scholarly journals Joint audit, audit market concentration, and audit quality: Perceptions of stakeholders in the UAE

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-45
Author(s):  
Yasser Barghathi ◽  
Esinath Ndiweni ◽  
Alhashmi Aboubaker Lasyoud
Keyword(s):  
Emerging Economies ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Practical Implication ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Quality Perceptions ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Cost

The present study is intended to scholarly explore auditors’ perceptions regarding joint audits; whether it can improve audit quality. To reach this goal, participants were enrolled from Big 4, non-Big 4, and other stockholders. In addition, the present study examines the perception of the same stakeholders in terms of how audit concentration affects the audit market in the UAE. Being a qualitative study, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect required data; 4 face to face and 8 through using Google forms. The finding of the study revealed mixed perception regarding joint audits; it may improve audit quality at the cost of high fees and free-rider problems. Findings of the study has practical implication for policymakers of emerging economies around the globe, such as policymakers who can make joint audits as compulsory. Another significance of the present work is that it has allowed for the perception of stakeholders, who are at the center of the controversial subject of joint audits and audit market concentration. The study suggests that there is a need for removing language barriers; it will benefit some firms in the form of directly communicating with auditors either in English or in Urdu.

Audit Market Structure and Audit Pricing

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Daniel Eshleman ◽  
Bradley P. Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
First Year ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The U.S

SYNOPSIS Extant literature finds mixed evidence on the association between audit market concentration and audit fees. We re-examine this issue using a large sample of U.S. audit clients covering 90 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) spanning 2000–2013. We find that audit market concentration is associated with significantly higher audit fees, consistent with the concerns of regulators and managers. We also find that increases in audit market concentration are associated with fewer initial engagement fee discounts (i.e., reduced lowballing), particularly for non-Big 4 clients. We reconcile our findings with those of prior research and find that our divergent findings are attributable to controls for MSA fixed effects. In supplemental analyses, we find that audit market concentration is associated with higher audit quality. We also find that concentration is associated with higher audit quality for first-year engagements, but only if the auditor does not lowball on the engagement. Our results are relevant to the ongoing debate regarding the consequences of increased concentration within the U.S. audit market (GAO 2003, 2008). JEL Classifications: M41; M42; L13.

scholarly journals How to regain public trust in audit firms? The case of the Financial Reporting Council

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Khaled Eldaly ◽  
Magdy Abdel-Kader
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Uk

Purpose This study aims to provide a better understanding of the role of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), as the unified regulator of the audit profession in the UK, in restoring public trust in audit profession in the UK. It further analyses the views of partners in the Big 4 audit firms on this role. Design/methodology/approach The research data were gathered by conducting 17 semi-structured interviews with the top management of FRC’s members and executive partners of the Big 4 firms in the UK. The interviews were complemented by analysing data available on the web pages of the Big 4 firms and published reports related to the FRC’s projects. Findings This study identified three main strategies followed by the FRC to promote the trust and enhance the choice of auditors in the UK audit market. These strategies are improving the audit quality, increasing the transparency of the big audit firms and reducing the barriers to compete in the big audit market. Practical implications An analysis of the FRC’s efforts may help auditors to identify what they are expected to do to improve the reliability of information provided in the capital market. Audit committees can get a better understanding of the criteria that they need to improve the process of auditors’ choice. Auditors will also better understand how and why current audit regulations have been issued. This may improve their satisfaction with regulations and standards, and their efficient implementation. Furthermore, it is believed that audit regulators need to get feedback additional to the formal feedback they receive to improve their performance and current regulations. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature by discussing the auditors’ criticism to the Audit Inspection Unit’s inspectors and the way the inspectors defend themselves. The findings suggest that partners of the Big 4 believe that the FRC’s projects effectively participate in improving the audit quality, as well as providing wider information about the audit firms to the public. However, different actions need to be taken to enhance the choice of auditors and increase the number of big audit firms that compete in the market.

scholarly journals Will mandatory audit firm rotation reduce audit market concentration in South Africa?

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolene Wesson
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Calculated Concentration ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

Purpose: Deconcentrating the audit market was one of the stated objectives of the proposed mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR) ruling in South Africa. With MAFR being a contentious topic, this study aimed to explore the possible effect of MAFR on audit market concentration in South Africa in anticipation of the implementation thereof in 2023.Design/methodology/approach: A sample of 415 South African listed companies was studied for the period 2010–2018. Data were mainly captured from annual reports. Descriptive statistics and significance testing were performed on calculated concentration ratios and identified audit firm rotations.Findings/results: South African audit market concentration mirrored empirical evidence from most developed countries – with Big 4 audit firms dominating the audit market, whilst a monopoly within the Big 4 audit firm grouping was also evident. Based on observed audit firm concentration and audit firm rotation behaviour, it was anticipated that MAFR might further increase audit market concentration. A concerning result was the sheer scale of audit firm rotations to be carried out in anticipation of MAFR in 2023.Practical implications: This study identified the impairment of audit quality and increased costs as possible unintended consequences of MAFR in South Africa.Originality/value: This study contributed to the limited body of knowledge on the possible effect of MAFR in South Africa. This study proposed alternatives to MAFR and recommended areas for future research to support evidence-based decisions on remedies to address audit quality and audit market concentration in South Africa.

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.

Audit Market Concentration, Audit Fees, and Audit Quality: Evidence from China

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Chiao Huang ◽  
Hsihui Chang ◽  
Jeng-Ren Chiou
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Earnings Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Legal Environment ◽  
Positive Relation ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Lower Likelihood

SUMMARY We investigate the effects of audit market concentration on audit fees and audit quality in China, where competition is intense and the legal environment is relatively weak compared with developed countries. Analyzing 12,334 firm-year observations for the period 2001 to 2011, we find a significant positive relation between concentration and audit fees. Path analysis shows that concentration improves client earnings quality and reduces the need for auditors to issue modified audit opinions through increased audit fees. Additional analysis indicates that the increased audit fees and client earnings quality resulting from increased concentration are associated with a lower likelihood of executives and auditors being sanctioned by regulators for audit failures. Together, our results suggest that concentration improves audit quality indirectly through increased audit fees and this positive indirect effect offsets the negative direct effect of concentration on audit quality. By separating the direct and the indirect effect of concentration on audit quality, our study would explain why previous studies that do not have a separation document mixed evidence. Our findings inform regulators that actions taken to eliminate the indirect effect of concentration, for example restricting the upper bound of audit fees, could produce unintended outcomes such as decreased audit quality.

The Audit Market Dynamics in a Mandatory Joint Audit Setting: The French Experience

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lamya Kermiche ◽  
Charles Piot
Keyword(s):  
Market Concentration ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Audit System ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Long Run ◽  
French Experience ◽  
Economic Support ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Potential Benefits

Policy makers in France have considered joint audits as a solution to mitigate the audit market concentration and the “systemic” risk associated with Big 4 auditors. We implement a Markovian analysis where audit clients chose between different types of combinations across Big 4 and smaller auditors. Our main findings support the view that the French joint audit system is effective in maintaining market openness and in mitigating the Big 4 domination in the long run. An investigation of the determinants driving changes in joint audit combinations suggests little economic support in favor of two Big 4 combinations, whereas changes in audit clients’ agency costs (e.g., higher ownership concentration) tend to explain the performance of mixed and two non-Big 4 combinations. Overall, this study supports the European Commission’s position on the potential benefits of joint audits in mitigating the market concentration; it also suggests that it might not be necessary to impose mixed joint audits to achieve that objective.

scholarly journals Audit quality and the cost of debt in private firms: evidence from the Brazilian sugarcane industry

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Aviner Augusto Silva Manoel ◽  
Marcelo Botelho da Costa Moraes ◽  
David Ferreira Lopes Santos ◽  
Gabriel Pereira Pündrich
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Cost Of Debt ◽  
Private Firms ◽  
Financial Reports ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Sugarcane Industry

Evidence is mixed regarding the economic benefits achieved by companies hiring large firms to audit their financial statements. The studies approaching this theme concentrate mostly on public companies in developed markets, while the effect on private firms in emerging markets is still an open question. This research explores this gap by analyzing whether private firms in the Brazilian sugarcane industry audited by a Big 4 have a lower cost of debt than those audited by a non-Big 4. For that, a unique, hand-collected, dataset was used. This paper contributes to the literature by providing evidence of the role of audit institutions in an environment lacking studies on private firms’ financial reports, especially in emerging economies. The empirical analysis does not indicate that the cost of debt is negatively influenced by the verification of financial statements by a high-quality auditor. Banks and credit unions, as the primary funding sources of the industry, condition the cost of debt reduction to the levels of tangibility, leverage, and profitability. We also contribute to the literature by demonstrating that lenders may have other soft information sources, obtained through banking relationship, which may substitute higher-quality auditor. The results hold after robustness checks and endogeneity concerns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document