Market Competition, Audit Fee Stickiness, and Audit Quality: Evidence from China

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsihui Chang ◽  
Yingwen Guo ◽  
Phyllis Lai Lan Mo
Keyword(s):  
Earnings Management ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Certified Public Accountants ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Auditor Reporting

SUMMARY This study examines how audit fee stickiness varies with changes in market competition in China and its effect on audit quality. The Chinese audit market structure has changed significantly since the Chinese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CICPA) issued a proposal to enhance the competitiveness of large domestic audit firms by promoting the consolidation of domestic audit firms in 2007. Using a sample of Chinese listed firms, we find a decrease in upward stickiness and an increase in downward stickiness as market concentration increases in the post-Proposal period. The asymmetry between upward and downward fee stickiness is greater in local markets that are more dominated by the top 10 domestic auditors. Moreover, we find that upward (downward) fee stickiness has a negative (positive) association with audit quality as measured by earnings management and auditor reporting conservatism. JEL Classifications: D40; M42.

The effect of auditor narcissism on audit market competition

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hojat Mohammadi ◽  
Mahdi Salehi ◽  
Meysam Arabzadeh ◽  
Hassan Ghodrati
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
Competitive Pressure ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Audit Market

Purpose This paper aims to assess auditor narcissism’s effect on audit market competition (auditor concentration, clients’ concentration and competitive pressure). Design/methodology/approach This paper’s method is descriptive-correlational based on published information from listed firms on the Tehran Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2018 using a sample of 188 firms (1,310 observations). The method used for hypothesis testing is linear regression using panel data. Findings The results show a negative and significant relationship between auditor narcissism and audit market competition and its indices, including auditor concentration, clients’ concentration and competitive pressure. Moreover, a positive and significant relationship was observed between audit quality and audit market competition and its indices, including auditor concentration, client concentration and competitive pressure. Originality/value To analyzes competition indices in the audit market (auditor concentration, clients’ concentration and competitive pressure). The variable is assessed once more using the exploratory factor analysis of the so-called three variables single variable, named audit market competition. So the central question of the study is investigated within a broader sense. Moreover, as the present study is carried out in the emergent financial markets with extremely competitive audit markets to figure out the effect of auditors’ intrinsic characteristics on such markets’ competitiveness, it can provide useful information in this field.

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 Association between Auditor Quality and Auditor Size: An Analysis of Small CPA Firms

1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Colbert ◽  
Dennis Murray
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Certified Public Accountants ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
Cpa Firms ◽  
Auditor Quality ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Direct Measures

Prior research has documented a positive association between audit quality and auditor size. While some studies have used audit fee as a surrogate for audit quality, other studies have employed more direct measures, such as the outcomes of quality control reviews. Those latter studies, however, used samples that suffer from severe geographic or client-type restrictions. Moreover, most studies of the quality-size relationship have focused on relatively large CPA firms. The present study extends this literature by using a nationwide sample of 422 small CPA firms selected from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' (AICPA) Private Companies Practice Section peer review program, which provides comprehensive measures of CPA firm quality. This study also investigated (1) whether peer review ratings improve with successive reviews and (2) if oversight organization (the AICPA or state societies of CPAs) systematically affects peer review ratings. The results show that for firms that perform audits, reviews, and compilations (but not for firms that perform reviews and compilations, but no audits) auditor quality is positively associated with firm size, the number of previous reviews, and oversight by state societies. These findings suggest that (1) firm size is a useful quality surrogate only for firms that conduct audits, (2) the AICPA's peer review program has been successful in that firms improved their peer review ratings over time, and (3) state-society-sponsored reviews should be examined to assess if they are conducted with the same rigor and intensity as AICPA-sponsored reviews.

Changes in Audit Market Competition and the Big N Premium

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 47-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Carson ◽  
Roger Simnett ◽  
Billy S. Soo ◽  
Arnold M. Wright
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
Big 5 ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact

SUMMARY We respond to calls for research into the effect of the decline in the number of Big N firms on market power and consequential impact on competition (U.S. Department of the Treasury 2008; European Commission 2010; U.K. House of Lords 2011) by analyzing the change in Big N audit fee premium over the Big 6, Big 5, and Big 4 periods, and across different client segments. Using a large sample of Australian publicly listed companies over the years 1996–2007, we find that while premiums paid to Big N auditors have increased significantly for the Big 4 and Big 5 periods compared to the Big 6 period, the growth has not been shared equally across all client segments. In particular, while the largest global clients pay some of the highest premiums, the increase in premiums for this group in the Big 4 period has been lower than those experienced by other clients. We also observe that premiums paid to industry specialists have declined relative to the Big 6 period, but fee discounts offered to clients switching to a Big N auditor from a non-Big N auditor have increased. In all, we find that the premiums paid by Big N clients increased in line with consolidation in the number of Big N audit firms, but the impact varied across client segments.

“Big 4 fee premium” and audit quality: latest evidence from UK listed companies

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 680-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Campa
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Uk

PurposeUsing the most recent observations (2005‐2011) from a sample of UK listed companies, This paper aims to investigate whether Big 4 audit firms exhibit a “fee premium” and, if this is the case, whether the premium is related to the delivery of a better audit service.Design/methodology/approachUnivariate tests, multivariate regressions and two methodologies that control for self‐selection bias are used to answer the proposed research questions. Data are collected from DataStream.FindingsFindings provide consistent evidence about the existence of an “audit fee premium” charged by Big 4 firms while they do not highlight any significant relationship between audit quality and type of auditor with respect to the audit quality proxies investigated.Research limitations/implicationsEvidence from this paper might signal the need for legislative intervention to improve the competitiveness of the audit market on the basis that its concentrated structure is leading to “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients. Findings might also enhance Big 4 client bargaining power. However, as the paper analyses only one country, generalizability of the results might be a limitation.Originality/valueThis study joins two streams of the extant literature that investigate the existence of a “Big 4 audit fee premium” and different levels of audit quality among Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients. Evidence supports the concerns raised by the UK House of Lords in 2010 that the concentrated structure of the audit market could be the driver of “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients as it does not find differences in audit quality between Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients.

Does Big N matter for audit quality? Evidence from Japan

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hu Dan Semba ◽  
Ryo Kato
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Bankruptcy Risk ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Accounting Scandals ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Before And After

Purpose There has been growing concern worldwide regarding audit quality in Japan after the Kanebo and Olympus accounting scandals. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Japanese audit market from 2001 to 2011 to determine whether audit quality differs between Big N and Non-Big N audit firms and whether this difference, if existed, changed during 2007 when the number of big audit firms declined from four to three and the requirements of audit quality became more rigorous. Design/methodology/approach This study employs a sample of Japanese listed firms from fiscal year 2001 to 2011. Five proxy variables for audit quality are used and the data are analyzed using the propensity score matching method. Findings The authors show that irrespective of their size, all audit firms in Japan provide the same quality of service, when controlling for client characteristics including keiretsu, foreign sales ratio and bankruptcy risk measured in Japan. Additionally, the results suggest that although only three major audit firms remain in the Japanese audit market after the dissolution of PricewaterhouseCooper’s Chuo-Aoyama firm in 2007, the audit quality difference between Big N and Non-Big N remained unchanged before and after 2007. Originality/value The study contributes to the lack of existing empirical evidence on audit quality in Japan, a country characterized with low audit litigation risk and more emphasis on auditor reputation, given the influence of the notable change in Japanese audit market competition from Big 4 to Big 3. The study’s research design contributes to the extant literature by using multiple proxies of audit quality.

Diversity of Signing Auditors and Audit Quality

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang He ◽  
Chao Li ◽  
Gary S. Monroe ◽  
Yi Si
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Cognitive Diversity ◽  
Demographic Diversity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Listed Firms ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Client Firm ◽  
Using Data

Using data for listed firms in China, where two auditors sign the audit report, we examine whether the diversity of signing auditors' characteristics affects audit quality. We find a positive association between diversity and audit quality, consistent with the notion that diversity facilitates team performance. Further analyses show there is a stronger association between cognitive, rather than demographic, diversity of signing auditors and audit quality. Our results are robust to the inclusion of client firm and engagement auditor fixed effects. Cross-sectional results indicate stronger effects of the cognitive diversity of signing auditors on audit quality in complex, opaque, less important clients or firms without industry specialist auditors. Findings from our study suggest that audit firms should allocate staff to audit teams in a manner that results in cognitively diverse audit teams because such teams are more likely to deliver high quality audits.

The Relationship between Audit Market Competition and Audit Fee

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-215
Author(s):  
Hyun Jae Park ◽  
Jaewan Park ◽  
Hye Jeong Nam
Keyword(s):  
Market Competition ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Relationship

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