Do Individual Auditors Affect Audit Quality? Evidence from Archival Data

2013 ◽  
Vol 88 (6) ◽  
pp. 1993-2023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferdinand A. Gul ◽  
Donghui Wu ◽  
Zhifeng Yang
Keyword(s):  
Significant Variation ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Educational Background ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Political Affiliation ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Quality Evidence

ABSTRACT: We examine whether and how individual auditors affect audit outcomes using a large set of archival Chinese data. We analyze approximately 800 individual auditors and find that they exhibit significant variation in audit quality. The effects that individual auditors have on audit quality are both economically and statistically significant, and are pronounced in both large and small audit firms. We also find that the individual auditor effects on audit quality can be partially explained by auditor characteristics, such as educational background, Big N audit firm experience, rank in the audit firm, and political affiliation. Our findings highlight the importance of scrutinizing and understanding audit quality at the individual auditor level. Data Availability: Data used in this study are publicly available from the sources described herein.

Does Audit Fee Homogeneity Exist? Premiums and Discounts Attributable to Individual Partners

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart D. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Homogeneity Assumption ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Made In

SUMMARY This paper investigates the implied assumption, made in many audit fee determination studies, that, within a given audit firm, all partners produce a statistically identical level of audit quality and earn a statistically identical level of audit fees. This is referred to as the “homogeneity assumption.” However, this is contradicted by the individual auditor behavioral literature, which shows that different individual auditor characteristics can have an impact on audit quality. Given the fact that audit partners differ in their quality, this paper hypothesizes that different audit partners will be able to earn differing levels of fees. This hypothesis is tested by estimating an audit fee model using data from 822 Australian publicly listed companies for the year 2005. Australia is an ideal audit market for this research, as the disclosure of the name of the audit engagement partner in the audit report is mandatory. The empirical results indicate that individual audit partners earn individual audit fee premiums (or discounts) that are not explainable by the audit firms of which they are members. Data Availability: All data have been extracted from publicly available sources.

scholarly journals Does audit firm size contribute to audit quality? Evidence from two emerging markets

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen-Chin Wang ◽  
Fan-Hua Kung ◽  
Kai-Hsun Lin
Keyword(s):  
Emerging Markets ◽  
Earnings Management ◽  
Information Asymmetry ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Bid Ask Spread ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Quality Evidence

This study investigated whether the Big N audit firms in emerging markets can provide audits of high quality and mitigate information risk, by comparing the audit quality of Big N audit firms in Taiwan with those in China. The two countries share a similar cultural background and engage in frequent economic exchange; however, they have different legal systems and institutional environments. This study followed previous research in the use of bid-ask spread and discretionary accruals as proxy variables for information asymmetry and audit quality. Our results indicate that politico-economic differences between Taiwan and China influence the effectiveness of independent auditors when it comes to the mitigation of information asymmetry. Big N audit firms in Taiwan helped to mitigate information asymmetry and provided audit services of higher quality, whereas Big N firms in China were better able to constrain earnings management. Our results indicate that market concentration and market share have a stronger influence on reputation incentive and audit quality than does the size of an audit firm.

Audit Firm Governance: Do Transparency Reports Reveal Audit Quality?

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 193-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rogier Deumes ◽  
Caren Schelleman ◽  
Heidi Vander Bauwhede ◽  
Ann Vanstraelen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Internal Quality ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Weak Association ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Governance Disclosure ◽  
Firm Governance

SUMMARY As a result of legal and regulatory requirements, audit firms in certain jurisdictions have recently started issuing transparency reports containing information on audit firm governance. In this study we investigate whether audit firm governance disclosure is associated with actual audit quality. Based on a sample of transparency reports of 103 audit firms in a number of EU countries, we find that there is variation in the extent and type of governance disclosures across audit firms. We, however, do not find an association with actual audit quality, apart from a weak association with an audit firm's statement on the effectiveness of its internal quality control system. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources indicated in the study.

The Effect of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation on Audit Quality and Audit Fees: Empirical Evidence from the Korean Audit Market

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 167-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soo Young Kwon ◽  
Youngdeok Lim ◽  
Roger Simnett
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Mandatory Rotation ◽  
Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

SUMMARY: Using a unique setting in which mandatory audit firm rotation was required from 2006–2010, and in which both audit fees and audit hours were disclosed (South Korea), this study provides empirical evidence of the economic impact of this policy initiative on audit quality, and the associated implications for audit fees. This study compares both pre- and post-policy implementation and, after the implementation of the policy, mandatory long-tenure versus voluntary short-tenure rotation situations. Where audit firms were mandatorily rotated post-policy, we observe that audit quality (measured as abnormal discretionary accruals) did not significantly change compared with pre-2006 long-tenure audit situations and voluntary post-rotation situations. Audit fees in the post-regulation period for mandatorily rotated engagements are significantly larger than in the pre-regulation period, but are discounted compared to audit fees for post-regulation continuing engagements. We also find that the observed increase in audit fees and audit hours in the post-regulation period extends beyond situations where the audit firm was mandatorily rotated, suggesting that the introduction of mandatory audit firm rotation had a much broader impact than the specific instances of mandatory rotation. Data Availability: Most of the financial data used in the present study are available from the KIS Value Database. The data for audit hours and fees were drawn from statements of operating results filed with the Financial Supervisory Services (FSS) in Korea.

The Effects of Audit Firms' Knowledge Sharing on Audit Quality and Efficiency

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rong-Ruey Duh ◽  
W. Robert Knechel ◽  
Ching-Chieh Lin
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Regulatory Changes ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Efficiency ◽  
Analyze Data

SUMMARY This paper examines the effect of knowledge sharing in audit firms on audit quality and efficiency. We analyze data from a survey of audit professionals from 22 audit firms in Taiwan matched to publicly available data on individual audits conducted by those firms. The results indicate that knowledge sharing within an audit firm is positively associated with audit quality as manifested in lower absolute discretionary accruals and the issuance of more unfavorable audit opinions. We also find that knowledge sharing within audit firms is associated with higher audit efficiency as represented by shorter audit lags. More importantly, we find that both higher audit quality and audit efficiency are simultaneously associated with higher levels of knowledge sharing, suggesting that effective knowledge sharing may help to improve both audit quality and audit efficiency. Given the regulatory changes to enhance both audit quality and audit timeliness, these findings have implications for audit firms. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources. Survey data are available upon request.

Error Management in Audit Firms: Error Climate, Type, and Originator

2013 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 303-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Gold ◽  
Ulfert Gronewold ◽  
Steven E. Salterio
Keyword(s):  
Impression Management ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Error Management ◽  
Organizational Life ◽  
Climate Type ◽  
Error Type ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Willingness To Report

ABSTRACT This paper examines how the treatment of audit staff who discover errors in audit files by superiors affects their willingness to report these errors. The way staff are treated by superiors is labelled as the audit office error management climate. In a “blame-oriented” climate errors are not tolerated and those committing errors are punished. In contrast, an “open” climate characterizes error commitment as a normal, albeit unfortunate aspect of organizational life that offers opportunities for learning without sanctions on the originator. We examine error management climate in the context of audit-specific factors that might affect the decision to report errors: audit error type (conceptual or mechanical) and who committed the error (the individual who discovered it or a peer). An open climate results in an increase in the reporting of mechanical (but not conceptual) errors and all peer errors versus a blame climate. Post hoc findings suggest that one obstacle to reporting conceptual errors stems from an auditor's own impression management concerns. We discuss how auditing standards and regulatory inspections may impact audit firm error management climates. Data Availability: Experimental data are available from the second author subject to data confidentiality restrictions issued by the participating firms.

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.

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.

Hiring Auditors with a Part II Quality Control Report: An Opportunity for Increased Earnings Management or Lower Audit Fees?

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-93
Author(s):  
Jared Eutsler ◽  
D. Kip Holderness ◽  
Megan M. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
General Demand ◽  
Systemic Quality

ABSTRACT The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) Part II inspection reports, which disclose systemic quality control issues that auditors fail to remediate, signal poor audit quality for triennially inspected audit firms. Auditors that receive a Part II inspection report typically experience a decrease in clients, which demonstrates a general demand for audit quality. However, some companies hire auditors that receive Part II inspection reports. We examine potential reasons for hiring these audit firms. We find that relative to companies that switch to auditors without Part II reports, companies that switch to auditors with Part II reports have higher discretionary accruals in the first fiscal year after the switch, which indicates lower audit quality and a heightened risk for future fraud. We find no difference in audit fees. Our results suggest that PCAOB Part II inspection reports may signal low-quality auditors to companies that desire low-quality audits. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document