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 Small Audit Firm Membership in Associations, Networks, and Alliances Can Impact Audit Quality and Audit Fees

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. P29-P35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth L. Bills ◽  
Lauren M. Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Association Network ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditor Selection

SUMMARY This article summarizes “Small Audit Firm Membership in Associations, Networks, and Alliances: Implications for Audit Quality and Audit Fees” (Bills, Cunningham, Myers 2015), which examines the association between small audit firm membership in an association, network, or alliance (collectively referred to as an “association”), audit quality, and audit fees. We find that small audit firm association members provide higher-quality audits and charge higher fees than small audit firms that are not members of an association. When compared to similarly sized clients audited by the Big 4, we find that member firms provide audit quality similar to the Big 4 firms, but member firms charge lower fees than their Big 4 counterparts. We caution that these results may not be generalizable to the largest Big 4 clients for which there is not a similarly sized client audited by our sample of small audit firms. We infer audit quality from Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspections, restatement announcements, and discretionary accruals. Our findings should be of interest to audit committees in charge of auditor selection and to small audit firms interested in the benefits of association membership.

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 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.

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.

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 Audit Firm Size, Audit Fee, Audit Reputation and Audit Quality: The Case of Listed Companies in Vietnam

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ngoc Kim Pham ◽  
Hung Nguyen Duong ◽  
Tin Quang Pham ◽  
Nga Thi Thuy Ho
Keyword(s):  
Firm Size ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms

Audit quality is considered as an essential factor affecting the reliability of financial information. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of audit firm characteristics, including audit reputation, audit fees and audit firm size, on audit quality. A sample of 192 companies listed on Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange for the period of 2006-2014 was selected. Multiple regression was used to analyze the data. The findings show that Big 4 auditors in Vietnam provide high audit quality than non-Big 4 auditors. Interestingly, in Vietnam context, except for the audit firms in the Big 4 group, the findings suggest that smaller audit firms provide better audit quality. Additionally, the results reveal that the more audit fees the auditors receive, the lower audit quality they provide. The critical role of audit quality has attracted significantly scholarly attention, however, prior studies have mainly focused on firms in developed countries. Little is known about audit quality in an emerging economy context such as Vietnam. This study adds to the limited number of studies on audit quality of listed companies in emerging economies. 

scholarly journals Additional Evidence On The Large Audit-Firm Fee Premium As An Indication Of Auditor Quality

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Simon
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Auditor Quality ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Big Six ◽  
Big Eight

<span>Several studies of the U.S. market for audit services have found evidence of a large audit-firm fee premium. This premium has been interpreted as an indication that large audit firms (typically defined as the Big Eight, now the Big Six), considered as a group, receive higher fees than non-Big Eight firms and thus are perceived to provide higher quality audit services. A common interpretation has been that there is a strong relationship between audit firms size and audit quality. That is, the observed Big Eight fee premium has been interpreted as evidence that this group of large auditors, as a whole, is perceive to provide higher quality audits. Using larger samples than previous studies, this paper decomposes the large auditor fee premium into a separate fee premium effect for each auditor. The results suggest that the observed fee premium is attributable to a subset of large auditors, and therefore it is possible that not all of this group of large audit firms are perceived as offering significantly different audit products, at least when differential audit fees and used as a measure of product differentiation. In addition, when observed audit fee premiums are related to other proxies for auditor quality, there is confirming evidence that large accounting firms are not perceived as a homogeneous group with respect to audit quality.</span>

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.

Fee Discounting and Audit Quality Following Audit Firm and Audit Partner Changes: Chinese Evidence

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 1517-1546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua-Wei Huang ◽  
K Raghunandan ◽  
Ting-Chiao Huang ◽  
Jeng-Ren Chiou
Keyword(s):  
Earnings Management ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Significant Attention

ABSTRACT Issues related to low-balling of initial year audit fees and the resultant impact on audit quality have received significant attention from regulators in many countries. Using 9,684 observations from China during the years 2002–2011, we find that there is a significant initial year audit fee discount following an audit firm change when both of the signing audit partners are different from the prior year. The evidence is mixed if one or both of the signing partners from the prior year also moves with the client to the new audit firm. We find evidence of audit fee discounting in our analysis of fee levels, but not in our analysis of changes in audit fees from the prior year. Sanctions for problem audits and greater earnings management are more likely when there is an audit firm change that involves two new signing partners together with initial year audit fee discounting.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document