Association Between Discretionary Accruals and Audit Fees and the Role of the Size of the Audit Firm: European Evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria I. Kyriakou ◽  
Konstantina Tsoktouridou
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Audit Firm

The Market for Audit Services: The Role of Market Power

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-8
Author(s):  
Tracy Ti Gu ◽  
Dan A. Simunic ◽  
Michael T. Stein ◽  
Minlei Ye ◽  
Ping Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Local Market ◽  
Capital Investments ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Subject

ABSTRACT The market for audit services has been the subject of extensive academic research since the 1970s. The prevailing view is that audit markets are characterized by tiers of suppliers (Big 4 versus non-Big 4, and industry specialists versus non-specialists) where the upper tier suppliers produce and sell a systematically higher level of assurance, while competition among suppliers within tiers is essentially perfect and a uniform price prevails within the submarkets. We discuss three papers that challenge this orthodoxy. These papers argue and find that the price of an audit is essentially unique to each (auditor, client) pair and that this price depends on both audit firm size and client size. Furthermore, audit firm size is linked with the firm's capital investments, which enhance auditor efficiency and market power. We conclude that audit markets are atomistic and that local market power is an important determinant of audit prices and audit fees.

Small Audit Firm Membership in Associations, Networks, and Alliances: Implications for Audit Quality and Audit Fees

2015 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 767-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth L. Bills ◽  
Lauren M. Cunningham ◽  
Linda A. Myers
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Association Member ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Control Samples

ABSTRACT In this study, we examine the benefits of membership in an accounting firm association, network, or alliance (collectively referred to as “an association”). Associations provide member accounting firms with numerous benefits, including access to the expertise of professionals from other independent member firms, joint conferences and technical trainings, assistance in dealing with staffing and geographic limitations, and the ability to use the association name in marketing materials. We expect these benefits to result in higher-quality audits and higher audit fees (or audit fee premiums). Using hand-collected data on association membership, we find that association member firms conduct higher-quality audits than nonmember firms, where audit quality is proxied for by fewer Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection deficiencies and fewer financial statement misstatements, as well as less extreme absolute discretionary accruals and lower positive discretionary accruals. We also find that audit fees are higher for clients of member firms than for clients of nonmember firms, suggesting that clients are willing to pay an audit fee premium to engage association member audit firms. Finally, we find that member firm audits are of similar quality to a size-matched sample of Big 4 audits, but member firm clients pay lower fee premiums than do Big 4 clients. Our inferences are robust to the use of company size-matched control samples, audit firm size-matched control samples, propensity score matching, two-stage least squares regression, and to analyses that consider changes in association membership. Our findings should be of interest to regulators because they suggest that association membership assists small audit firms in overcoming barriers to auditing larger audit clients. In addition, our findings should be informative to audit committees when making auditor selection decisions, and to investors and accounting researchers interested in the relation between audit firm type and audit quality.

The Effect of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation on Audit Quality and Audit Fees: Empirical Evidence from the Korean Audit Market

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 167-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soo Young Kwon ◽  
Youngdeok Lim ◽  
Roger Simnett
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Mandatory Rotation ◽  
Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

SUMMARY: Using a unique setting in which mandatory audit firm rotation was required from 2006–2010, and in which both audit fees and audit hours were disclosed (South Korea), this study provides empirical evidence of the economic impact of this policy initiative on audit quality, and the associated implications for audit fees. This study compares both pre- and post-policy implementation and, after the implementation of the policy, mandatory long-tenure versus voluntary short-tenure rotation situations. Where audit firms were mandatorily rotated post-policy, we observe that audit quality (measured as abnormal discretionary accruals) did not significantly change compared with pre-2006 long-tenure audit situations and voluntary post-rotation situations. Audit fees in the post-regulation period for mandatorily rotated engagements are significantly larger than in the pre-regulation period, but are discounted compared to audit fees for post-regulation continuing engagements. We also find that the observed increase in audit fees and audit hours in the post-regulation period extends beyond situations where the audit firm was mandatorily rotated, suggesting that the introduction of mandatory audit firm rotation had a much broader impact than the specific instances of mandatory rotation. Data Availability: Most of the financial data used in the present study are available from the KIS Value Database. The data for audit hours and fees were drawn from statements of operating results filed with the Financial Supervisory Services (FSS) in Korea.

How Small Audit Firm Membership in Associations, Networks, and Alliances Can Impact Audit Quality and Audit Fees

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. P29-P35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth L. Bills ◽  
Lauren M. Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Association Network ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditor Selection

SUMMARY This article summarizes “Small Audit Firm Membership in Associations, Networks, and Alliances: Implications for Audit Quality and Audit Fees” (Bills, Cunningham, Myers 2015), which examines the association between small audit firm membership in an association, network, or alliance (collectively referred to as an “association”), audit quality, and audit fees. We find that small audit firm association members provide higher-quality audits and charge higher fees than small audit firms that are not members of an association. When compared to similarly sized clients audited by the Big 4, we find that member firms provide audit quality similar to the Big 4 firms, but member firms charge lower fees than their Big 4 counterparts. We caution that these results may not be generalizable to the largest Big 4 clients for which there is not a similarly sized client audited by our sample of small audit firms. We infer audit quality from Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspections, restatement announcements, and discretionary accruals. Our findings should be of interest to audit committees in charge of auditor selection and to small audit firms interested in the benefits of association membership.

Who Did the Audit? Audit Quality and Disclosures of Other Audit Participants in PCAOB Filings

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (5) ◽  
pp. 1939-1967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Callaway Dee ◽  
Ayalew Lulseged ◽  
Tianming Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Reaction ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Multivariate Model ◽  
Significant Decline ◽  
Earnings Response Coefficients ◽  
Absolute Value ◽  
Earnings Response ◽  
First Time

ABSTRACT We empirically test whether audit quality is affected when part of an SEC issuer's audit is outsourced to auditors other than the principal auditor (“participating auditors”). We find a significantly negative market reaction and a significant decline in earnings response coefficients (ERCs) for experimental issuers disclosed for the first time as having participating auditors involved in their audits. However, we find no market reaction and no decline in ERCs for a matching sample of issuers that are not disclosed as using participating auditors, nor for issuers disclosed for the second or third time as using participating auditors. We also find actual audit quality as measured by absolute value of performance-matched discretionary accruals is lower for the experimental issuers, although we find no difference in audit fees paid by the experimental and matching issuers in a multivariate model. Our findings suggest that the PCAOB's proposed rule requiring disclosure of the use of other auditors in addition to the principal auditor would provide information useful to investors in assessing audit quality for SEC issuers.

Fee Discounting and Audit Quality Following Audit Firm and Audit Partner Changes: Chinese Evidence

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 1517-1546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua-Wei Huang ◽  
K Raghunandan ◽  
Ting-Chiao Huang ◽  
Jeng-Ren Chiou
Keyword(s):  
Earnings Management ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Significant Attention

ABSTRACT Issues related to low-balling of initial year audit fees and the resultant impact on audit quality have received significant attention from regulators in many countries. Using 9,684 observations from China during the years 2002–2011, we find that there is a significant initial year audit fee discount following an audit firm change when both of the signing audit partners are different from the prior year. The evidence is mixed if one or both of the signing partners from the prior year also moves with the client to the new audit firm. We find evidence of audit fee discounting in our analysis of fee levels, but not in our analysis of changes in audit fees from the prior year. Sanctions for problem audits and greater earnings management are more likely when there is an audit firm change that involves two new signing partners together with initial year audit fee discounting.

CEO and CFO Equity Incentives and the Pricing of Audit Services

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Anthony Billings ◽  
Xinghua Gao ◽  
Yonghong Jia
Keyword(s):  
Positive Association ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Pricing Decisions ◽  
Equity Incentives ◽  
Accounting Scandals ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Distinctive Role

SUMMARY: The alleged perverse role of managerial incentives in accounting scandals, and the distinctive role of auditors in identifying and intervening in attempted earnings manipulation, highlight the importance of explicitly considering executive incentive plans by auditors in the auditing process. By empirically testing auditors' responses to CEO/CFO equity incentives in planning and pricing decisions using data from 2002 through 2009, we document compelling evidence that CFO equity incentives are positively associated with audit fees and CEO equity incentives are not statistically related to audit fees, suggesting that auditors perceive heightened audit risk associated with CFO equity incentives. Our further analyses reveal that the positive association between CFO equity incentives and audit fees is more pronounced in firms with weak internal controls, indicating heightened risk associated with CFO equity incentives in this setting perceived by auditors. JEL Classifications: G30, G34, M42, M52.

Earnings Management, Litigation Risk, and Asymmetric Audit Fee Responses

2006 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. Abbott ◽  
Susan Parker ◽  
Gary F. Peters
Keyword(s):  
Earnings Management ◽  
High Growth ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Growth Firms ◽  
Price Earnings Ratio ◽  
Year 2000 ◽  
Conservative Bias

This study examines the association between audit fees and earnings management, using publicly available fee data. We hypothesize that, due to asymmetric litigation effects, audit fees decrease (increase) with a client's risk of income-decreasing (increasing) earnings management risk. We also hypothesize that the positive relation between income-increasing earnings management risk and audit fees is heightened for clients that are high-growth firms. We test our hypotheses with a sample of 429 public, non-regulated, Big 5 audited companies, using fee data for the year 2000. We find that downward earnings management risk, as estimated by negative (i.e., income-decreasing) discretionary accruals, is associated with lower audit fees. We also document that upward earnings management risk, as estimated by positive discretionary accruals, is associated with higher audit fees and that the interaction of this risk with an industry-adjusted price-earnings ratio has an incrementally significant, positive effect on fees. We interpret our findings as consistent with a conservative bias on the part of auditors. The conservative bias arises from asymmetric litigation risk in which income-increasing discretionary accruals exhibit greater expected litigation costs than income-decreasing discretionary accruals (Simunic and Stein 1996; Palmrose and Scholz 2004; Palmrose et al. 2004; Richardson et al. 2002; Heninger 2001).

The Effect of Office Changes within Audit Firms on Clients' Audit Quality and Audit Fees

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-99
Author(s):  
Carl W. Hollingsworth ◽  
Terry L. Neal ◽  
Colin D. Reid
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Additional Analysis ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Audit Partner Rotation

SUMMARY While prior research has examined audit firm and audit partner rotation, we have little evidence on the impact of within-firm engagement team disruptions on the audit. To examine these disruptions, we identify a unique sample of companies where the audit firm issuing office changed but the audit firm did not change and investigate the effect of these changes on the audit. Our results indicate that companies that have a change in their audit firm's issuing office exhibit a decrease in audit quality and an increase in audit fees. In additional analysis, we partition office changes into two groups—client driven changes and audit firm driven changes. This analysis reveals that client driven changes are more likely to result in a higher audit fee while audit quality is unchanged. Conversely, audit firm driven changes do not result in a higher audit fee but do experience a decrease in audit quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document