Non-Timely 10-K Filings and Audit Fees

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 737-755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Changjiang Wang ◽  
K. Raghunandan ◽  
Ruth Ann McEwen
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Quality Risk ◽  
The Impact

SYNOPSIS The SEC requires that firms failing to file their annual reports within the specified deadlines file a Form NT 10−K with the Commission. In this paper, we examine the impact of non-timely filings on audit fees. We find that in the case of accelerated filers, audit fees are 26 (12) percent higher for those firms that had a Form NT 10-K filing in the previous (current) year. There is no such statistically significant association between non-timely filing and audit fees in the case of non-accelerated filers, but this result is driven by the clients of non-Big 4 auditors. Our results add to the stream of research related to non-timely filings of annual reports, and provide additional evidence about differences in audit quality/risk between Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms. The results also reinforce findings from recent studies about the significant differences in the market for audit services of accelerated and non-accelerated filer firms.

To be or not to be – auditors’ ability to signal going concern problems

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torbjörn Tagesson ◽  
Peter Öhman
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Research Opportunity ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
The Impact

Purpose – This paper aims to chart Swedish auditors’ likelihood of issuing going concern warnings (GCWs), and to investigate the relationship between formal auditor competence, audit fees and audit firm, respectively, and the likelihood of issuing GCWs. Design/methodology/approach – The empirical data are based on annual reports and audit reports for 2,547 limited companies that went bankrupt in 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis and had filed a financial statement in the year before the bankruptcy. Findings – The findings indicate that Swedish auditors seldom issue GCWs. Moreover, there is a positive relationship between audit fee level and the likelihood of issuing GCWs, and Big 4 auditors being more likely to issue such warnings than other auditors. However, the analyses identify differences between audit firms (within the group of Big 4 firms and within the group of other audit firms) in terms of their predictions of client bankruptcies. This suggests a need for further investigation of firm-specific differences. Contrary to what was predicted, authorized auditors are not more likely to issue GCWs than approved auditors. Research limitations/implications – This paper did not investigate the impact of audit experience and tenure or the possibility that auditors may signal survival problems by resigning. Practical implications – Levying appropriate audit fees creates opportunities for thorough audits, but auditors’ formal competence based on training and qualification is not a factor that enforces audit quality. Based on the findings, the authors also suggest some clarifications of existing standards to reduce ambiguity regarding the reporting of survival problems. Originality/value – The Swedish setting is a context in which most companies are small, creditor interest in accounting and auditing is strong and auditors must issue a modified audit opinion if half of the shareholders’ equity is spent. This setting offers a unique research opportunity because the formal competence differs between Sweden’s two categories of certified auditors, and it allows exploration beyond the dichotomy of Big 4 versus other audit firms.

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.

scholarly journals A theoretical approach to auditor independence and audit quality

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-141
Author(s):  
Rahman Yakubu ◽  
Tracey Williams
Keyword(s):  
Audit Committee ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Accounting Scandals ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Insight Into

Auditor independence and the quality of audit report is of growing concern to regulators, institutional investors and stakeholders as a series of accounting scandals have undermined the professionalism of auditors. The findings from this study produced an insight of how auditor’s independence improve audit quality and that abnormal audit fees is as a result of additional effort for auditor to carry out rigorous audit engagement as a result of wider audit scope; that mandatory audit firm rotation will enhance auditor independence, and that audit committee with nonexecutive independence will promote audit quality. The study also finds that in terms of auditor size, smaller audit firms that belong to professional bodies will provide higher audit quality. The main conclusion of this research is that where an auditor is fully independent in carrying out audit engagement with strong resistance to fees pressure will enhance audit quality. This research provides insight into the impact of IFRS adoption on audit fees.

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 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.

On the Benefits of Audit Market Consolidation: Evidence from Merged Audit Firms

2015 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qihui Gong ◽  
Oliver Zhen Li ◽  
Yupeng Lin ◽  
Liansheng Wu
Keyword(s):  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Horizontal Mergers ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Market Consolidation ◽  
Unique Dataset

ABSTRACT We examine efficiency improvement associated with audit firm mergers. Our analysis is made possible by a unique dataset of audit hours in China. We find a significant reduction in audit hours, unaccompanied by a deterioration in audit quality, of merged audit firms. Further, we find a larger reduction in audit hours when acquirers are Chinese domestic Big 10 audit firms and when client firms are more complex. These results are consistent with the notion of economies of scale arising from horizontal mergers. However, enhanced efficiency does not necessarily reduce audit fees. Instead, we find an increase in audit fees when acquirers are international Big 4 audit firms even when we control for possible changes in market power. This premium is at least partially due to the certification effect of international Big 4 audit firms.

scholarly journals The impacts of interaction of audit litigation and ownership structure on audit quality

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Riyadh Jassim AL Abdullah ◽  
Mawih Kareem AL Ani
Keyword(s):  
Ownership Structure ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Audit Opinion ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Litigation ◽  
Regression Techniques ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis study examines the impact of the interactions of audit litigation and ownership structure on audit quality by Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms in Oman. This study uses modified audit opinion as proxies for audit quality, binary variable for audit litigation and percentage of shares owned by large shareholders and minority shareholders (consisting of Arab [non-GCC] shareholders) for ownership structure. The study uses size, risk, types of activity and ages of the firms as control variables. For the analysis and explanation of results descriptive statistics, correlation, regression techniques and T-test are used. Based on a sample of 107 listed companies on Muscat Securities Market (MSM) for 2013–2017, we find that audit litigation has a significant impact on audit quality for Big 4 audit firms, but not for non-Big 4 audit firms. Also, the results indicate that there is no difference between Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms as far as litigation risk is concerned.

scholarly journals Corporate governance and audit features: SMEs evidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basil Al-Najjar
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Logit Analysis ◽  
Governance Mechanisms ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Selection Of

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of corporate governance factors on audit features, namely, audit fees and the selection of Big 4 audit firms within the UK SMEs context. Design/methodology/approach The author uses different regression models to investigate the impact of corporate governance characteristics on audit features, and employs cross-sectional time series models as well as two-stage least squares technique. In addition, the author has used logit analysis to examine the effect of corporate governance factors on the selection of Big 4 audit firms. Findings The author provides new evidence that governance mechanisms in SMEs affect different audit features. The results show that corporate governance mechanisms are important in determining audit fees. The author detects a positive impact of board independence, audit meeting and board size on audit fees. The author also reports evidence that governance factors determine the selection of Big 4 audit firms. In particular, the author reports that independent directors and audit diligence positively affect the decision to select Big 4 audit firms. Originality/value This paper investigates the under-researched relationship between audit features and corporate governance using UK SMEs. In so doing, the author aims to provide new insights into this relationship within the SMEs context.

The Market Premium for Audit Partners with Big 4 Experience

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra B. Zimmerman ◽  
Kenneth L. Bills ◽  
Monika Causholli
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Second Tier ◽  
Market Premium

This study investigates how non-Big 4 firm audit partners’ Big 4 experience is valued by the audit market. The Big 4 audit firms have differentiated themselves as nationally recognized firms for whose services companies are willing to pay a premium. It is unclear, however, whether this reputation follows individual auditors when they move to a non-Big 4 audit firm. We find that audit fees are higher for non-Big 4 audit partners with Big 4 experience with the fee premium ranging from 17 to 26 percent depending on the extent of experience when they are employed by small audit firms but find no evidence of a fee premium for Big 4 experience at the second-tier audit firms. Furthermore, in additional analyses, we do not find strong, consistent evidence that audit quality is higher for clients of non-Big 4 audit partners with Big 4 experience than their counterparts without Big 4 experience.

scholarly journals The effect of auditor type on audit quality in emerging markets: evidence from Egypt

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed M. El-Dyasty ◽  
Ahmed A. Elamer
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Least Square ◽  
Advanced Technology ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Alternative Measures ◽  
Ordinary Least Square Regression ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Although a number of studies suggest that big audit firms provide higher audit quality in strict legal environments, empirical evidence remains inconclusive. As little is known about the effect of auditor type on audit quality in less strictly legal environments, this study aims to investigate the impact of auditor type on audit quality in the Egyptian market. Design/methodology/approach Data of Egyptian-listed companies during the period 2011–2018 are used. To examine the impact of auditor type on audit quality, ordinary least square regression and robust standard errors clustered at year and industry level are used. This study uses discretionary accruals as a proxy for audit quality. Several additional analyzes are conducted to assess the robustness of the main results, including alternative measures of audit quality and auditor type. Findings The results show that audit firms tend to provide higher audit quality when they are affiliated with a foreign audit firm. However, Big 4 auditors do not provide higher audit quality compare to their counterparts. Additionally, the governmental agency, accountability state authority, that monopolize audit function in state-owned companies do not appear to be associated with higher audit quality. Finally, local audit firms have a negative association with audit quality. This may be their strategy to secure future clients that seek low-quality audits. Research limitations/implications This study suggests that affiliation with foreign audit firms will help the Egyptian firms to develop their abilities by using advanced technology and techniques and transfer rare expertize to the Egyptian auditors. This study also shows that the strategy adopted by many Egyptian audit firms to affiliate with foreign auditors reflects the desire of these firms to be included in one tier alongside Big 4 audit firms to increase their market share under a claim of providing a higher audit quality. Originality/value This study adds to the rare but growing body of literature by investigating how auditor type affects audit quality in the context of less strictly legal environments. The results are important, as investors, standards-setters and regulators have growing concerns over audit quality since the Enron scandal. The findings suggest that audit quality depends on auditor type. These findings have important implications for investors, standards-setters and auditors interested in auditor oversight, audit quality and auditor choice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document