scholarly journals Family Firms, Audit Fee, and Auditor Choice: Evidence From Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-96
Author(s):  
Senny Harindahyani ◽  
Celine Widjaja
Keyword(s):  
Family Firms ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Agency Problems ◽  
Family Control ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Family

Family firms in Indonesia have an important role in the Indonesian economy. However, agency problems might happen inside family firms where it will lead to conflict of interest and information asymmetry, along with the entrenchment effect where it leads firms to produce lower quality earnings report. Research from 305 firms in Indonesia shows that the agency problems and the entrenchment effect has not affected the family firms in Indonesia, reflected from the firm‟s decision making in their amount of audit fee and auditor choice. This study will contribute by providing an empirical evidence of the effect of family control on the audit fee and auditor choice in a developing country. The result shows that the type of firms has no correlation on the amount of audit fee paid to the auditor and both firms‟ demands the same level of audit quality where it is shown by their choices of audit firms, which is Big 4 audit firm or Non-Big 4 audit firm. In conclusion, the level of agency problems and entrenchment effect tends to be lower in the family firms of Indonesia.

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.

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.

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 FAR Research Project: The loss of talent: a threat for audit quality?

2017 ◽  
Vol 91 (9/10) ◽  
pp. 268-273
Author(s):  
Isabella Grabner ◽  
Judith Künneke ◽  
Frank Moers
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Recent Survey ◽  
New Professionals ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Labor Inputs

The main priority of the audit industry is to maintain and improve audit quality. While audit quality has been an important topic in both accounting academia and practice, there is still a lack of understanding of what drives audit quality. Given that people are the most valuable asset an audit firm has, we focus on examining the labor inputs as a driver of audit quality. Specifically, we argue that a key threat for audit quality that so far has been largely neglected is the loss of talent across the hierarchy. A well-known problem for audit firms is that they invest enormous resources in new professionals only to have many with talent leave (Patten, 1995; Vera-Muñoz, Ho & Chow, 2006; ACCA & ACRA, 2012). A recent survey by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants finds that only about 38% are satisfied with their career and only 35% plan to stay beyond three years, with no significant differences across Big 4 and midtier firms (ACCA and ACRA, 2012).

The Large Audit Firm Fee Premium: A Case of Selectivity Bias?

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jen C. Ireland ◽  
Clive S. Lennox
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Selection ◽  
Selection Bias ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Selectivity Bias ◽  
Big 5 ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Analytical Research

Audit fee studies often find large (Big 5) audit firms earn significantly higher fees than small (non-Big 5) firms, but they treat auditor choice as exogenous. In contrast, this paper takes into account that companies are not randomly assigned to audit firms. We find the effects of auditor selection bias on audit fees are statistically and economically significant. Consistent with the predictions of analytical research, our results suggest large (small) audit firms experience advantageous (adverse) selection in attracting high (low) quality companies. Our results indicate the premium earned by large audit firms is more than twice as large when selectivity effects are taken into account (53.4% compared to 19.2%).

Board attributes and external audit firm choice of Nigerian Non-financial Firms

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanyaolu Wasiu Abiodun ◽  
Animasau Rasheed Olatunji
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Manufacturing Companies ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Financial Firms ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms

The paper examined the influence of boards attributes and audit firm choice of Nigerian listed non-financial firms. In an attempt to achieve the objective of this study, data of 21 sampled manufacturing companies were obtained from 2012 to 2017 using purposive sampling technique. Data for the sampled companies were analysed using logit regression analysis.  The result of the study provides evidence for significant influence of board independence, gender diversity and board meetings on audit firm choice while it board size was found to exert positive but no significant effect on audit firm choice. Arising from this, the study recommends that the non-executive directors should be dominated by directors with adequate level of financial directors that will propel them towards appreciating audit quality while choosing audit firm so as to improve quality of audit work. Also, firm should also seek to know whether audit quality of big 4 audit firms always supersedes that of their non-big 4 counterparts.

Should PCAOB Disciplinary Proceedings Be Made Public? Evidence from Sanctions against a Big 4 Auditor

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. P18-P24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Callaway Dee ◽  
Ayalew Lulseged ◽  
Tianming Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Stock Prices ◽  
Stock Price ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Stock Market Reaction ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Price Effects

SUMMARY: In our paper “Client Stock Market Reaction to PCAOB Sanctions against a Big 4 Auditor” (Dee et al. 2011), we examine stock price effects for clients of a Big 4 audit firm when news of sanctions imposed by the PCAOB against the audit firm was made public. These PCAOB penalties were the first against a Big 4 auditor, and they revealed information about quality-control problems at the audit firm that were not publicly known until the sanctions were announced. Our analysis of stock prices suggests that investors in clients of the penalized Big 4 firm reevaluated their perceptions of the quality of the firm's audit work after learning of the sanctions. The negative stock price effects for the firm's clients were consistent with investors inferring that the financial statements were of lower quality. In the paper, we conclude that investors find information about PCAOB sanctions against audit firms to be relevant in assessing audit quality and use that information in setting stock prices for audit firms' clients. This finding has relevance for the debate on the proposed legislation in Congress (H.R. 3503), which would allow the PCAOB to disclose proceedings against auditors before the investigations are concluded. Our results suggest that, although investors may find early disclosure of this information useful, public disclosure of Board disciplinary proceedings before they are completed could unfairly harm an audit firm's reputation if the firm is ultimately vindicated of wrongdoing.

scholarly journals The Relationship Between An Auditing Firm's Characteristics And The Incidence Rate Of Its Clients Subject To AAERs

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 1313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunsung Koh ◽  
Hyunjung Choi ◽  
Sohee Woo
Keyword(s):  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
A Company

This paper examines the relationship between an auditors characteristics and the incidence rate of its client subject to the Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release. Using the sample of AAERs from 2002 to 2006, we find that when a firm is audited from a large accounting firm, there is a significantly less incidence rate subject to AAERs. Also, we find that the audit time of AAERs firms is significantly less than that of non-AAERs firms. Because AAER is related with audit quality, it implies that AAER depends on audit time and audit firm size, and that a firm is affected by the incidence rate of subjects toward AAERs. However, there is no difference between the audit fee of AAERs firms audit fee and that of non-AAERs firms. Although audit time leads to a high audit fee, audit firms are very competitive and therefore, there are some limitations with receiving a high audit fee according to audit time. Therefore, the audit fee is significantly affected by the incidence rate of subjects toward AAERs. Additionally, we also examine the effectiveness of AAERs and the difference of audit efforts depending on the cause of AAERs and the degree of penalties imposed by FSS. Overall, the results suggest that depending on the auditors characteristics, such as the size of accounting firm, audit time, and audit fee, a company is affected by the incidence rate subject to AAERs.

Board attributes and external audit firm choice of Nigerian Non-financial Firms

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanyaolu Wasiu Abiodun ◽  
Animasau Rasheed Olatunji
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Manufacturing Companies ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Financial Firms ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms

The paper examined the influence of boards attributes and audit firm choice of Nigerian listed non-financial firms. In an attempt to achieve the objective of this study, data of 21 sampled manufacturing companies were obtained from 2012 to 2017 using purposive sampling technique. Data for the sampled companies were analysed using logit regression analysis.  The result of the study provides evidence for significant influence of board independence, gender diversity and board meetings on audit firm choice while it board size was found to exert positive but no significant effect on audit firm choice. Arising from this, the study recommends that the non-executive directors should be dominated by directors with adequate level of financial directors that will propel them towards appreciating audit quality while choosing audit firm so as to improve quality of audit work. Also, firm should also seek to know whether audit quality of big 4 audit firms always supersedes that of their non-big 4 counterparts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document