Public Accountants’ Perceptions Of The Acceptability Of Earnings Management Practices Through The Employment Of GAAP In The Post-Sox Period

Over fifteen years ago, Martens and McEnroe (1992) conducted a behavioral study involving earnings management through the use of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Their findings indicated that auditors issued unqualified audit opinions on those financial statements and perceived little risk to litigation as a result. A decade later they conducted a similar study (Martens and McEnroe 2002) with the expectation that increased attention to earnings management by then chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Arthur Levitt, would reduce auditors’ perceptions that the letter of GAAP is in itself an aegis or “safe harbor” against litigation. Although the authors found that auditors had become more conservative, they still issued unqualified opinions on financial statements in which transactions were reported in their form rather than their substance. Given the accounting scandals of Enron and WorldCom, among others, and the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in 2002, especially with its officers’ certification requirements, it was posited that auditors would exhibit a much more conservative approach than in either of the two previous studies. The results indicate that although auditors are more conservative than in the 1992 study, they still allow clients to engage in earnings management practices through the use of GAAP by issuing unqualified audit opinions on their financial statements