Audit prices and Big 4 fee premiums: further evidence from Thailand

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thanyawee Pratoomsuwan
Keyword(s):  
Price Competition ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Using Data

Purpose Because there is mixed evidence regarding Big N fee premiums across countries, the purpose of this paper is to re-examine the phenomenon of audit price differentiations in the market for auditing services in Thailand. Although Hay et al. (2006) and Hay (2013) reviewed over 80 audit fee papers from 20 countries over 25 years, 13 of which were based in emerging economies, the understanding of the market for auditing services in Thailand remains limited. Because the Thai auditing market is also classified as a segmented market – i.e., a market that is less competitive for large-client firms and more competitive for small-client firms – this study tests audit price competition in an emerging audit market using Thailand as an example. Design/methodology/approach The traditional audit fee model is used to estimate audit fee premiums for a sample of over 300 non-financial companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand in 2011. Findings Although the market for auditing services in Thailand is consistent with that described in Ferguson et al. (2013) – in which Big N audit firms dominate only the large-client segment – the results show that Big N auditors charge higher audit fees and earn higher fee premiums compared with non-Big N auditors in both the small- and large-client segments of the audit market. Research limitations/implications The evidence from this study reveals the existence of Big N fee premiums across market segmentations. Audit price differentials between Big N and non-Big N firms in both small- and large-client market segments might concern regulators regarding competition in the audit market with respect to whether the Big N firms are charging uncompetitive audit fees. These findings also imply that audit pricing varies across countries and the Big N price deferential is typically larger in emerging markets than in more developed audit markets and that it might be inadequate to study single-country audit pricing. However, the question whether the Big N fee premium results from Big N product differentiation is not directly investigated in this study. Originality/value Because earlier studies focusing on audit fee premiums have been conducted using data from the USA and Australia, the findings add to the limited evidence regarding audit fee premiums in an emerging country such as Thailand.

Audit fee stickiness

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charl de Villiers ◽  
David Hay ◽  
Zhizi (Janice) Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Difference ◽  
One Year

Purpose – This study aims to contribute to the understanding of audit pricing and the competitiveness of the audit fee market by examining audit fee stickiness. Design/methodology/approach – The authors explore the price behavior of audit fees in response to changes in the variables that are usually seen as their determinants, such as size, complexity, and risk in order to examine audit fee stickiness and the competitiveness of the market for audit services. Findings – The authors find that audit fees are sticky, i.e. audit fees do not immediately or fully adjust to changes in their determinants. Audit fees also respond to changes leading to an increase more quickly than they respond to changes leading to a decrease. The difference between positive and negative fee adjustments declines over periods longer than one year and is no longer significant when four-year periods are considered. Research limitations/implications – The study is limited to companies in the USA from 2000 to 2008. Future research should examine this issue in other settings and periods. Practical implications – The results suggest that the audit market is competitive, at least in the medium term. Originality/value – The study helps to explain why the audit fee model does not fully explain the level of audit fees; why audit fees are more likely to be too high than too low; and why auditor switches are commonly associated with larger changes in audit fees. The findings provide evidence that may be useful to managers and audit committees when managing their audit fees, auditors when considering the risks and opportunities associated with changes in the determinants of audit fees, and regulators concerned with the competitiveness of the audit market.

Governmental customer concentration and audit pricing

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanmei Chen ◽  
Weishi Jia ◽  
Shuo Li ◽  
Zenghui Liu
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
External Monitoring ◽  
Variable Approach ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Treat All

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how the concentration of a specific customer type – governmental customer, affects the pricing of audit services in the USA. Design/methodology/approach This paper applies a standard audit pricing model by regressing audit fees on governmental customer concentration and other common determinants of audit fees. This paper also adopts an instrumental variable approach and performs propensity-score matched sample analyzes to mitigate the potential endogeneity problem. Findings Using data from major customer disclosures of US publicly listed firms from 2000 to 2014, this paper finds that governmental customer concentration is positively associated with audit fees, suggesting that a higher level of governmental customer concentration increases a firm’s audit risks and audit effort. In addition, this paper performs cross-sectional analyzes and show that the association between governmental customer concentration and audit fees is more pronounced for firms with weak internal governance, weak external monitoring and high financial risks. Originality/value This paper furthers the understanding of the interactive relationships in supply chain systems and adds new evidence to the literature on customer concentration. Prior studies on customer concentration typically treat all customer types in a uniform manner. To the knowledge, this is the first study that separates governmental customers from other types of customers in an audit pricing setting. The findings highlight the importance of examining governmental customer concentration when assessing a firm’s audit risks and audit fees.

An empirical analysis of audit pricing and auditor selection: evidence from India

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-151
Author(s):  
Arnab Bhattacharya ◽  
Pradip Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Financial Distress ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Regression Technique ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact

Purpose This paper aims to examine various factors affecting the pricing of audit services and the selection of auditors in the Indian audit market. This paper also aims to investigate the impact of financial distress conditions on the audit pricing and auditor choice decisions of a firm, particularly in the context of a developing economy. Design/methodology/approach The sample comprises 22,644 firm-years for 1,366 Indian firms from 1990 to 2015. The authors adopt ordinary least squares regression technique to model audit fee, and logistic regression technique to model auditor choice as a function of various factors relating to firm attributes and auditor characteristics. Findings This paper finds that auditors tend to charge an audit fee premium when they are affiliated to a Big 4 auditor, have industry specialization or jointly provide auditing and non-auditing services. Additionally, firms with larger boards, higher proportion of independent board of directors and CEO–Chairman separation are more likely to choose a Big 4-affiliated auditor. The results also suggest that financially distressed firms tend to pay significantly lower audit fees and are more likely to choose non-Big 4 auditors. Originality/value This paper is among the few studies which investigate how financial distress impacts the audit pricing and auditor choice decisions of a firm in the context of emerging economies. The findings of this paper raises serious concerns about the credibility of the audited financial statements and corporate governance mechanisms of firms undergoing financial distress. The empirical results of this paper have strong implications for practitioners, regulators and investors.

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.

Business strategy and tax aggressiveness in Brazil

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 522-535
Author(s):  
Antonio Lopo Martinez ◽  
Bruno Afonso Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Business Strategy ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Tax Aggressiveness ◽  
Strategy Type ◽  
Clear Result ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Reactor Types ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the relationships between company business strategy type and tax aggressiveness for companies listed on the Brazilian Bovespa stock exchange. Design/methodology/approach Following the concepts of Miles and Snow (1978, 2003), we classified company strategies into four types, analyser, defender, prospector and reactor, using data from 2012 to 2016. The authors excluded financial companies due to a differential tax regime. Next, prospector and defender companies were identified, and the relationship of these strategies with tax aggressiveness assessed using regression analysis; analyser and reactor types were not included as these are defined as a combination of the prospector and defender type, or non-strategic, respectively. To assess aggressiveness, the authors used effective tax rates on corporate profits, as well as a metric that captures tax burden in terms of all taxes paid by a company. Findings Most Brazilian companies were analysers (76.66 per cent), with prospector companies being a minority, and defenders representing a little over 21 per cent. Unlike the findings of Higgins et al. (2015), the authors found that defender companies also have a tendency to practice aggressive tax planning. Practical implications The authors found the Brazilian defender companies similar to prospectors, tended to be more tax aggressive or to take higher tax risks. Thus, findings in economies such as the USA may not be generalizable to other countries, such as Brazil, Russia, India or China (i.e. the BRICs), for example. The particularities of each country, such as ease of access to the capital market, tax deductibility of investment in research and development and legal issues must be considered before applying generalized prognostics. Originality/value This paper offers original empirical evidence from Brazil of the relationship between company strategy type and the tax aggressiveness, offering a clear result that differs in part from results from American companies. It therefore encourages further studies on this topic.

The impact of market inequality on audit price

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 1149-1172
Author(s):  
Kimberly Dunn ◽  
Mark Kohlbeck ◽  
Brian Mayhew
Keyword(s):  
Market Structure ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Opposite Pattern ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Industry Level ◽  
The Usa ◽  
National Industry ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The City

Purpose This paper aims to evaluate policymakers’ concerns about the lack of competition in highly concentrated markets for public company audits by examining the association between audit fees and the inequality of Big 4 market shares at both the USA national-industry and city-industry levels. Design/methodology/approach Using publicly available data, this paper uses regression analysis to examine publicly available data to test research hypotheses related to the association between audit market inequalities and audit fees at both the USA national-industry and city-industry levels. Findings The findings support a U-shaped association between national-industry inequality and audit fees. As inequality initially increases, fees decrease; however, as inequality becomes increasingly large fees increase. The city-industry level analysis shows the opposite pattern. The results are consistent with capacity constraints at the national-industry level that are less binding at the city-industry level. Research limitations/implications This study provides evidence that market inequality has a non-linear association with audit price and contributes to the limited findings in industrial organization research on the importance of market share inequality in highly concentrated markets. Originality/value This study provides new insights into the growing body of research on audit market structure by documenting that national-industry and city-industry analysis provides different insights into the market structure. In addition, the sample period for this study (2004-2017) addresses the General Accounting Office (GAO) concern about the lack of a stable audit market in the period it examined (GAO, 2008, p. 94) and finds evidence of market structure effects not present in the earlier GAO studies (GAO, 2003, 2008).

Auditor switching and audit fee discounting: the Iranian experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fakhroddin MohammadRezaei ◽  
Norman Mohd-Saleh
Keyword(s):  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Initial Period ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Maximum Point ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Auditor Switching ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Relative Bargaining Power ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of auditor switching on audit fee discounting in Iran. The increased competition in the Iranian audit market following audit market liberalization in 2001 has resulted in a rapid increase in auditor switching and reduces the relative bargaining power of auditors compared to the clients. It is expected that auditor switching results in fee discounting because the relative bargaining power of an auditor (client) is likely to be at the minimum (maximum) point during the initial period of engagement. Since the increased bargaining power of a client in initial year seems to be different in the case of different type of auditor switching (from a state auditor to a private and from a private auditor to another), the magnitude of fee discounting is expected to be different. Design/methodology/approach The objective is tested using a sample of 1,022 firm-year observations between 2001 and 2010. This study applies the multivariate regression model using the first difference specification of audit fee as a dependent variable. Findings Multivariate analysis reveals that auditor switching results in 14 percent of fee discounting. In addition, the results show that 18 and 13 percent of fees discounting during the initial year of engagement arise from cases of auditor switching involving a change from state auditors to private auditors, and a change from one private auditor to another, respectively. The findings support bargaining power view explanation in relation to audit fees discounting in initial year engagement. Originality/value This study is the first to examine the impact of auditor switching (and analyzed different types of auditor switching) on audit fee discounting using the bargaining power view.

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.

Offshore trading activities and audit fees: a textual approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-573
Author(s):  
Janus Jian Zhang ◽  
Yun Ke ◽  
Shuo Li ◽  
Yanan Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Risk Indicator ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Pricing Decisions ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Analysis Technique ◽  
Trading Activities ◽  
Offshore Activities

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether and how auditors’ pricing decisions are affected by their clients’ offshore trading activities, which are comprehensively measured through a textual analysis technique. Design/methodology/approach The authors identified a sample of 32,264 firm-year observations from publicly listed firms in the US during 2004 to 2015. The authors then used multivariate regressions to examine the effect of offshore trading activities on audit fees. In the regression models, the authors also control for a series of factors that are documented to influence audit pricing. Findings The authors find that offshore trading activities are positively associated with audit fees, suggesting that offshore activities are likely to increase a client firm’s business risk and/or the extent of client complexity. The authors also find that auditors charge higher audit fees only to firms purchasing inputs produced by their own assets overseas but not to firms buying inputs produced by local firms overseas. Moreover, the association between offshore trading activities and audit fees is more pronounced for offshore activities that are in countries with high trading centrality, for Big 4 auditors, or for auditors with industry expertise. Originality/value This paper extends the literature on the consequences of offshore activities by providing evidence on how auditors react to offshore activities. Moreover, it contributes to the audit fee literature. Prior studies largely focus on client-level determinants, while this study complements this line of literature by identifying firm’s offshore activities as an important risk indicator, which is perceived by auditors in their pricing decisions. A firm’s offshore activity is unique because the risk implication of the offshore activities depends not only on factors within the firm, but also on factors outside the firm in foreign nations.

How do audit fees change? Effects of firm size and section 404(b) compliance

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-437
Author(s):  
Alexey Lyubimov
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Control Effectiveness ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Second Tier ◽  
Changes Over Time ◽  
Over Time

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of the size of the audit firm and compliance with Section 404(b) on how audit fees change over time. Design/methodology/approach This study uses panel data and an OLS regression to examine the relationship between audit fee changes, firms’ size and Section 404(b) compliance. Findings Section 404(b)-compliant companies experience a larger change in audit fees if they are audited by Big 4 firms than second-tier firms. Second-tier audit firms increase the fees primarily for the companies which do not comply with Section 404(b). Practical implications Regulators have been concerned with the Big 4 fee premium for four decades. This study informs regulators that the Big 4 continue increasing their fees at a higher rate than second-tier firms for their Section 404(b)-compliant clients (even though recent research shows that second-tier firms have increased quality to match the Big 4). This suggests that the Big 4 fee premium increases for this subset of clients, adding to the regulatory concerns. Originality/value While prior research has established the existence of the Big 4 fee premium, little is known about how this premium changes over time. Prior research shows that audit fees increase when internal controls are weak; however, little is known about how Section 404(b) compliance (once control effectiveness is controlled) affects fee changes. This paper addresses these voids in research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document