This study examines the effect of the type of accounting service (audit, review, compilation, and no report), the accounting firm providing the service, the capital structure of the borrower, and the bank size on loan officers' lending decisions. The findings show the level of service had an impact on the amount of the loan, but not on the interest rate awarded nor on the decision whether or not to grant a line of credit. The accounting firm (large international with good reputation versus local with unknown reputation) providing the accounting service, however, did not significantly affect the bank loan decision. Capital structure of the borrower had a significant impact on the decision to grant a line of credit, the loan size, and the interest rate. In addition, the loan size and interest rate were significantly influenced by the size of the bank granting the loan.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenL.SaundersA.. 1986. “The Large-Small Bank Dichotomy in the Federal Fund Market.”Journal of Banking and Finance10:219–230.
2.
ArnoldJ. L.DiamondM. A.. 1981. “The Market for Compilation, Review, and Audit Services.”Auditing Research Monograph No. 4.New York: AICPA.
3.
BakerW. M.1990. “How Non-Gaap Financial Statements Affect Loan Officers and Borrowers.”Journal of Commercial Bank Lending (May): 23–29.
4.
BandyopadhyayS. P.FrancisJ. R.. 1995. “The Economic Effect of Differing Levels of Auditor Assurance on Bankers' Lending Decisions.”Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences16, no. 3 (September): 238–249.
5.
BlackwellD. W.NolandT. R.WintersD. B.. 1998. “The Value of Auditor Assurance: Evidence from Loan Pricing.”Journal of Accounting Research36:57–70.
6.
BoydD. T.BoydS. C.BoydW. L.. 2000–2001. “A ‘Misunderstanding Gap’ between Users and Preparers.”National Public Accountant45 (December-January): 56–60.
7.
CarterC. E.1984. “Impact on the Lending Decision of the Auditor's Review Report on Financial Forecasts—An Empirical Investigation.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
8.
Committee on Basic Auditing Concepts. 1973. “A Statement of Basic Auditing Concepts.”Studies in Account Research #6.Sarasota, Fla.: American Accounting Association.
9.
DeAngeloL. E.1981. “Auditor Size and Audit Quality.”Journal of Accounting and Economics (November): 183–199.
10.
DopuchN.SimunicD.. 1980. “The Nature of Competition in the Auditing Profession: A Descriptive and Normative View.”In Regulation and the Accounting Profession. Edited by BuckleyJ. W.WestonJ. F., pp. 77–94. Belmont, Calif.: Lifetime Learning Publications.
11.
EttredgeM.ShaneP.SmithD.. 1988. “Audit Firm Size and the Association Between Reported Earnings and Security Returns.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 29–42.
12.
HicksM.1982. “A Study of Alternative Auditor's Reports and Lending Behavior,” D.B.A. dissertation, University of Maryland.
13.
HoughtonK. A.1983. “Audit Reports: Their Impact on the Loan Decision Process and Outcome: An Experiment.”Accounting and Business Research (Winter): 15–20.
14.
International Federation of Accountants.1997. IFAC Handbook 1997: Technical Pronouncements. New York: International Federation of Accountants.
15.
JohnsonD. A.PanyK.. 1984. “Forecasts, Auditor Review, and Bank Loan Decisions.”Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 731–743.
16.
JohnsonD. A.PanyK.WhiteR.. 1983. “Audit Reports and the Loan Decision: Actions and Perceptions.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 38–51.
17.
KleinbaumD. G.KupperL. L.. 1978. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods.North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press.
18.
LibbyR.1979. “Bankers' and Auditors' Perceptions of the Message Communicated by the Audit Report.”Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 99–122.
19.
McKinleyS.PanyK.ReckersP.. 1985. “Examination of the Influence of CPA Firm Type, Size, and MAS Provision on Loan Officer Decisions and Perceptions.”Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 887–896.
20.
MelnikA.PlautS.. 1986. “Loan Commitment Contracts, Terms of Lending, and Credit Allocation.”Journal of Finance (June): 425–435.
21.
MianS. L.SmithC. W.Jr. 1992. “Accounts Receivable Management Policy: Theory and Evidence.”Journal of Finance (March): 169–200.
22.
MillerJ. R.ReedS. A.StrawserR. H.. 1993. “Bank Loan Officers' Perceptions of the New Audit Report.”Accounting Horizons (March): 39–52.
23.
NairR. D.RittenbergL.. 1987. “Messages Perceived from Audit Review, and Compilation Reports: Extension to More Diverse Groups.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Fall): 15–38.
24.
NgD. S.1978. “An Information Economics Analysis of Financial Reporting and External Auditing.”Accounting Review (October): 910–920.
25.
NicholsD. R.SmithD. B.. 1983. “Auditor Credibility and Auditor Changes.”Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 534–544.
26.
OppenheimA. N.1966. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books.
27.
PanyK.ReckersP. M. J.. 1987. “Within-Vs. Between-Subjects Experimental Designs: A Study of Demand Effects.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 39–53.
28.
PillsburyC. M.1985. “Limited Assurance Engagements.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 63–79.
29.
RobertsD. M.1978. Statistical Auditing. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
30.
StrupeckC. D.FiglewiczR.. 1984. “Compilation and Review Services: Are They Accepted by Bankers for Loan Decisions?”Michigan CPA (Spring): 4–8.
31.
WallaceW. A.1978. “The Impact of Selected Financial Reporting Practices and the Nature of the Audit Opinion upon Municipal Interest Cost and Bond Rating.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.
32.
WilsonE. R.1982. “An Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Accounting and Reporting Practices on Municipal Bond Ratings and Borrowing Costs.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri.
33.
WrightM. E.DavidsonR. A.. 2000. “The Effect of Auditor Attestation and Tolerance for Ambiguity on Commercial Lending Decisions.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 67–81.
