scholarly journals Engagement Risk: Perceptions And Strategies From Audit Partners

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack R. Ethridge ◽  
Treba Marsh ◽  
Bonnie Revelt
Keyword(s):  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Moderate Degree ◽  
Fraud Triangle ◽  
Business Risk ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
General Management ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Potential Damage

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 34.2pt 0pt 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The audit function creates several important relationships among the various parties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>One of the significant and potentially problematic relationships is between the audit firm and the audit client.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The decision by the audit firm to accept or retain a client is crucial because of the potential risk of being associated with certain clients. The potential damage can range from financial loss and/or loss of prestige to the ultimate demise of the audit firm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Engagement risk is considered to be composed of three components: entity&rsquo;s business risk, audit risk, and auditor&rsquo;s business risk. This research questioned whether audit firms have significantly changed their views regarding engagement risk and how they evaluate and manage this risk.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>An analysis of the surveys revealed that 83% of the respondents believed their views regarding the importance of engagement risk have changed, but only to a moderate degree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>In evaluating engagement risk, audit partners considered management integrity in general, management integrity toward fraud, and the presence of the elements of the fraud triangle to be the most important factors. Assignment of more experienced audit staff and increased substantive tests of account balances were the most frequently used mitigating strategies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Based upon these results, which were consistent with our previous study, it appears there have not been significant changes in audit partners&rsquo; views regarding the importance of the client acceptance/retention decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span></span></p>

Client Engagement Risks and the Auditor Search Period

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 685-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samer K. Khalil ◽  
Jeffrey R. Cohen ◽  
Kenneth B. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Business Risk ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Client Engagement ◽  
Or Management ◽  
Auditor Industry Specialization ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Internal Control Weaknesses

SYNOPSIS This paper investigates whether client engagement risks lengthen the client acceptance phase for audit firms and result in a longer auditor search period for their clients. Using a sample of auditor resignations over the period 2003–2008, we document that the auditor search period is longer for firms associated with client business risk (financial distress) and audit risk (internal control weaknesses or management integrity issues), while it is shorter for firms representing reduced auditor business risk (auditor industry specialization). These findings highlight the importance of client risk assessment and explain audit firms' response to perceived client risks.

scholarly journals The application of business risk audit methodology within non-Big-4 firms

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imad Kutum ◽  
Ian Fraser ◽  
Khaled Hussainey
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Business Risk ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative Methods ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Major Disadvantage ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the application of the business risk audit (BRA) approach within non-Big-4 audit firms in the USA, the UK and Canada. This paper focuses on the motivation for adopting this approach for non-Big-4 audit firms in the three countries, and the advantages, disadvantages and aftermath of applying this method. Design/methodology/approach – A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to obtain the data necessary to address the research questions was used. Findings – It is found that non-Big-4 audit firms in the three countries have adopted BRA; their motivation was primarily to follow the standards in each country, and the general trend in the industry. The advantages identified are consistent with previous research; a direct benefit was noted for audit effectiveness and risk management for both clients and auditors. One major disadvantage of applying BRA is the cost burden to both the audit firm and their clients. Some of the interviewees claimed that this method is better suited to large firms and large audits. Originality/value – This is an innovative study that addresses a contemporary auditing issue. The majority of the audit research studies concentrate on the big audit firm practices; this study is the first to examine the application of audit practices within smaller audit firms.

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.

Client-Acceptance Decisions: Simultaneous Effects of Client Business Risk, Audit Risk, Auditor Business Risk, and Risk Adaptation

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla M. Johnstone
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Risk Evaluation ◽  
Business Risk ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Risk Characteristics ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Audit Evidence ◽  
Client Acceptance ◽  
Client Acceptance Decision

Little is known about how audit partners make the client-acceptance decision. In this paper, a model is developed and tested that characterizes the client-acceptance decision as a process of risk evaluation and risk adaptation. The model proposes that auditors will evaluate client-related risks (e.g., financial viability, and internal control) and use that evaluation to determine if the audit firm will suffer a loss on the engagement via a lack of engagement profitability or future litigation. The model proposes that auditors will adapt to the client-acceptance risks by using three strategies: (1) screening clients based on their risk characteristics; (2) screening clients based on the audit firm's risk of loss on the engagement; and (3) more proactively adapting using strategies including adjusting the audit fee, making plans about necessary audit evidence, making plans about personnel assignment, and/or adjusting the amount of data collected during the client-acceptance process. To test the model, an experiment was conducted using 137 highly experienced audit partners as participants. The results show that the partners considered the relationships between client-related risks and used their evaluation of those risks to evaluate the audit firm's risk of loss on the engagement. In terms of risk adaptation, partners screened clients based on the clients' risk characteristics and based on the audit firm's risk of loss on the engagement. Contrary to prediction, the partners did not use more proactive risk-adaptation strategies (e.g., adjusting the audit fee, making plans about necessary audit evidence, etc.) to make less “acceptable” clients more acceptable. It appears that avoiding risk, rather than proactively adapting to risk, is descriptive of how audit partners currently make the client-acceptance decision.

Nonlitigation Risk and Pricing Audit Services

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard W. Houston ◽  
Michael F. Peters ◽  
Jamie H. Pratt
Keyword(s):  
Financial Statements ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Business Risk ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Potential Damage ◽  
General Business

In this study we expand the audit fee model introduced by Simunic (1980) and extended by Houston et al. (1999) by adding a third factor, nonlitigation risk, which refers to general business risks and/or opportunities that extend beyond litigation risk or the conduct of the audit (e.g., opportunities for future audit and nonaudit revenues, potential damage to the auditor's reputation from involvement with a client). In an experiment, we ask audit partners and managers to assess various risks and develop an audit plan after reviewing one of four risk-increasing audit scenarios—the discovery of an error, the discovery of a GAAP inconsistency, a client buyout where the audited financial statements are used in the determination of the exchange price, and the loss of a major client customer. We find that, in the error and buyout cases, audit fee increases are explained only by the planned increase in audit investment; in the GAAP inconsistency case, the audit fee increase is explained in part by the planned increase in audit investment, but to a greater extent by residual litigation risk; in the loss of customer case, the audit fee increase is explained by the planned audit investment, residual litigation risk, and nonlitigation risk. These results suggest that business risk is comprised of at least three factors (acceptable audit risk, residual litigation risk, and nonlitigation risk), and that auditors are compensated to act as auditors, provide insurance for investor losses, and bear risks associated with factors that extend beyond the conduct of the audit. We also discuss how nonlitigation risk can clarify the results of previous research and be used in future research.

How a Shared Auditor Affects Firm-Pair Comparability: Implications of Both Firm and Individual Audit Styles

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-160
Author(s):  
Lili Jiu ◽  
Bin Liu ◽  
Yuanyuan Liu
Keyword(s):  
Accounting Standards ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Audit Process ◽  
Personal Style ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Practical Implications

SUMMARY In this study, we examine the roles of audit firms and individual auditors in improving financial statement comparability. We conduct the study in the Chinese setting, in which the identities of signing auditors are revealed in audit reports and accounting standards are principle based. After controlling for audit firm style, we find that firm pairs with shared signing auditors have incrementally greater comparability. Our results indicate that individual auditors exhibit their own personal style in implementing accounting standards and exercising professional judgment in the audit process. Overall, our study underscores the association between individual auditors and comparability, with practical implications for market participants and policymakers.

An Empirical Investigation of IPO Underpricing and the Change to the LLP Organization of Audit Firms

2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Muzatko ◽  
Karla M. Johnstone ◽  
Brian W. Mayhew ◽  
Larry E. Rittenberg
Keyword(s):  
Initial Public Offering ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Ipo Underpricing ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Offering

This paper examines the relationship between the 1994 change in audit firm legal structure from general partnerships to limited liability partnerships (LLPs) on underpricing in the initial public offering (IPO) market. The change in legal structure of audit firms reduces an audit firm's wealth at risk from litigation damages and reduces the incentives for intrafirm monitoring by partners within an audit firm. Prior research suggests that underpricing protects underwriters from litigation damages, and that the level of underpricing varies inversely with both the amount of implicit insurance provided by the audit firm and the quality of the audit services provided. We hypothesize the change in audit firm legal structure reduced the assets available from audit firms in IPO-related litigation and indirectly reduced audit quality by lowering intrafirm monitoring. As a result, underwriters have incentives as a joint and several defendant with the audit firms to increase IPO underpricing, particularly for high-litigation-risk IPOs, following audit firms' shifts to LLP status. Our findings are consistent with this hypothesis.

Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Insights from the Management Control Literature

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 117-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Fiolleau ◽  
Theresa Libby ◽  
Linda Thorne
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Management Control ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Fraud Triangle ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Research Opportunities ◽  
Dysfunctional Behavior ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Published Research

SUMMARY As the scope of the audit continues to broaden (Cohen, Krishnamoorthy, and Wright 2017), research questions in management control and internal control are beginning to overlap. Even so, there is little overlap between these fields in terms of published research to date. The purpose of this paper is to take a step in bridging the gap between the management control and the internal control literatures. We survey relevant findings from the extant management control literature published between 2003 and 2016 on dysfunctional behavior and the ways in which it might be mitigated. We then use the fraud triangle as an organizing framework to consider how the management control literature might help to address audit risk factors identified in SAS 99/AU SEC 316 (AICPA 2002). The outcome of our analysis is meant to identify and classify the extant management control literature of relevance to research on internal control in a manner that researchers new to the management control literature will find accessible. We conclude with a set of future research opportunities that can help to broaden the scope of current research in internal control.

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.

Leaving a joint audit system: conditional fee reductions

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Holm ◽  
Frank Thinggaard
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Theory Development ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit System ◽  
Interaction Terms ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee

Purpose – The authors aim to exploit a natural experiment in which voluntary replace mandatory joint audits for Danish listed companies and analyse audit fee implications of using one or two audit firms. Design/methodology/approach – Regression analysis is used. The authors apply both a core audit fee determinants model and an audit fee change model and include interaction terms. Findings – The authors find short-term fee reductions in companies switching to single audits, but only where the former joint audit contained a dominant auditor. The authors argue that in this situation bargaining power is more with the auditors than in an equally shared joint audit, and that the auditors' incentives to offer an initial fee discount are bigger. Research limitations/implications – The number of observations is constrained by the small Danish capital market. Future research could take a more qualitative research approach, to examine whether the use of a single audit firm rather than two has an effect on audit quality. The area calls for further theory development covering audit fee and audit quality in joint audit settings. Practical implications – Companies should consider their relationship with their auditors before deciding to switch to single auditors. Fee discounts do not seem to reflect long-lasting efficiency gains on the part of the audit firm. Originality/value – Denmark is the first country to leave a mandatory joint audit system, so this is the first time that it is possible to study fee effects related to this.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document