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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Audit Quality and Disclosures of Less-Experienced Participating Audit Firms in PCAOB Filings

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. P1-P8
Author(s):  
Carol Callaway Dee ◽  
Ayalew Lulseged ◽  
Tianming Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Subsequent Increase ◽  
Market Prices ◽  
Quarterly Earnings ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Reported Earnings ◽  
The Universe

SUMMARY In “Who Did the Audit? Audit Quality and Disclosures of Other Audit Participants in PCAOB Filings” (Dee, Lulseged, and Zhang 2015), we examine quality for issuer audits disclosed as involving less-experienced “participating auditors.” We find that market prices of these issuers reacted negatively at the time of disclosure, and investors' valuations of their post-disclosure quarterly earnings declined; investors have greater uncertainty in the numbers reported. In addition, the quality of the reported earnings is lower. However, we do not see a subsequent increase in audit fees, which suggests clients do not increase demands for higher quality to counteract the uncertainty in investors' perceptions of audit quality. Since our sample is limited to less-experienced participating auditors, the results are not readily generalizable to the universe of participating auditors. Future research using Form AP data can explore if our findings are generalizable to issuer audits involving the wider population of participating auditors.

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 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 effect of changing fiscal year-ends on audit fees and audit quality

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-382
Author(s):  
Angel Arturo Pacheco Paredes ◽  
Clark Wheatley
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose This study aims to extend recent research analyzing the effect of auditor busyness on audit quality. Specifically, this study explores the effect on audit quality of a change of fiscal year-end to or from an audit firm’s busy period. Design/methodology/approach Empirical archival. Findings When firms change their fiscal year-end to a period when the auditor is less busy, client firms are rewarded with lower audit fees and auditors are rewarded with a reduction in required effort. This study finds no difference in the level of audit quality after a change in fiscal year-end. Practical implications There are significant implications for audit firms as they may gain cost advantages by successfully promoting off-season fiscal year-ends, and reduce the negative effect on employees associated with “busy season” stress. Similarly, client firms may find that audit costs are reduced when they adopt a less “busy” fiscal year-end. Social implications These results have policy implications for regulators because regulators often dictate the fiscal year-end for certain industries or traded securities. Such dictates may thus introduce inefficiencies into the market for audit services. Originality/value These results should guide regulators in their decisions to dictate fiscal year-ends and firms in their choice of reporting periods.

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.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document