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.

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.

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.

Further Evidence on the Effect of Regulation on the Exit of Small Auditors from the Audit Market and Resulting Audit Quality

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 95-115
Author(s):  
Neil L. Fargher ◽  
Alicia Jiang ◽  
Yangxin Yu
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Jel Classifications

SUMMARY Following the introduction of SOX in 2002 and the introduction of PCAOB inspections starting from 2003, DeFond and Lennox (2011) found that a large number of small auditors exited the SEC client audit market during the 2002–2004 period and that these exiting auditors were of lower quality relative to non-exiting auditors. This paper seeks to verify whether SOX and the introduction of PCAOB inspections improved audit quality through incentivizing small auditors providing lower audit quality to exit the market. Using client discretionary accruals and the likelihood of the clients restating financial statements as proxies for audit quality, we do not find that the small auditors that exited the market for SEC client audits were of lower quality than successor small audit firms that did not exit the market. JEL Classifications: G18; L51. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

On the Economics of Mandatory Audit Partner Rotation and Tenure: Evidence from PCAOB Data

2020 ◽  
pp. 0000-0000
Author(s):  
Brandon Gipper ◽  
Luzi Hail ◽  
Christian Leuz
Keyword(s):  
Cross Section ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Large Cross Section ◽  
Public Firms ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Mandatory Rotation ◽  
Audit Team ◽  
Audit Partner Rotation

We analyze the effects of partner tenure and mandatory rotation on audit quality, pricing, and production for a large cross-section of U.S. public firms over the 2008 to 2014 period. On average, we find no evidence that audit quality declines over the tenure cycle and little support for "fresh-look" benefits provided by the new audit partner. Audit fees decline and audit hours increase after mandatory rotation, but then reverse over the tenure cycle. We also find evidence that audit firms use "shadowing" in preparation for a lead partner turnover. These effects differ by competitiveness of the local audit market, client size, and partner experience. When multiple members of the audit team commence at a new client, the transition appears to be more disruptive and more likely to exhibit audit quality effects. Our findings point to costly efforts by the audit firms to minimize disruptions and audit failures around mandatory rotations.

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.

Auditor Tenure and the Pricing of Discretionary Accruals in the Post-SOX Era

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Jenkins ◽  
Uma K. Velury
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Significant Relation ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Accruals Quality ◽  
Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

ABSTRACT This study empirically examines the public policy implications of mandatory audit firm rotation in the context of the relation between auditor tenure and the market's perception of discretionary accruals quality in the pre- and post-SOX periods. Consistent with prior research, the pre-SOX results support the effects of auditor learning and auditor closeness on the relation between auditor tenure and audit quality. We further demonstrate that in the post-SOX period, there is no significant relation between auditor tenure and the pricing of discretionary accruals. The post-SOX results indicate that the market's perception of auditor tenure as a significant determinant of audit quality may have diminished in the environment of increased regulation under SOX. The findings further imply that ongoing consideration of a policy that mandates periodic audit firm rotation may no longer be essential with the passage of SOX. Data Availability: Data used in this study were obtained from publicly available sources identified in the text.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document