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.

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.

The impact of non-timely 10-Q filings and audit firm size on audit fees

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany Chiu ◽  
Feiqi Huang ◽  
Yue Liu ◽  
Miklos A. Vasarhelyi
Keyword(s):  
Regression Model ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Prior studies suggest that non-timely 10-Q filings indicate higher potential risks than non-timely 10-K filings. Furthermore, larger audit firms tend to be more risk-averse and conservative about reporting. Inspired by these research streams, this paper aims to investigate the influence of non-timely 10-Q filings on audit fees and the impact of audit firm size on this association. Design/methodology/approach The cross-sectional audit fee regression model used in this study is similar to that used in prior audit fee research (Simunic, 1980; Francis et al., 2005; Hay et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2013). The model includes the following five major characteristics that would influence auditors’ fee decisions: auditee size (LNAT), complexity (REIVAT, FOREIGN, SEG), financial condition (LOSS, ROA, GROWTH, ZSCORE), special events (ICW, RESTATE, INITIAL, GC) and auditor type (BIG4). To examine the effect of non-timely 10-Q filings on audit fees, the variable NT10Q is included in the audit fee model. Findings The results indicate that when both non-timely 10-K and non-timely 10-Q filings are included in the regression model, only non-timely 10-Q filings are significantly associated with higher audit fees, suggesting that the presence of non-timely 10-Q filings signals more serious underlying problem than non-timely 10-K filings in the audit fees decision processes. In addition, we find that audit fees for firms audited by Big 4 auditors are 26.4 per cent higher when those firms file non-timely 10-Q reports, whereas there is no significant association between non-timely 10-Q filings and audit fees for firms audited by non-Big 4 auditors. Practical implications As no attention has been paid to the investigation of the impact of non-timely 10-Q filings on audit fees, with the aim of filling the gap of this specific research area, this study examines the association between non-timely 10-Q filings and audit fees and the influence of audit firm size on this association. Originality/value The contribution of this paper is threefold: first, it is the first study to examine the association between non-timely 10-Q filings and audit fees. The results show that non-timely 10-Q filings are a better and earlier indicator of audit risk than non-timely 10-K filings. Second, the results reveal that the relationship between non-timely 10-Q filings and audit fees is affected by audit firm size. Specifically, Big 4 auditors tend to charge higher audit fees in the presence of non-timely 10-Q filings, reflecting that they are more sensitive to audit risk than smaller audit firms are. Third, an examination of the quarterly effect of non-timely 10-Q filings on audit fees indicates a stronger effect from the first quarter’s non-timely 10-Q filings, compared to the second or third quarter.

scholarly journals Audit fee discounting in the post-SOX environment

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (7) ◽  
pp. 715-730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin W. Hoffman ◽  
Albert L. Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Positive Association ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Least Squares Regression ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Significant Positive Association ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Sensitivity Tests ◽  
Audit Fee

Purpose This paper aims to investigate whether the expected implementation of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX 404(b)) (the integrated audit requirement) caused auditors to discount their audit fees for non-accelerated filers in anticipation of expected increased future economic rents (DeAngelo, 1981) from those clients. Design/methodology/approach This paper predicts that auditors charged their non-accelerated filer clients lower audit fees during the years 2005-2007 (in anticipation of increased expected future economic rents from the implementation of the SOX 404(b) requirement) compared with the years 2010-2012 (when it had been determined that non-accelerated filers were permanently exempt from complying with SOX 404(b)). The authors use ordinary least squares regression analysis to examine whether audit fees increased significantly for non-accelerated filers after the permanent exemption announcement. Findings The results show a significant positive association between the exemption announcement and audit fees, supporting the theory that auditors discounted their audit fees for non-accelerated filers in the pre-exemption announcement period. This finding is robust when sensitivity tests are used. Practical implications The findings of audit fee discounting literature related to the post-SOX period are mixed. This study adds to this stream of literature by supporting the notion that audit fee discounting is being practiced post-SOX and is a potential unintended consequence of SOX 404 and the exemption. Thus, investors will be interested in the results of this paper when making their investment decisions with regard to non-accelerated filers. Social implications The results of this paper show that, even in the post-SOX environment, auditors will employ the use of audit fee discounting if a change in regulation incentivizes it. This commentary on the present state of the audit pricing market should be of interest to audit pricing policymakers. Originality/value This paper is one of the first to study audit fee discounting outside the realm of initial audit engagements.

Different tenure phases of executives and audit fees

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachana Kalelkar ◽  
Qiao Xu
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Chief Financial Officers ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Least Squares Regression ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The authors investigate whether the different tenure phases of executives have a differential effect on audit pricing. Two alternate views – career concern and power – can explain the effect of executives’ tenure on audit pricing. This paper aims to determine, which viewpoint dominates in explaining the relationship between audit pricing and executive tenure phases. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 11,198 firm-year observations from 2007 to 2016, the authors adopt an ordinary least squares regression model to assess the impact of the middle and long phases of executives’ tenure on audit fees. Findings Audit fees are significantly lower when executives enter the middle and long phases of tenure. The reduction in audit fees is greatest as both chief executive officers and chief financial officers enter the long tenure phase. Although audit fees gradually decrease as executive tenure is extended, they start increasing two years before the end of executive tenure. Furthermore, the negative association between the executive tenure phase and audit fees is greater when the executive is appointed externally. Finally, the long phase of executive tenure also mitigates the positive relationship between audit fees and internal control weaknesses. Research limitations/implications This study is based on US data. Future research may extend this study to other countries. Practical implications The findings are important to firms, practitioners and academicians, particularly, as the length of tenure of top executives has increased in recent years. By documenting that executives’ middle and long tenure phases reduce audit fees, the findings highlight the importance of maintaining executives in the firm. Finally, the findings have implications for investors, policymakers and auditors to identify companies with high audit risk. Originality/value This study is the first to document the impact of executives’ middle and long tenure phases on audit fees.

Impact of firm’s specific factors on audit fee of quoted consumer goods firms

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Wasiu Ajani Musa ◽  
Ramat Titilayo Salman ◽  
Ibrahim Olayiwola Amoo ◽  
Muhammed Lawal Subair
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Goods ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
P Value ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Ifrs Adoption ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
The Impact

Greater pricing presume on audit service has been put by the regulations of the auditing and accounting practices for the disclosure of audit fees, since audit fee is directly related to audit quality. However, the audit fees perceived by the client is often different from the amount charged by the auditors. Hence, this study investigated the impact of firm-specific characteristics on audit fees of quoted consumer goods firms in Nigeria using a purposive sampling technique. Secondary data were obtained from annual reports of the companies for the period from 2009-2016. The empirical result from Breusch-Pagan Lagrange Multiplier Test (BP-LM) produced a chi-square value of 13.94 with p-value of 0.0001 indicating that pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) will not be appropriate for the study. The Hausman test showed a chi-square of 23.55 with a p-value of 0.001 indicating that the null hypothesis is strongly rejected. Thus, the only estimate from the fixed effect model was interpreted to explain the relationship between firm-specific characteristics and audit fees of quoted consumer goods firms in Nigeria. The result revealed that auditee size, auditee risk, auditee profitability and IFRS adoption are the firm specific characteristics that impact on audit fees with only auditee size and IFRS adoption being positively related to audit fees while the other factors are negatively related to audit fees. Based on this finding, this study concluded that the firm’s specific factors are the major drivers of audit fees in Nigeria consumer goods firms. This study recommends among others that companies should implement corporate governance principles that address issues relating to board independence and committee sizes to guide activities in the consumer goods sector since profitability behave negatively with audit fees.

Investigating the impact of audit features on money laundering

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 913-930
Author(s):  
Shaban Mohammadi ◽  
Nader Naghshbandi ◽  
Zahra Moridahmadibezdi
Keyword(s):  
Money Laundering ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Statistical Population ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of the present study is to investigate the impact of audit features, including audit quality, audit fees and auditor tenure on money laundering in Iranian stock companies. Design/methodology/approach This research is descriptive-correlational and applied in terms of purpose. To evaluate the audit features, variables including audit quality, audit fee and auditor tenure were used. The statistical population of this study includes all companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange and the research period from 2012 to 2018. A sample of 150 companies was selected by the screening method. In this study, logistic regression and Eviews 10 software were used for data analysis and hypothesis testing. Findings The results showed that variables including audit quality, normal audit fee and auditor tenure have a significant effect on money laundering. Originality/value Observing money laundering rules and regulations for businesses involves is a critical issue. In auditing the financial statements of the business units subject to these laws, the auditor reviews their actions to obtain reasonable assurance of guaranteeing the money laundering laws, evaluates their effectiveness and gains approval of managers regarding observing laundering regulations. In this regard, the auditor is required to report definitive or suspected money-laundering cases or its certain or suspected evidence to the relevant authorities. Although the law prohibits the auditor from disclosing such matters to the client, it is not necessary. It seems that even if the auditors perform non-audit functions, they should report money laundering or suspicious operations and transactions.

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.

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.

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