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.

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.

Client Acceptance and Engagement Pricing following Auditor Resignations in Family Firms

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 137-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samer Khalil ◽  
Mohamad Mazboudi
Keyword(s):  
Ownership Structure ◽  
Family Firms ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Pricing Decisions ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Professional Manager ◽  
Financial Restatements ◽  
The Family ◽  
Client Acceptance

SUMMARY This paper investigates whether auditors' client acceptance and pricing decisions following the resignation of the incumbent auditor in family firms are significantly different from those in non-family firms. Relying on the auditing literature (client acceptance and audit pricing) and using insights from the agency theory, we document that successor auditors incorporate a firm's ownership structure into their acceptance and pricing decisions following the resignation of the incumbent auditor. Big 4 auditors are more likely to serve as successor auditors following auditor resignations in family firms as opposed to non-family firms. The changes in audit fees following auditor resignations in family firms, however, are significantly smaller than those in non-family firms. These results hold when we account for whether a family firm is managed by a founder, a descendant, or by a professional manager, and when we use the percentage of shares held by the family members as another proxy for family ownership. Additional analysis further demonstrates that the likelihood of financial restatements in family firms in the post-resignation period are significantly lower than those in non-family firms. Overall, our findings suggest that Big 4 auditors perceive family firms from which the incumbent auditors resigned as being less risky than their non-family counterparts.

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.

Differences in audit pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 336-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan L. Gandía ◽  
David Huguet
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Analysis ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Small And Medium Enterprises ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Middle Tier ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Medium Enterprises

PurposeDespite the extensive research on the determinants of audit pricing in both public and private settings, there is a lack of research about the differences in audit fees between voluntary audits and mandatory audits. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap.Design/methodology/approachFirst, a theoretical framework is developed to justify differences in audit pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits. Next, using a sample of Spanish private small and medium enterprises (SMEs) running from 2009 to 2014, the authors empirically test whether the fees charged for voluntary audits differ from those charged for mandatory ones. The authors also examine whether the premium observed among large auditors is persistent in the SME setting, and whether this premium differs depending on whether the audits are voluntary or mandatory.FindingsAlthough a preliminary analysis does not report significant differences in pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits, additional analyses using samples restricted by company size show that voluntary audits are charged with a premium. The authors observe a premium related to large auditors, and find no significant differences in the audit pricing of Big 4 auditors depending on the mandatory/voluntary nature of the audit, but the premium associated with Middle-Tier auditors disappears in the voluntary setting.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the previous literature by introducing the examination of differences in audit pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits. As far as the authors know, this is the first study to examine the differences in audit pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits. It also elaborates on studies on audit pricing in SMEs.

Auditors’ response to readability of financial statement notes

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-480
Author(s):  
Mahdi Salehi ◽  
Mahmoud Lari Dasht Bayaz ◽  
Shaban Mohammadi ◽  
Mohammad Seddigh Adibian ◽  
Seyed Hamed Fahimifard
Keyword(s):  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Financial Reports ◽  
Statistical Population ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Going Concern Opinion

PurposeThe main objective of the present study is to assess the potential impact of readability of financial statement notes on the auditor's report lag, audit fees and going concern opinion (GCO).Design/methodology/approachThe statistical population of this study includes all listed firms on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) for the period of 2012–2017. The systematic elimination method is used for sampling and multiple regression and EViews software are used for testing the hypothesis models.FindingsThe obtained results show that there is a significant and positive relationship between audit report lags and readability of financial statements. Moreover, it is also revealed that readability of financial statements is positively associated with audit fees. Furthermore, the findings suggest a negative correlation between readability indexes and issuing GCOs, denoting hard-to-read statements is considered as a risk factor by auditors. Finally, the observations of our robustness tests suggest that the association between audit report lag and readability of financial statements is robust.Originality/valueThis is the first conducted investigation concerning auditor's response to the readability of financial statement notes in TSE. The outcome of current paper may pave the way for revising and developing Iranian accounting standards in order to give a fairer and clearer picture of financial reports.

The effects of IFRS adoption and firm size on audit fees in financial institutions in Ghana

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-453
Author(s):  
William Coffie ◽  
Ibrahim Bedi
Keyword(s):  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Financial Services Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Ifrs Adoption ◽  
Services Industry ◽  
The Cost

Purpose This study aims to investigate the effects of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) adoption and firm size on auditors’ fees determination in the Ghanaian financial industry. Design/methodology/approach The authors use the annual report of 52 listed and non-listed firms spanning from 2003 to 2014. Guided by the hypotheses, the authors conditioned audit fees on IFRS adoption and firm size and execute robust fixed effects panel regression. Findings The results show that IFRS adoption has a positive coefficient with audit fees suggesting that the adoption of IFRS, indeed, increases the audit fees paid by banks and insurance firms, as well as the industry as a whole. The results are consistent with the idea that IFRS adoption increases auditor efforts with respect to time and complex nature of some aspect of the standards. Again, as expected, the coefficient of size is positively and significantly related to audit fees. This indicates that the size of the auditee plays a vital role in determining audit fees. Research limitations/implications The study is limited by industry (i.e. the financial services industry) and geography (i.e. Ghana). The authors propose further research that will widely consider other sectors and countries to improve the current scanty literature in this area. Besides, theoretically, the study is limited to the lending credibility theory and feels compelled to reiterate the importance of considering alternative theoretical perspective(s) in future research. Practical implications This study is significant to practitioners as it demonstrates the importance of the determinants of the auditors’ fees. It helps auditors to apply the relevant charging formula when determining audit fees, while it helps managers to improve upon the quality of reporting to control audit bill and forecasting their audit expenditure. Originality/value The results of the study extend the literature on the cost side of IFRS adoption by investigating the financial services industry and non-listed firms in a new context, i.e. a developing country where this research is uncharted. The existing studies based their analysis on either cross-section or pooled analysis and shorter post-adoption period (Cameran and Perotti, 2014). However, using an extended post-adoption period data, the authors base the study on analytical panel model, which directly examine the cost side of IFRS adoption with size as joint key explanatory variables with emphasis on financial institutions and external auditors.

Ownership structure and auditor selection

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1121-1142
Author(s):  
Curtis M. Hall ◽  
Benjamin W. Hoffman ◽  
Zenghui Liu
Keyword(s):  
Ownership Structure ◽  
Banking Industry ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Industry Expert ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Private Banks ◽  
Public Banks

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the effect that ownership structure (public vs private) has on the demand for high-quality auditors, specifically in the US banking industry. Design/methodology/approach The authors predict that public banks are more likely to hire a high-quality auditor than private banks and pay a higher audit fee premium for that high-quality auditor (due to higher agency costs, more demand for financial information and higher litigation risk). The authors analyze 2008–2014 banking data from the Federal Reserve using probit and OLS regression analysis to examine if there is a higher probability that public banks choose higher quality auditors and pay higher audit fees when they do so. Findings The results show that private banks are less likely to hire Big 4 auditors and industry-expert auditors than public banks. The authors also find that both private and public banks pay higher audit fees for Big 4 and industry-expert auditors, and that public banks pay a higher premium for Big 4 auditors and industry experts than private banks. Research limitations/implications The findings may not be fully generalizable to other types of firms, as banking is a heavily regulated and complex industry. However, inferences from this study may be generalizable to other similar industries such as insurance or health care. Practical implications The results of this paper imply that public and private banks have differing priorities when hiring their financial statement auditor. This may be of interest to investors and auditing regulators. Social implications The findings of this paper underscore the value of hiring an industry-expert auditor in an industry that is highly complex and regulated. This may be of interest to managers and policymakers. Originality/value Due to data restrictions, the emphasis of prior literature on the banking industry has been on public banks. This study is the first to analyze the differences between public and private banks’ demand for audit services.

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.

Auditors’ response to corporate fraud: evidence from audit fees and auditor turnover

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugenia Yujin Lee ◽  
Wonsuk Ha
Keyword(s):  
Least Squares ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Least Squares Estimation ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Corporate Fraud ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose This study aims to examine how auditors respond to the revelation of clients’ corporate fraud. Design/methodology/approach This study uses an ordinary least squares estimation to examine how audit fees and audit turnover change after the revelation of corporate fraud. Findings After a client discloses fraudulent activities, average audit fees significantly increase due to an increase in audit hours, rather than in audit premiums. Both new and continuing auditors increase audit hours for fraud firms, but only new auditors charge higher audit fees for the increased effort. In addition, when auditors are designated by regulators following the revelation of fraud, audit fees and premiums increase, but audit hours do not. Finally, auditor turnover becomes more frequent after the revelation of fraud. Overall, the findings suggest that auditors update their assessment of audit risks after fraud revelation and, thus, adjust their audit pricing and client acceptance decisions. Practical implications The study provides regulators and audit practitioners with insights into how to audit contract characteristics and regulatory intervention (auditor designations) affect auditors’ response to increased audit risks. Originality/value The study contributes to the auditing literature and practice by providing evidence on how auditors respond to the revelation of fraudulent activities and how their response depends on their ability to determine audit fees. Moreover, we provide novel evidence that audit contracting characteristics and regulatory requirements result in different responses of auditors toward changes in audit risks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document