Audit Partner Tenure and Cost of Equity Capital

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masoud Azizkhani ◽  
Gary S. Monroe ◽  
Greg Shailer
Keyword(s):  
Equity Capital ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Omitted Variables ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Sensitivity Tests ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Nonlinear Relation

SUMMARY We examine whether audit engagement partner tenure and rotation affect investors' perceptions, as proxied by the ex ante cost of equity capital. We find that partner tenure has a nonlinear relation with the ex ante cost of equity capital for non-Big 4 audit engagements prior to the introduction of partner rotation requirements, and that the imputed gains from partner tenure appear similar to the imputed gains of having a Big 4 auditor. Consistent with the tenure results, we also find that partner rotation is associated with increased ex ante cost of equity capital. Our results are very robust to a variety of sensitivity tests and raise important questions for future research. It is not known to what extent investors or analysts are aware of the audit partner's identity or pay attention to audit partner tenure; if investors or analysts do not consider partner tenure, future research may identify omitted variables that have the same nonlinear relationship with the ex ante cost of capital that we observe for non-Big 4 audit partner tenure. JEL Classifications: M42; M48. Data Availability: The data used are from public sources identified in the manuscript.

Litigation Risk and the Financial Reporting Credibility of Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 Audits: Evidence from Anglo-American Countries

2004 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 473-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The U.S

Prior research suggests that Big 4 auditors provide higher quality audits in the U.S. in order to protect the firm's brand name reputation and to avoid costly litigation. In this study, we examine whether the perceived higher quality of a Big 4 audit is related to auditor litigation exposure or to reputation concerns. Specifically, we utilize an estimable proxy for financial reporting credibility—the ex ante cost of equity capital—to examine whether Big 4 auditors are perceived as providing higher quality audits (relative to non-Big 4 auditors) in the U.S., and in the less litigious (but economically similar) environments in other Anglo-American countries during the 1990–99 period. We find that a Big 4 audit is associated with a lower ex ante cost of equity capital for auditees in the U.S. but not in Australia, Canada, or the U.K. Our findings suggest that it is litigation exposure rather than brand name reputation protection that drives perceived audit quality.

Auditor-Provided Tax Nonaudit Services and the Implied Cost of Equity Capital

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasser Alsadoun ◽  
Vic Naiker ◽  
Farshid Navissi ◽  
Divesh S. Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Sensitivity Tests ◽  
Nonaudit Services ◽  
Implied Cost Of Equity

SUMMARY Although the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) banned most nonaudit services (NAS), it did not restrict auditors from providing tax NAS to their audit clients. In the post-SOX period, regulators and investors are highly concerned about the increase in tax NAS and consequently calling for restrictions. The profession contends that tax NAS are beneficial to the audit and opposes limitations. We contribute to this ongoing debate and fill a void in the literature by examining investors' perception of auditor-provided tax NAS, as reflected in the implied cost of equity capital. Our results suggest that investors require higher cost of equity capital for clients that generate more tax NAS revenue for their auditor's office. Further tests reveal that our main finding is driven by audit clients that report more uncertain tax reserves (higher tax risk), rather than clients that exhibit poor financial reporting quality. The effects we document are economically significant and robust to a large battery of sensitivity tests. Our findings suggest that investors seem to negatively perceive tax NAS because of punitive and cash flow risks associated with tax NAS. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources identified in the text.

The impact of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital: evidence from a developing market

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Le ◽  
Paula Hearn Moore
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

Purpose This study aims to examine the effects of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital (COE) considering the impact of two owner types: government ownership and foreign ownership. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a panel data set of 236 Vietnamese firms covering the period 2007 to 2017. Because the two main dependent variables of the COE capital and the absolute value of discretionary accruals receive fractional values between zero and one, the paper uses the generalised linear model (GLM) with a logit link and the binomial family in regression analyses. The paper uses numerous audit quality measures, including hiring Big 4 auditors or the industry-leading Big 4 auditor, changing from non-Big 4 auditors to Big 4 auditors or the industry-leading Big 4 auditor, and the length of Big 4 auditor tenure. Big 4 companies include KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PwC, whereas the non-big 4 are the other audit companies. Findings The study finds a negative relationship between audit quality and both the COE capital and income-increasing discretionary accruals. The effects of audit quality on discretionary accruals and the COE capital depend on the ownership levels of two important shareholders: the government and foreign investors. Foreign ownership is negatively associated with discretionary accruals; however, the effect is more pronounced in the sub-sample of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the firms where the government owns 50% or more equity, than in the sub-sample of Non-SOEs. Originality/value To the best of the knowledge, no prior similar study exists that used the GLM with a logit link and the binomial family regression. Global investors may be interested in understanding how unique institutional settings and capital markets of each country impact the financial reporting quality and cost of capital. Further, policymakers of developing markets may have incentives to improve the quality of financial reporting and reduce the cost of capital which should result in attracting more foreign investments.

Pengaruh Kualitas Corporate Governance Terhadap Cost Of Equity Perusahaan Manufaktur Di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiki Kartika
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Risk Premium ◽  
Manufacturing Industry ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Manufacturing Companies ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

This research aims to determine the impact of Good Corporate Governance (GCG) on the cost of equity for manufacturing companies in Indonesia. The sampling technique uses purposive sampling, namely companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. The analysis was carried out in the Manufacturing industry sector in 2013 - 2015. The GCG index was measured using five dimensions adopted from Black et al. (2003) and Cost of Equity is measured by the ex ante cost of equity capital using the Price Earning Growth (PEG) proxy. The reason for using ex ante cost of equity capital is ex-ante is more describing the role of investors in seeing the risk of a company. The results of this study indicate that GCG negatively affects on the cost of equity. GCG limits managerial opportunism and reduces agency conflicts between owners and agents. Therefore, shareholders are willing to accept a lower risk premium, effectively reducing equity costs.

Can Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 Differences in Audit-Quality Proxies Be Attributed to Client Characteristics?

2011 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 259-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alastair Lawrence ◽  
Miguel Minutti-Meza ◽  
Ping Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Forecast Accuracy ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Analyst Forecast ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Client Characteristics ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Matching Models

ABSTRACT: This study examines whether differences in proxies for audit quality between Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms could be a reflection of their respective clients’ characteristics. In our analyses, we use three audit-quality proxies—discretionary accruals, the ex ante cost-of-equity capital, and analyst forecast accuracy—and employ propensity-score and attribute-based matching models in attempt to control for differences in client characteristics between the two auditor groups while estimating the audit-quality effects. Using these matching models, we find that the effects of Big 4 auditors are insignificantly different from those of non-Big 4 auditors with respect to the three audit-quality proxies. Our results suggest that differences in these proxies between Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors largely reflect client characteristics and, more specifically, client size. We caution the reader that this study has not resolved the question, although we hope that it encourages other researchers to explore alternative methodologies that separate client characteristics from audit-quality effects.

An Examination of the Cost of Capital Implications of FIN 46

2012 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 1105-1134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn M. Callahan ◽  
Rodney E. Smith ◽  
Angela Wheeler Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Cost Of Capital ◽  
Balance Sheet ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Variable Interest Entities ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACT This study examines whether the adoption in 2003 of FASB Interpretation No. 46/R (FIN 46), Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities—An Interpretation of ARB No. 51, changed the cost of capital for affected firms. Using comparative analysis on a broad sample of 11,719 firm-quarter observations for 1,389 firms during the period 1998 through 2005, we find evidence that FIN 46 significantly increased the cost of equity capital for firms with affected variable interest entities (VIEs), an increase of approximately 50 basis points relative to firms reporting no material effect from the standard. Further, firms consolidating these formerly off-balance sheet structures experienced the largest increase. Taken together, these results suggest that FIN 46 reduced the opportunity for firms to use off-balance sheet structures to artificially reduce their cost of capital, a matter of regulatory concern. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document