, minor, and fundamental misstatements, they can therefore be seen as a measure of the audit quality. Assume that the auditor corrected his report and submitted the accurate version after failing to recognize and disclose these misstatements. If that is the case, the view will cause the stakeholders to make the incorrect decision based on informational and signaling asymmetries, agency theory [18], auditing and accounting requirements, and even more. This study is one of the first to investigate how audit adjustments affect the caliber of audit reports, especially in developing economies like Iraq. This claim is supported by a number of channels: (1) previous research has focused mostly on the impact of audit efforts [19], cross-year updates of analysts’ EPS forecasts [20], client importance [21], and auditor’s communication mode [22] on the audit adjustment level; (2) previous research has predominantly shown that indicators related to auditors, such as audit specialization, tenure, and audit firm size [24], audit fee stickiness [25], audit market concentration [26], and client-related features, such as board size, client firm size [27], technology enhancement client firm size [28], board diversity, and audit committee characteristics [29]; and (3) to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the closest conducted paper to this study may be the study of [30], which examines how Lennox and Wu, for instance, [31] calculate the audit adjustment’s moderating effect on the relationship between internal control systems and financial statements prepared for clients prior to an audit. This study, on the other hand, aims to examine the direct effect of audit adjustment on the caliber of auditors’ reports. Inferring from this, the current study will probably contribute somewhat to the body of knowledge on financial reporting and auditing.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Mastering audit quality, one of the key themes in the accounting literature, is one of the primary concerns of auditing companies, rules, requirements, regulators, and investors [32]. By boosting the accuracy and reliability of the financial accounts, audit quality enhances financial reporting [33]. Theoretically, the accounting processes (e.g., accounting systems, controls within the company, financial activities, and regulations) and the employees of the audit firms and the customers’ business units that carry out those processes (accountants, auditors, and managers) can influence the quality of the audit [32]. Therefore, these people may be quite important to the audit process. The job of the audit staff is also quite significant. Hiring and educating audit staff members is one of the main responsibilities of the auditing profession [33]. Because audit quality significantly contributes to bolstering confidence in the veracity and accuracy of the financial statements that are essential to enhancing business units, the experience and caliber of auditing staff can be enhanced [34]. When making investment decisions, readers of the financial statements can rely on the auditor’s report thanks to the audit quality [35]. The services that the involved auditors deliver to the company are referred to as audit quality. The experience and standards drive the business units’ need for higher-quality audits. Hiring a top-notch auditor increases investment, enhances organizational performance, and presents the business unit in a positive light [36]. Because of the reputation and experience that higher quality accounting companies have amassed, stakeholders and investors consequently have faith in and depend on these firms [37]. Several researches [38–42] have been done to better comprehend the idea of audit quality, and various definitions have been provided, including the following: “Assessing the market for the auditor’s ability to detect significant distortions and report detected distortions” is the definition of audit quality first put forth by [43]. Additionally, [43] highlights that by identifying and disclosing errors and distortions, the auditor will be impartial toward the meaning of the word. As a result, according to [43], audit quality improves the audit’s capacity to identify accounting anomalies and assess the independence and competence of the population. DeAngelo’s definition of quality was based on the fundamental premise that audit quality represents the actual quality of the auditing [44]. According to [45], audit quality is the probability that there will be no material misstatement in the financial statements and the confidence that the financial statements are accurate. Because of the auditing process, the definition is applied in practice. Conversely, audit adjustments are used to modify the financial statements provided by the auditor to the management and governing body [46]. Based on the evidence gathered throughout the audit phases, the auditor makes this revision, which may result in the financial statements being resubmitted or even in claims from management to categorize the amount for the financial statements of the various accounts. Due to the possibility that the owner would not make the necessary corrections, these adjustments should come at a comparatively high cost [47]. The auditing industry and audit quality are tightly related, according to auditing studies. Increasing knowledge in the audit business raises the quality of audits [48]. Additional studies have also demonstrated that the size and financial affluence of the client has an impact on audit quality. Additionally, some studies have demonstrated that the audit quality is unaffected by the auditor’s stature or bulk. [49] look at how audit changes affect the quality of earnings and audits in Chinese companies. According to his research, audit adjustments lessen earnings management and have a positive and significant association with audit quality and earning quality. Additionally, [50] demonstrated how audit modifications improve the accuracy of financial reporting and raise earning quality. The study’s findings indicate that managers are less likely to adjust for audits. The agency’s representative claims that auditing lowers agency expenses and lessens the likelihood of management producing automated reports. According to research [49], accrual earnings management opportunities are increased when management reports larger revenues and lower expenditures, a practice that has been particularly common since accrual accounting. We therefore anticipate that the auditors will lower accrual earnings management through audit adjustments if they lower agency costs. But as independent representatives, the auditors will look for and disclose earnings management in order to establish themselves as stakeholders, stay out of legal trouble, and uphold their reputation. Therefore, the auditors carry out a higher quality audit process in order to avoid losing their reputation and facing legal action. Stated differently, the motivation to enhance the quality of the auditors’ audits during the audit process stems from the possibility of facing legal claims and the fear of damaging their reputation [50]. Agency theory states that auditing is a tool used by management of all commercial, for-profit, and non-profit departments and units to prevent any unrealistic reporting and to cut agency expenditures. When the surplus account of income decreases, it approaches zero because the public sector has a weaker incentive structure than the private sector. It has developed since commitment accounting became popular and opened up new avenues for earnings management. Numerous pieces of data in this area indicate that government agencies have used accrual earnings management, or “accumulation earnings management,” more frequently and aggressively than private businesses. Thus, we anticipate that the auditor will bargain with management to change these items in the financial statements if they want to lower the agency charges. It is important to note that auditors defend their own interests, try to avoid being sued, and keep their reputation intact. Consequently, the auditor may behave in his own best interests as a supervisory agent as opposed to abiding by the standards and guidelines. However, some people also think that auditors can use audit adjustments to stop business unit managers from implementing their earnings management strategies. Moreover, the audit adjustment might not be accepted by the firm management, particularly if it lowers the compensation that the management receives at the end of the year or even lowers the credit financing borrowing. Consequently, in these circumstances, the auditor ought to take into account whether or not these audit adjustments significantly affect the accuracy and correctness of the financial statements, or whether or not these adjustments can ultimately result in the auditor being able to form an accurate and reasonable opinion regarding the financial statements of that unit [49]. It goes without saying that the owner typically accepts the audit adjustments in order to hear the auditor’s positive assessment of herself. The auditors of the financial statements negotiate the changes with the business units’ audit committees, if any. In order to assess the efficacy of the accounting unit, the committee members additionally look into the correctness of transaction recordings by looking at any issues with controls or other situations. The procedure may result in the accounting department’s management changing. In order to make sure the owner has accurately documented all of the audit adjustments, the final conversation regarding the audit adjustments will involve a review of the original account balances at the start of the following year. These changes, if unrecorded, will impact the report and result in an altered comment from the auditor [48]. An audit will be efficient and of the highest caliber if it can find material misstatements in the financial accounts and disclose them without relying on any outside sources of funding. This is defined by [43] as audit quality. Stated differently, the auditor’s independence and level of skill are discussed in the first and second portions of this description. The quality of the audit is determined by having knowledge of the matters and offering an opinion that differs from the owner’s expectations. As to the definition, the degree of competence and independence possessed by the auditor determines their capacity to detect major distortions that result in the financial statements being adjusted. As such, there is a tight relationship between audit adjustments and quality [48]. The following research has been conducted in several nations: The quality of public sector audits and audit adjustments were shown to be positively and significantly correlated in the study. It was also found that audit adjustments enhance the quality of firm financial reporting and raise earning quality. The study found no connection between the funding of businesses and incremental profit audit adjustments. Additionally, there is no significant correlation between the funding of the companies and the upward/downward earnings audit adjustments. On the other hand, a strong correlation exists between the profit downward audit adjustments and the loan financing of businesses. According to a study [45], the yearly modifications make auditors more conservative and restrict business unit managers from turning a profit. When it comes to trusts with a pre-audit deficit, auditors take action to counteract management bias; but, when it comes to trusts with a pre-audit surplus, there is no indication of this happening, according to Donatella (2021), who examined the extent to which audit companies minimize management prejudice in public sector financial reports. Additionally, they discover that, generally speaking, audit effort has no discernible impact on the issuance of changed audit opinions; rather, the likelihood of issuing a modified audit opinion increases in the absence of an audit adjustment. Moreover, they discover that larger audit companies and more complex clientele have a lessening effect on the influence of audit effort on audit quality. All of their data point to the importance of audit effort in raising audit quality through influencing audit procedures and results. [46] In audit areas that are usually completed at the end of audit fieldwork, there is a larger chance of financial statement misstatements in audits that are less complete at the earnings announcement date. Additionally, we discover that there is a greater chance of auditor turnover in the upcoming year. According to the findings, organizations that announce profits before the audit is fully completed tend to have lower quality financial reporting and audits and higher turnover among their auditors. According to a different study, which looks at whether audit adjustments are a mechanism that links the impact of required internal control audits on the quality of financial reporting, auditor-client conflicts were made worse by the requirement that auditors publicly disclose internal control weaknesses, which made it harder for them to find and fix misstatements in their clients’ pre-audit financial statements. They discover large drops in audit adjustments after the phased implementation of mandated internal control audits, supporting this line of reasoning. Additionally, they discover that after required internal control audits, there is a substantial increase in material misstatements that coincide with decreases in audit adjustments. On the other hand, they discover that when internal control audits became required, the number of material misstatements among clients that did not see a decrease in audit adjustments significantly decreased. The net effect of the two factors is what accounts for the lack of overall improvement in the quality of financial reporting once internal control audits were required. Nevertheless, [44] discover that waived adjustments are associated with incentives to meet or exceed profits targets, with lower financial reporting quality as determined by major misstatements, and with the audit process as evaluated by increased audit work and fees and suggested modifications for the next quarter. These changes to the audit procedure are in line with auditors’ reactions to the higher risk posed by waived adjustments. In a preliminary investigation, they discover that, after adjusting for the quantity of suggested modifications, auditor resignations have a negative correlation with waived alterations.

3. CONCLUSION

The paper’s conclusions make various recommendations for board members and equity owners who choose auditors, as well as audit firms who serve as the financial markets’ trade associations. By selecting audit firms, who are well-known for having more audit adjustment among market practitioners, equity owners and board members may benefit from the investigation’s findings. These experts are more likely to enhance the accuracy and transparency of the financial statements provided, which are expected to serve as a guide for their decision-making process. Furthermore, audit firms could enhance the services they offer by conducting additional reviews and analyses to generate further audit adjustments. These might be translated into a positive benchmark for superior audit services by industry practitioners, potentially leading to an increase in their market share and fees. The writers of this work experienced certain restrictions during the study, just as in other investigations. The primary constraint is from the restricted quantity of companies listed on the Iraq stock exchange; a higher quantity in this regard could potentially enhance the validity of the results. Additionally, the writers’ limited credentials in academia have hindered them from engaging in a wider variety of comparisons and discussions due to the paucity of empirical studies in the associated literature. We suggest that future researchers look into the effects of audit adjustment on the growth of the audit market and audit fees in light of the findings of this work. Increased audit quality has been linked to higher audit market concentration and audit fees for auditing firms, as evidenced by published research. Therefore, it is very likely that auditors who propose additional audit adjustments are open to gaining a larger portion of the market. The audit literature might benefit much from such an inquiry.

REFERENCES

1. Akinyomi, Oladele John, and Abimbola A. Joshua. 2022. Determinants of audit quality in Nigeria: Evidence from listed consumer goods sector in Nigeria. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal26: 1–14.
2. Tong, L., Wu, B., & Zhang, M. (2023). Local gambling attitudes and audit quality: Evidence from audit adjustments. Abacus, 59(1), 381-410.
3. Wahhab, A. M. A., & Al-Shammari, M. T. A. A. (2021). Audit committee characteristics, regulatory changes and financial reporting quality in Iraq: Some lessons from Sox Act. International Journal of Economics and Finance Studies, 13(1), 43-66.
4. Jabbar, F. S. (2022). The Impact of Audit Quality in Reducing the Creative Accounting Practices and Activating External Investments (An Applied Study to the Iraqi Stock Exchange). Webology, 19(1), 6208-6236.
5. ALSAEEDI, A. M. A., & KAMYABI, Y. (2023). THE IMPACT OF AUDITOR EXPERIENCE AND COMPETENCE ON AUDIT QUALITY WITH MODERATING ROLE OF AUDITORS ETHICS: EVIDENCE FROM IRAQ. Russian Law Journal, 11(11s).
6. Khudhair, D., Al-Zubaidi, F., & Raji, A. (2019). The effect of board characteristics and audit committee characteristics on audit quality. Management Science Letters, 9(2), 271-282.
7. Rashid, A. M., Jasim, S. R., & Saleh, A. F. (2021). An auditing quality determinants and their impact on Iraqi commercial banks financial performance (an applied study on a sample of nine banks from 2012 to 2018). Materials Today, 1(9).
8. AL-Hashimy, H. N. H. (2019). The Role of Auditing Practices that Affect Accounting Standards and Taxable Income: A Study in Iraq. Journal of University of Babylon for Pure and Applied Sciences, 27(6), 244-258.
9. Al-ahdal, Waleed M., and Hafiza Aishah Hashim. 2021. Impact of audit committee characteristics and external audit quality on firm performance: Evidence from India. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society22: 424–45.
10. Antle, Rick. 1982. The auditor as an economic agent. Journal of Accounting Research20: 503–27.
11. Antle, Rick. 1984. Auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research22: 1–20.
12. Ballantine, Joan, John Forker, and Margaret Greenwood. 2008. Public and private sector auditors and accruals quality in English NHS hospital Trusts. The British Accounting Review40: 28–47.
13. Barton, Allan. 2009. The use and abuse of accounting in the public sector financial management reform program in Australia. Abacus45: 221–48.
14. Bronson, Scott N., Adi Masli, and Joseph H. Schroeder. 2021. Releasing Earnings when the Audit is Less Complete: Implications for Audit Quality and the Auditor/Client Relationship. Accounting Horizons35: 27–55.
15. Chen, Songsheng, Zheng Li, and Wuchun Chi. 2018. Client importance and audit quality: Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 25: 624–38.
16. Cho, Myojung, Soo Young Kwon, and Gopal V. Krishnan. 2021. Audit fee lowballing: Determinants, recovery, and future audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 40: 106787.
17. Choudhary, Preeti, Kenneth Merkley, and Katherine Schipper. 2022. The Costs of Waiving Audit Adjustments. Journal of Accounting Research, accepted.
18. Copley, Paul A. 1991. The association between municipal disclosure practices and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 10: 245–66.
19. Daemigah, Ali. 2020. A Meta-Analysis of Audit Fees Determinants: Evidence from an Emerging Market. Iranian Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 4: 1–17.
20. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth. 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3: 183–99.
21. Dechow, Patricia M., Richard G. Sloan, and Amy P. Sweeney. 1995. Detecting earnings management. Accounting Review 70: 193–225. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/248303 (accessed on 16 December 2021).
22. DeFond, Mark, and Jieying Zhang. 2014. A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics 58: 275–326.
23. Deis, Donald R., Jr., and Gary A. Giroux. 1992. Determinants of audit quality in the public sector. Accounting Review 67: 462–79. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/247972 (accessed on 16 December 2021).
24. Donatella, Pierre. 2021. Further evidence on the relationship between audit industry specialisation and public sector audit quality. Financial Accountability & Management, 1–18.
25. Duff, Angus. 2004. Auditqual: Dimensions of Audit Quality. Edinburgh: Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, pp. 1–169. First Published.
26. Elewa, May M., and Rasha El-Haddad. 2019. The effect of audit quality on firm performance: A panel data approach. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting 9: 229–44.
27. Ellwood, Sheila, and Javier Garcia-Lacalle. 2015. The removal of a specialist oversight body for local public audit: Insights from the health service in England. Financial Accountability & Management 31: 219–42.
28. Farouk, Musa Adeiza, and Shehu Usman Hassan. 2014. Impact of audit quality and financial performance of quoted cement firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Accounting and Taxation 2: 1–22.
29. Firnanti, Friska, and Kashan Pirzada. 2019. Company characteristics, corporate governance, audit quality impact on earnings management. Corporate Governance, Audit Quality Impact on Earnings Management 4: 43–49.
30. Francis, Jere R., and Earl R. Wilson. 1988. Auditor changes: A joint test of theories relating to agency costs and auditor differentiation. Accounting Review 63: 663–82. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/247906 (accessed on 20 May 2021).
31. Greenwood, Margaret, and Lei Tao. 2017. How Public is Public Audit? Evidence from the UK. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management, Budapest, Hungary, April 19–21.
32. Greenwood, Margaret, and Ruijia Zhan. 2019. Audit adjustments and public sector audit quality. Abacus 55: 511–34.
33. Gunn, Joshua L., Brett S. Kawada, and Paul N. Michas. 2019. Audit market concentration, audit fees, and audit quality: A cross-country analysis of complex audit clients. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 38: 106693.
34. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 2014. A Framework for Audit Quality, Key Elements that Create Environment for audit Quality. Available online: https://www.ifac.org/ Ismael, Hazem Ramadan, and Hany Kamel. 2021. Internal audit quality and earnings management: Evidence from the UK. Managerial Auditing Journal 36: 951–78.
35. Mohammad Mahbub Morshed, Mostafizur Rahman & Monir Ahmmed (2023). Impact of social capital on economic development: a study on Bandarban hill district of Bangladesh perspective. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(08):456-467.
36. Aqsa tahir, Qaiser Mohi Ud Din, Mohammed Nawab Shinwari, Megha Vimal and Urfa Fazil (2023). A comprehensive review of technologies and relevance of green human resource management. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(08):468-475.
37. Waqar Akbar Khan, Juan Oyarzo, Muhammad Ishaq and Yang Minghai (2023). Country’ green human resource management, monetary markets, and environmental connection. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(08):476-480.
38. Hamza Ilyas, Md Hassan Mohsin and Muhammad Ibrar (2023). A Green Human Resource Management Including Approach for The Construction Industries. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(08):481-489.
39. Al-Moontasir Shifat, Hyunsu Agnihotri, Ming Chen and Yasir Rafique (2023). Reforming data into decisions: investigating the integrated paradigm of business intelligence (B.I.). Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(08):490-496.
40. Timothy Masuni Nagriwum and Stephen Frimpong (2023). Determinants of internal audit effectiveness in selected higher learning institutions in Ghana. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(08):497-517.
41. Salehi, Mahdi, Mohamad Reza Fakhri Mahmoudi, and Ali Daemi Gah. 2019. A meta-analysis approach for determinants of effective factors on audit quality: Evidence from emerging market. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 9: 287–312.
42. Simnett, Roger, Elizabeth Carson, and Ann Vanstraelen. 2016. International archival auditing and assurance research: Trends, methodological issues, and opportunities. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 35: 1–32.
43. Xiao, Tusheng, Chunxiao Geng, and Chun Yuan. 2020. How audit effort affects audit quality: An audit process and audit output perspective. China Journal of Accounting Research 13: 109–27.
44. Yanti, Lia Dama, and Michael Darmawan Wijaya Darmawan Wijaya. 2020. Influence of Auditor Switching, Audit Fee, Tenure Audit and Company Size to Audit Quality. ECo-Fin 2: 9–15.
45. Moradi, Mahdi, Mahdi Salehi, Hossein Tarighi, and Mahdi Saravani. 2020. Audit adjustments and corporate financing: Evidence from Iran. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 10: 521–43.