Abnormal Audit Fees and Audit Quality: The Importance of Considering Managerial Incentives in Tests of Earnings Management

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Daniel Eshleman ◽  
Peng Guo
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Analyst Forecast ◽  
Earnings Forecast ◽  
Conflicting Evidence ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Prior Literature

SUMMARY Are high audit fees a signal that the auditor exerted more effort or a signal that the auditor may be losing her independence? Prior literature offers conflicting evidence. In this paper, we reexamine the issue on a sample of clients who have both the incentive and the ability to use discretionary accruals to meet or beat the consensus earnings forecast. We find a negative relationship between the level of abnormal audit fees paid by the client and the likelihood of using discretionary accruals to meet or beat the consensus analyst forecast. The evidence is consistent with the notion that abnormal audit fees are indicative of greater effort on the engagement. In other words, the results suggest a positive relationship between abnormal audit fees and audit quality. We show that the conflicting evidence in prior research was caused by research designs that did not consider the incentives of the manager. JEL Classifications: M42; M41. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources quoted in the text.

Overseeing the external audit function: Evidence from audit committees’ reported activities

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Bratten ◽  
Monika Causholli ◽  
Valbona Sulcaj
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Composite Measure ◽  
External Audit ◽  
Earnings Benchmarks ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
External Auditor

Recently, in response to calls for more transparency, many firms have begun reporting the activities undertaken by their audit committees in overseeing the work of the external auditor. We use a composite measure of audit committees’ reported oversight activities for a sample of S&P 1500 firms and examine the extent to which these reported activities are associated with audit quality. We find that when firms’ audit committees report exerting strong oversight, they have higher audit quality as proxied by audit fees, discretionary accruals, the likelihood of meeting or beating earnings benchmarks, and restatements. We also find that the market reacts positively to reports indicating strong oversight, consistent with perceptions of higher audit quality. This study extends prior literature on audit committees by introducing a new comprehensive measure of audit committees’ reported oversight activities and sheds light on how these activities map into audit quality.

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.

Who Did the Audit? Audit Quality and Disclosures of Other Audit Participants in PCAOB Filings

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (5) ◽  
pp. 1939-1967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Callaway Dee ◽  
Ayalew Lulseged ◽  
Tianming Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Reaction ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Multivariate Model ◽  
Significant Decline ◽  
Earnings Response Coefficients ◽  
Absolute Value ◽  
Earnings Response ◽  
First Time

ABSTRACT We empirically test whether audit quality is affected when part of an SEC issuer's audit is outsourced to auditors other than the principal auditor (“participating auditors”). We find a significantly negative market reaction and a significant decline in earnings response coefficients (ERCs) for experimental issuers disclosed for the first time as having participating auditors involved in their audits. However, we find no market reaction and no decline in ERCs for a matching sample of issuers that are not disclosed as using participating auditors, nor for issuers disclosed for the second or third time as using participating auditors. We also find actual audit quality as measured by absolute value of performance-matched discretionary accruals is lower for the experimental issuers, although we find no difference in audit fees paid by the experimental and matching issuers in a multivariate model. Our findings suggest that the PCAOB's proposed rule requiring disclosure of the use of other auditors in addition to the principal auditor would provide information useful to investors in assessing audit quality for SEC issuers.

Auditors and the Principal-Principal Agency Conflict in Family Controlled Firms

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 31-55
Author(s):  
Chiraz Ben Ali ◽  
Sabri Boubaker ◽  
Michel Magnan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Controlling Shareholder ◽  
Voting Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
Agency Conflict ◽  
Jel Classifications

SUMMARY This paper examines whether multiple large shareholders (MLS) affect audit fees in firms where the largest controlling shareholder (LCS) is a family. Results show that there is a negative relationship between audit fees and the presence, number, and voting power of MLS. This is consistent with the view that auditors consider MLS as playing a monitoring role over the LCS, mitigating the potential for expropriation by the LCS. Therefore, our evidence suggests that auditors reduce their audit risk assessment and audit effort and ultimately audit fees in family controlled firms with MLS. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: G32; G34; M42; D86.

Did the 2005 Deferred Prosecution Agreement Adversely Impact KPMG's Audit Practice?

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Baugh ◽  
Jeff P. Boone ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Service Provider ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Spillover Effect ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Tax Shelters

SUMMARY We examine the consequences of misconduct in a Big 4 firm's nonaudit practice for its audit practice. Specifically, we examine whether KPMG's audit practice suffered a loss of audit fees and clients and/or a decline in factual audit quality following the 2005 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the Department of Justice for marketing questionable tax shelters. We find little evidence that the DPA adversely impacted KPMG's audit practice by way of either audit fees or the likelihood of client gains/losses, suggesting little or no harm to KPMG's audit reputation. We also find that the DPA had no effect on the firm's factual audit quality, even for those audit clients that dropped KPMG as their tax service provider. Collectively, our findings suggest that there was no spillover effect from the DPA to KPMG's audit practice. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

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.

Did the 2007 PCAOB Disciplinary Order against Deloitte Impose Actual Costs on the Firm or Improve Its Audit Quality?

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff P. Boone ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rates ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Archival Studies ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee

ABSTRACT We examine whether the December 2007 PCAOB disciplinary order against Deloitte affected Deloitte's switching risk, audit fees, and audit quality relative to the other Big 4 firms over a three-year period following the censure. Our findings suggest that the PCAOB censure was associated with a decrease in Deloitte's ability to retain clients and attract new clients, and a decrease in Deloitte's audit fee growth rates. However, methodologies used in extant archival studies yield little or no evidence to suggest that Deloitte's audit quality was different from that of the other Big 4 firms during a three-year window either before or after the censure. Overall, our results suggest that the PCAOB censure imposed actual costs on Deloitte. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

scholarly journals Do Abnormally High Audit Fees Impair Audit Quality?

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Hag Choi ◽  
Jeong-Bon Kim ◽  
Yoonseok Zang
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Normal Level ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Negatively Associated ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Difference

SUMMARY: This study examines whether and how audit quality proxied by the magnitude of absolute discretionary accruals is associated with abnormal audit fees, that is, the difference between actual audit fee and the expected, normal level of audit fee. The results of various regressions reveal that the association between the two is asymmetric, depending on the sign of the abnormal audit fee. For observations with negative abnormal audit fees, there is no significant association between audit quality and abnormal audit fee. In contrast, abnormal audit fees are negatively associated with audit quality for observations with positive abnormal audit fees. Our findings suggest that auditors’ incentives to deter biased financial reporting differ systematically, depending on whether their clients pay more than or less than the normal level of audit fee. Our results are robust to a variety of sensitivity checks.

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.

The Effects of Accruals Quality on Audit Hours and Audit Fees

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myojung Cho ◽  
Eunsun Ki ◽  
Soo Young Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Cash Flow ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Cash Flows ◽  
Accounting Earnings ◽  
Accruals Quality ◽  
Cash Flow Risk

We investigate whether auditors take into account accruals quality, a proxy for the cash flow risk associated with earnings, by adjusting audit hours and audit fees. Accruals quality tells investors about the mapping of accounting earnings into cash flows. Poor accruals quality weakens this mapping and thus increases this cash flow risk. We find a negative relationship between accruals quality and audit hours/fees, indicating that auditors increase their audit efforts by modifying audit procedures and substantive tests and charge higher fees for the increased cash flow risk. In addition, we find that both innate accruals quality and discretionary accruals quality are negatively related to audit hours and fees but that innate accruals quality is more likely to influence audit hours and fees than discretionary accruals quality. The results indicate that auditors incorporate the cash flow risk associated with accruals quality but that their response varies according to the source of accruals quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document