Accounting

Audit Clients

In the literature, most studies are about auditor independence relates to perceived independence rather than deep independence facts (Falk et al., 1995). The following problems are related to perceived independence which has been widely studied: Provisions management advisory services (MAS), competition between audits  company, audit firm size, audit assignment tenure, the nature of each conflict, the presence or absence of an audit client committee and financial condition (Gul et al., 1992. Thing. 95). Among these problems, MAS has become the most frequent researched in areas that felt independence. As stated by Knapp (1982. p. 39) felt he had independence became the focus of attention and independence of researchers at The fact is not yet included. Researchers like Knapp (1982. p. 10).

Also supports Shockley (1981. p. 785) expressed that opinion Independence is more of a public concern than it is actual independence, when he made the following statement “… for credibility ultimately depends on perception rather than on the fact of independence. “In addition, Falket al. (1995) argues that auditor independence is actually not observed ex ante (Amernic and Aranya, 1981. p. 17; Beattie et al, 1999. p. 68). The healthier the client’s financial condition, the more likely it is auditors will have a good image of them and this can make it auditors are less motivated to resist management pressure (Knapp, 1985; Kleinman et al., 1998), and vice versa auditors be more “careful” when dealing with clients with worse finances condition. A study conducted by Beattie et al. (1999) found that

Weak client financial conditions are felt by the public accountants and financial directors as factors that can be improved auditor independence. On the other hand, according to research by Beattie et al. (1999) financial journalists view weak the client’s financial condition as a factor that can threaten the auditor independence. Client have good finance conditions better able to achieve the desired results for audit conflict (Knapp 1995).

 

TR