Auditor specialization, perceived audit quality, and audit fees in the local government audit market

2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 705-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Lowensohn ◽  
Laurence E. Johnson ◽  
Randal J. Elder ◽  
Stephen P. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Auditor Specialization ◽  
Government Audit

Audit partner specialization and audit fees

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 513-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert L. Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Least Squares Regression ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Us ◽  
Auditor Specialization ◽  
Office Level

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine partner specialization effects on audit fees in the US audit market. Design/methodology/approach – This study exploits the unique environment created from the demise of Andersen to examine the effect of partner specialization on audit fees in the US audit market. An ordinary least squares regression was estimated from a sample of ex-Andersen clients that assumingly followed their ex-Andersen audit partner to the new audit firm. Findings – The results show significant positive relations for both audit partner- and office-level specialization and audit fees and suggest that auditor specialization at both the partner- and local office-level demand a fee premium in the US audit markets. Furthermore, the results do not show a significant difference between partner- and office-level specialization effects on audit fees. Originality/value – This study contributes to the audit quality literature by examining the effects of auditor specialization at both the office and partner levels on audit fees within a developed market. The results of this study should be of interest to academics, investors and regulators and help them in their assessments of audit quality.

scholarly journals Audit Firm Rotation, Auditor Specialization, and Audit Quality in the Municipal Audit Context

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randal J. Elder ◽  
Suzanne Lowensohn ◽  
Jacqueline L. Reck
Keyword(s):  
Mediation Analysis ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Mandatory Rotation ◽  
Auditor Specialization ◽  
Government Audit

ABSTRACT The topic of audit firm rotation has been debated internationally for several decades. To inform the debate, we study the effects of audit firm rotation policies on audit quality in a government audit market. Using audit firm rotation data and audit quality measures from the Florida government audit market, a setting where procurement policies vary, we find that rotation policies are indirectly associated with higher audit quality. In particular, mediation analysis suggests that the consequences of policies that encourage Florida municipalities to consider rotation impact audit quality by encouraging the use of auditors that specialize in governmental audits, rather than auditor independence, which is frequently argued to support mandatory rotation.

Spatial Competition in Local Audit Markets and the Fallout on Deloitte from the 2007 PCAOB Censure

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff P. Boone ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Spatial Competition ◽  
Spatial Location ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Face ◽  
Market Leader

SUMMARY We examine whether Deloitte's spatial location in local audit markets affected the firm's adverse fallout—in terms of decreased ability to retain new clients and maintain audit fees—from the 2007 PCAOB censure. We motivate our inquiry by the notion that auditor-client alignment and auditor-closest-competitor distance can help differentiate the incumbent Big 4 auditor from other Big 4 auditors and thus provide market power, i.e., inhibit clients from shopping for another supplier because of the lack of a similar Big 4 provider in the local audit market. Consequently, it seems reasonable that the increase in switching risk and loss of fee growth suffered by Deloitte following the 2007 PCAOB censure will be lower in local markets where Deloitte was the market leader and its market share distance from its closest competitor was greater. Our findings suggest that the decline in Deloitte's audit fee growth rate following the 2007 PCAOB censure was concentrated in the pharmaceutical industry, although the client loss rate appears to have occurred more broadly (across all cities and industries). Collectively, our findings suggest that audit quality issues override auditor market power, i.e., differentiation does not provide Big 4 firms market power in the face of adverse regulatory action. JEL Classifications: G18; L51; M42; M49.

Audit Market Concentration, Audit Fees, and Audit Quality: Evidence from China

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Chiao Huang ◽  
Hsihui Chang ◽  
Jeng-Ren Chiou
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Earnings Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Legal Environment ◽  
Positive Relation ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Lower Likelihood

SUMMARY We investigate the effects of audit market concentration on audit fees and audit quality in China, where competition is intense and the legal environment is relatively weak compared with developed countries. Analyzing 12,334 firm-year observations for the period 2001 to 2011, we find a significant positive relation between concentration and audit fees. Path analysis shows that concentration improves client earnings quality and reduces the need for auditors to issue modified audit opinions through increased audit fees. Additional analysis indicates that the increased audit fees and client earnings quality resulting from increased concentration are associated with a lower likelihood of executives and auditors being sanctioned by regulators for audit failures. Together, our results suggest that concentration improves audit quality indirectly through increased audit fees and this positive indirect effect offsets the negative direct effect of concentration on audit quality. By separating the direct and the indirect effect of concentration on audit quality, our study would explain why previous studies that do not have a separation document mixed evidence. Our findings inform regulators that actions taken to eliminate the indirect effect of concentration, for example restricting the upper bound of audit fees, could produce unintended outcomes such as decreased audit quality.

Industry specialization and audit fees: a meta-analytic approach

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina de Fuentes ◽  
Eva Sierra
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Analysis Techniques ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Regulatory Bodies ◽  
Auditor Specialization

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the literature that links auditor’s industry specialization (AIS) and audit fees (AFs) in order to clarify the puzzle of published results and provide overall conclusions that would help in future research. Design/methodology/approach To achieve this goal, the authors applied meta-analysis techniques in order to summarize, quantify and evaluate the published data related to the association between AIS and AF. Findings The meta-results are more robust when the proxy for AIS is the audit firm’s market share above 20 percent or the audit firm is jointly the national and city leader. For US-based studies, results are homogeneous in the post-SOX period. This is likely due to the higher demand for specialized auditors. The authors found positive and homogeneous results in the upper and lower market segment, which led to the conclusion that the bargaining power of the big auditees does not fully counteract the higher auditor specialization costs. Although the authors identified a publication selection bias, a specialization coefficient of around 2.0 percent was estimated. Originality/value The conclusions are relevant for those researchers that would benefit from a structured and systematic review of the published results. The outcomes help to understand the somehow contradictory empirical evidence and to provide solid foundations for future hypothesis developments. This contribution is also relevant for the regulatory bodies, always watchful of audit market behavior and the evolution of audit prices.

Does Audit Fee Homogeneity Exist? Premiums and Discounts Attributable to Individual Partners

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart D. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Homogeneity Assumption ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Made In

SUMMARY This paper investigates the implied assumption, made in many audit fee determination studies, that, within a given audit firm, all partners produce a statistically identical level of audit quality and earn a statistically identical level of audit fees. This is referred to as the “homogeneity assumption.” However, this is contradicted by the individual auditor behavioral literature, which shows that different individual auditor characteristics can have an impact on audit quality. Given the fact that audit partners differ in their quality, this paper hypothesizes that different audit partners will be able to earn differing levels of fees. This hypothesis is tested by estimating an audit fee model using data from 822 Australian publicly listed companies for the year 2005. Australia is an ideal audit market for this research, as the disclosure of the name of the audit engagement partner in the audit report is mandatory. The empirical results indicate that individual audit partners earn individual audit fee premiums (or discounts) that are not explainable by the audit firms of which they are members. Data Availability: All data have been extracted from publicly available sources.

Audit Market Structure and Audit Pricing

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Daniel Eshleman ◽  
Bradley P. Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
First Year ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The U.S

SYNOPSIS Extant literature finds mixed evidence on the association between audit market concentration and audit fees. We re-examine this issue using a large sample of U.S. audit clients covering 90 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) spanning 2000–2013. We find that audit market concentration is associated with significantly higher audit fees, consistent with the concerns of regulators and managers. We also find that increases in audit market concentration are associated with fewer initial engagement fee discounts (i.e., reduced lowballing), particularly for non-Big 4 clients. We reconcile our findings with those of prior research and find that our divergent findings are attributable to controls for MSA fixed effects. In supplemental analyses, we find that audit market concentration is associated with higher audit quality. We also find that concentration is associated with higher audit quality for first-year engagements, but only if the auditor does not lowball on the engagement. Our results are relevant to the ongoing debate regarding the consequences of increased concentration within the U.S. audit market (GAO 2003, 2008). JEL Classifications: M41; M42; L13.

scholarly journals Abnormal Audit Fees and Audit Quality: Evidence from the Korean Audit Market

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-60
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Behrend ◽  
Sarfraz Khan ◽  
Young Woo Ko ◽  
Sung-Jin Park
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Earnings Forecasts ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Confounding Effect ◽  
Public Firms ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Analyst Earnings ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Quality Evidence

ABSTRACT Do abnormally high or low audit fees reflect audit quality? In this paper, we re-examine this issue after controlling for the confounding effect of audit hours by using a sample of public firms in the Korean audit market, which publicly discloses both audit fees and audit hour information. While we do not find a significant association between abnormally high audit fees and audit quality, we find that abnormally low audit fees are associated with larger discretionary accruals and a higher likelihood of meeting or beating analyst earnings forecasts. Further, we find that the relationship between abnormally low audit fees and audit quality indicators persists regardless of the level of audit hours. To the extent that audit hours represent audit effort, these findings suggest that greater audit effort alone may not lead to higher audit quality as fee pressure from abnormally low fees may discourage the provision of high-quality audit services. JEL Classifications: M42; M48.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document