scholarly journals Faktor-faktor Manajemen Risiko terhadap Keputusan Penerimaan Klien pada Sebuah KAP Big4

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Selvina
Keyword(s):  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memberikan bukti empiris mengenai evaluasi manajemen risiko pada sebuah kantor akuntan publik non big 4 terhadap keputusan penerimaan klien. Manajemen risiko terbagi menjadi 3 kategori besar yaitu risiko bisnis klien, risiko bisnis audit, risiko bisnis KAP. Sampel yang digunakan pada penelitian ini adalah klien yang mengajukan permohonan jasa audit pada sebuah kantor akuntan publik yang tidak termasuk dalam KAP Big 4. Penelitian ini membuktikan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penerimaan klien pada KAP non big 4 adalah integritas manajemen, risiko bisnis klien, risiko audit, dan audit fee.

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.

scholarly journals Determinantes de costos de auditoría – non audit fee

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (39) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arquimedes De Jesus Moraes ◽  
Eduardo José Pinheiro ◽  
Alexsandro Ronchi Negrelli
Keyword(s):  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Sao Paulo ◽  
São Paulo ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee

El objetivo de esta investigación es identificardeterminantes de los costos de auditoría (non audit FEE) delas empresas brasileñas. La muestra contempló informacionesde las empresas en la BM&FBOVESPA, que resulta dela fusión entre la São Paulo Stock Exchange (Bovespa) y laBrazilian Mercantile and Futures Exchange (BM&F), entre2009 y 2012. Los resultados indican que el tamaño de laempresa auditada en el final del año fiscal está positivamenterelacionado con los gastos de consultoría; si la empresade auditoría es una Big 4, los honorarios de consultoríano poseen una relación significativa. En contrapartida, losclientes de menor tamaño tendrán costes menores de honorariosde consultoría.

Did the 2007 PCAOB Disciplinary Order against Deloitte Impose Actual Costs on the Firm or Improve Its Audit Quality?

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff P. Boone ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rates ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Archival Studies ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee

ABSTRACT We examine whether the December 2007 PCAOB disciplinary order against Deloitte affected Deloitte's switching risk, audit fees, and audit quality relative to the other Big 4 firms over a three-year period following the censure. Our findings suggest that the PCAOB censure was associated with a decrease in Deloitte's ability to retain clients and attract new clients, and a decrease in Deloitte's audit fee growth rates. However, methodologies used in extant archival studies yield little or no evidence to suggest that Deloitte's audit quality was different from that of the other Big 4 firms during a three-year window either before or after the censure. Overall, our results suggest that the PCAOB censure imposed actual costs on Deloitte. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

scholarly journals Big 4 audit fee premiums for national- and city-specific industry leadership in the UK: Additional evidence

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khairul Ayuni Mohd Kharuddin ◽  
Ilias G. Basioudis
Keyword(s):  
Big 4 ◽  
Industry Leadership ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Uk

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.

scholarly journals Should the 4 big replace the big 4? An examination of audit quality using internal audit

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Harjinder Singh ◽  
Rick Newby ◽  
Inderpal Singh
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Internal Audit ◽  
Important Research ◽  
Dummy Variable ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Dichotomous Variable ◽  
Audit Fee

Prior research has linked audit quality with large audit firms. Consequently, a dichotomous variable, Big N/non-Big N has traditionally proxied for audit quality. Applying a different measure of audit quality than audit fee, this study investigates whether a single dummy variable for Big N is an appropriate proxy for audit quality in explaining differences in the existence of clients’ internal audit (IA) function. Results indicate that the existence of clients’ IA function is not consistent among Big 4 firms. This has important research implications for the universal use of a Big N dummy variable as a measure for audit quality.

scholarly journals Firm Performance Following Auditor Changes For Audit Fee Savings

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kam C. Chan ◽  
Barbara Farrell ◽  
Patricia Healy ◽  
Picheng Lee
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Stock Return ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Company Performance ◽  
Font Size ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Earnings Performance

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify; mso-pagination: none; mso-hyphenate: none;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This study examines stock and earnings performance subsequent to auditor changes by firms specifically for audit fees savings without any other apparent regulatory or disclosure issues. Results show that there is mild evidence of positive stock return and earnings performance after changing auditors. There is also no significant difference in company performance among different types of auditor changes when looking at auditor changes among and between Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors. Finally, we find that the positive firm performance is mainly among auditor changes made before 2003.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span>

scholarly journals Audit Research Summaries

2017 ◽  
Vol 91 (7/8) ◽  
pp. 244-249
Author(s):  
Philip Wallage
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee

Ook deze maand presenteren wij weer enkele “Audit Research Summaries” uit de database van de American Accounting Association (www.auditingresearchsummaries. org). De eerste samenvatting betreft een onderzoek van Sharma, Tanyi en Litt naar de kosten van verplichte audit partner-rotatie in de VS. Hiertoe wordt nagegaan of partner- rotatie gerelateerd is aan de hoogte van de audit fee en het tijdsverloop tussen einde boekjaar en datum afgifte van de controleverklaring (audit report lag). Uit het onderzoek blijkt onder andere dat een positieve en significante associatie bestaat tussen partner-rotatie en audit fees. Ook blijkt dat deze associatie met name bestaat voor grotere klanten en voor de niet-Big 4-audit firms. Een vergelijkbare associatie bestaat voor rotatie en de lengte van de audit report lag. De volgende samenvatting betreft een experiment van Kim en Harding onder Australische en Zuid Koreaanse accountants naar het effect dat gepercipieerde expertise van een leidinggevende heeft op de besluitvorming van een ondergeschikte. Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat de invloed van de vooraf bekende preferentie van de leidinggevende op een te nemen besluit groter is naarmate de leidinggevende meer deskundigheid wordt toegedicht. Er wordt geen verschil geconstateerd tussen Australische en Zuid Koreaanse accountants.

Small Audit Firm Membership in Associations, Networks, and Alliances: Implications for Audit Quality and Audit Fees

2015 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 767-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth L. Bills ◽  
Lauren M. Cunningham ◽  
Linda A. Myers
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Association Member ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Control Samples

ABSTRACT In this study, we examine the benefits of membership in an accounting firm association, network, or alliance (collectively referred to as “an association”). Associations provide member accounting firms with numerous benefits, including access to the expertise of professionals from other independent member firms, joint conferences and technical trainings, assistance in dealing with staffing and geographic limitations, and the ability to use the association name in marketing materials. We expect these benefits to result in higher-quality audits and higher audit fees (or audit fee premiums). Using hand-collected data on association membership, we find that association member firms conduct higher-quality audits than nonmember firms, where audit quality is proxied for by fewer Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection deficiencies and fewer financial statement misstatements, as well as less extreme absolute discretionary accruals and lower positive discretionary accruals. We also find that audit fees are higher for clients of member firms than for clients of nonmember firms, suggesting that clients are willing to pay an audit fee premium to engage association member audit firms. Finally, we find that member firm audits are of similar quality to a size-matched sample of Big 4 audits, but member firm clients pay lower fee premiums than do Big 4 clients. Our inferences are robust to the use of company size-matched control samples, audit firm size-matched control samples, propensity score matching, two-stage least squares regression, and to analyses that consider changes in association membership. Our findings should be of interest to regulators because they suggest that association membership assists small audit firms in overcoming barriers to auditing larger audit clients. In addition, our findings should be informative to audit committees when making auditor selection decisions, and to investors and accounting researchers interested in the relation between audit firm type and audit quality.

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