Long-Term Trends in Audit Fees

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishnagopal Menon ◽  
David D. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
Long Term Effect ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Model Coefficient ◽  
Long Term Trends ◽  
Wage Increases

The audit fees literature contains little by way of systematic evidence on long-term trends in audit fees. This study analyzes trends in audit fees from 1980 through 1997, adjusting for changes in client size, complexity, and risk. The sample is restricted to clients of Big 6 firms that voluntarily disclosed audit fees in the period 1980–1997. Evidence is found that audit fees increased in the 1980s but stayed flat in the 1990s. Most important, a significant increase is noted in 1988, the year in which the Auditing Standards Board issued the “expectation gap” standards. These results hold even after controlling for wage increases in accounting firms, suggesting an expansion of auditing effort. There is no evidence that auditors obtain any price premium from industry specialization. The 1989 Big 8 mergers appear to have had a short-term, but not long-term, effect on fees. Finally, the magnitude of the audit fee model coefficient for accounts receivable and inventory has declined over the period, presumably due to productivity improvements.

scholarly journals Kualitas Audit: Ditinjau dari Fee Audit, Risiko Audit dan Skeptisme Profesional Auditor sebagai Variabel Moderating

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Muslim Muslim ◽  
Syamsuri Rahim ◽  
Muhammad Faisal AR Pelu ◽  
Alma Pratiwi
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Professional Skepticism ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Positive Effect

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of audit fees and audit risk on audit quality with auditor professional skepticism as a moderating variable. This research was conducted at 8 public accounting firms in Makassar city with 40 respondents. The analytical method used is multiple regression analysis (Moderated Regression Analysis) which is used to measure the strength of the relationship between two or more variables. The results of this study found that the audit fee variable had a negative and not significant effect on audit quality. These results illustrate that the higher the audit fee received by the auditor, the audit quality will decrease. While audit risk is not a significant positive effect on audit quality. The results of this study illustrate that the higher the audit risk, the audit quality will decrease. The auditor's professional skepticism as a moderating variable is not able to strengthen the effect of audit fees on audit quality. Furthermore, auditor professional skepticism as a moderating variable is also unable to strengthen the effect of audit risk on audit quality

Auditor Industry Specialization, Client Bargaining Power, and Audit Pricing

2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Casterella ◽  
Jere R. Francis ◽  
Barry L. Lewis ◽  
Paul L. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Sustainable Competitive Advantage ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Absolute Size ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Differentiation Strategy ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
A Company

Porter's (1985) analysis of competitive strategy is used to explain industry specialization by Big 6 accounting firms. In Porter's framework, industry specialization can be viewed as a differentiation strategy whose purpose is to create a sustainable competitive advantage relative to nonspecialist auditors. A differentiation strategy will lead to higher audit fees if valued by clients. We find evidence of higher fees for Big 6 industry specialists relative to nonspecialists in the U.S. audit market, but only for companies in the lower half of the sample based on size (assets <$123 million). By contrast, companies in the upper half of the sample do not pay a specialist premium, and audit fees actually decrease as a company becomes increasingly large relative to its auditor's industry clientele. Together these results suggest that audit fees are higher when clients are small and have little bargaining power, but audit fees are lower when clients have greater bargaining power and this is more likely when companies are large in absolute size and large relative to their auditor's industry clientele.

scholarly journals Audit Fee Premium for Industry Specialization: A Developed Country Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Muhammad Shahin Miah
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
National Level ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Significant Shift ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Developed Country ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Mandatory Adoption

This paper examines the effects of industry specialization (city-level, nationallevel, and joint-level) on audit pricing in the Australia. By using Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) listed companies, this study documents that auditors who are industry specialists at both city-and national-level charge significantly higher audit fees compare to those auditors who are specialists either only at city-level or only at national-level industry specialist. However, in further analysis, this study documents that firms who are city-level industry specialists they charge relatively higher audit fees than nationallevel industry specialists, which is consistent with prior research on audit fee premiums studies concentrated in Australia. The greater audit fees charged by city-level industry specialists auditors are possibly attributed to recent changes in accounting regulations environment in Australia (e.g., mandatory adoption of IFRS). Such a significant shift in financial reporting environment due of IFRS adoption can affect audit expertise which may be reflected in this study. This study findings are robust in a set of alternative tests following prior research.

Auditor Industry Specialization and Market Segmentation: Evidence from Hong Kong

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark L. DeFond ◽  
Jere R. Francis ◽  
T. J. Wong
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Market Segmentation ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Market Segment ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Auditor Industry Specialization ◽  
Production Economies ◽  
Market Leader

Audit fees of Big 6 and non-Big 6 accounting firms are examined for 348 publicly listed Hong Kong companies. Using more recent data than prior studies, we find evidence of Big 6 premiums for both general brand name and for industry specialization. In addition, we find that the large local firm Kwan Wong Tan & Fong, which is the market leader in the property sector, has significantly lower fees than both Big 6 and other non-Big 6 auditors in that industry. Specialization thus leads to different results for Big 6 and non-Big 6 firms and suggests a market segment not previously identified: non-Big 6 specialization, which leads to production economies and the capture of market share through lower fees for a clientele seeking low-priced audits. These results also suggest that prior studies do not recognize sufficiently that Big 6 brand-name reputation is a necessary foundation on which to achieve higher priced quality-differentiated audits based on industry specialization.

Long-term effect of 90Y pituitary implantation in acromegaly

1987 ◽  
Vol 115 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Jadresic ◽  
L. E. Jimenez ◽  
G. F. Joplin
Keyword(s):  
Hormone Replacement ◽  
Cumulative Effect ◽  
Tolerance Test ◽  
Oral Glucose ◽  
Pituitary Fossa ◽  
Long Term Effect ◽  
Long Term Trends ◽  
Pituitary Irradiation ◽  
Serum Gh

Abstract. This report examines the long-term trends in GH levels and pituitary function in a group of 38 acromegalic patients who were selected insofar as we were able to follow them up for more than 10 years after a single dose of 90Y interstitial pituitary irradiation as the sole treatment. Mean serum GH had fallen from 106 to 24 mIU/l within 3–6 months and then slowly declined to 4 mIU/l after 10 years. GH levels of ≤ 5 mIU/l during a 50 g oral glucose tolerance test were obtained in 8% of patients at 3–6 months and in 18% at 1 year, the cumulative percentage increasing to 53% at 10, and 76% at 14 years. The percentage of patients requiring hormone replacement therapy rose from nil pre-implant to 16% by 3–6 months, and then slowly increased to 39% by 14 years. Serial coned radiographs of the pituitary fossa were available for 32 patients. By 10 years, 16 showed thickening of the dorsum sellae and/or reduction of at least one diameter by 3 mm. Concerning symptoms, all 29 patients whose GH level fell to ≤ 5 mIU/l showed improvements, 22 becoming asymptomatic. Seven patients with lesser falls in GH levels (from a mean of 193 to a mean of 15 mIU/l) all improved, one becoming asymptomatic. Two showed no variation. These results show that 90Y pituitary implants have a cumulative effect over the years in inducing remission and hypopituitarism in acromegalic patients, the early decline in GH levels being swifter than from other forms of irradiation.

Original and Revised Auditor Fee Data

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. A54-A69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Rosner ◽  
Ariel Markelevich
Keyword(s):  
Audit Committee ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Nonaudit Services ◽  
Auditor Fees

SUMMARY: A significant number of companies report revised auditor fees (audit, nonaudit services, and total) in subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. We find that, on average, revised audit fees and total fees are significantly higher, and nonaudit services (NAS) fees are significantly lower than the originally reported fees. The occurrence of fee revisions decreases significantly after 2006 and does not appear to be concentrated in specific industries. In addition, we find that larger clients are more likely to report fee revisions, while clients of Big 4 auditors and clients that file late are less likely to report fee revisions. We also examine the magnitude of upward and downward fee revisions. The fee revisions likely result from the changes in the SEC's fee disclosure reporting requirements from 2001 to 2003, as well as ambiguity related to the new requirements. In addition, they also may stem from estimated billing by accounting firms prior to filing with the SEC, followed by more precise billing after the filing. Our objective is to alert managers and practitioners to the subtleties of the fee disclosure requirements relative to fees billed/paid, the disparity in fee reporting, and the necessity for reporting revised fees if appropriate. We advise audit committee members, analysts, researchers, and other users of audit fee data to use revised fee numbers and exercise caution when using originally reported fees, as they often are revised.

PENGARUH FEE AUDIT, DAN MASA PERIKATAN AUDIT TERHADAP KUALITAS AUDIT (SURVEI PADA KANTOR AKUNTAN PUBLIK KOTA BANDUNG)

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabirin, Afif Prasetyo
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Analysis Technique ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Census Techniques ◽  
The City ◽  
Public Accountant

The purpose of this study is to obtain empirical evidence of the influence of audit fees, and audit engagement period both simultaneously and partially on audit quality at public accounting firms in Bandung. The population in this study is the Public Accountant Office in the city of Bandung which is registered at the IAPI Directorate. The technique of determining the sample using census techniques. The number of samples selected in the study was 60 respondents. The analysis technique uses multiple analysis. The results showed that partially Audit Fee had a positive and significant effect on audit quality. While the engagement period does not affect the audit quality. While simultaneously shows that the Audit Fee, and the Engagement Period, significantly influence the Audit Quality Survey at the Bandung Public Accountant Office.Keywords : Audit Fee, Audit Engagement Period, Audit Quality

Auditor Industry Specialization and Audit Pricing and Effort

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gil Soo Bae ◽  
Seung Uk Choi ◽  
Jae Eun Lee
Keyword(s):  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Production ◽  
Industry Expertise

SUMMARY We find that auditor industry expertise is both a firm-level and partner-level phenomenon, which suggests that industry expertise captured by accounting firms is dispersed among engagement partners through knowledge sharing and transfers within audit firms. We also find that the higher audit fees by expert auditors are due to more hours and not higher rates. While spending more hours allows expert auditors to extract higher fees in total, the finding that expert firms/partners exert greater effort does not support the suggestion that expert auditors are in general more efficient in audit production. However, we find weak evidence that audit hours for expert auditors are lower in industries and companies with homogenous operations and comparable accounting than in other industries and companies. This finding suggests that knowledge transfers more likely take place in homogeneous and comparable industries, leading to production efficiency that moderates the increase in audit hours charged by experts. JEL Classifications: M4; M42. Data Availability: All data are available from the identified sources.

Auditor Industry Specialization, Client Bargaining Power, and Audit Fees: Further Evidence

2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua-Wei Huang ◽  
Li-Lin Liu ◽  
K. Raghunandan ◽  
Dasaratha V. Rama
Keyword(s):  
Survey Data ◽  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Negative Association ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Auditor Industry Specialization ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The U.S

Casterella, Francis, Lewis, and Walker (CFLW 2004) find, using survey data from 1993, that (1) there is a Big 6 industry specialization audit fee premium in the small client segment of the U.S. audit market, but (2) audit fees decrease for large companies as the client becomes increasingly large relative to an auditor's clientele. In this study, we first replicate and confirm the results of CFLW (2004), using audit fee data from SEC filings for fiscal 2000 and 2001. In the post-SOX period, we find that the results related to specialization continue to hold in fiscal 2004 but not in 2003—suggesting that 2003 is perhaps a unique year due to the flux in the audit market following the enactment of SOX. With respect to client bargaining power, our results in the post-SOX period differ from CFLW (2004) in that we observe a negative association between client bargaining power and audit fees for both the small and large client segments.

scholarly journals Additional Evidence On The Large Audit-Firm Fee Premium As An Indication Of Auditor Quality

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Simon
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Auditor Quality ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Big Six ◽  
Big Eight

<span>Several studies of the U.S. market for audit services have found evidence of a large audit-firm fee premium. This premium has been interpreted as an indication that large audit firms (typically defined as the Big Eight, now the Big Six), considered as a group, receive higher fees than non-Big Eight firms and thus are perceived to provide higher quality audit services. A common interpretation has been that there is a strong relationship between audit firms size and audit quality. That is, the observed Big Eight fee premium has been interpreted as evidence that this group of large auditors, as a whole, is perceive to provide higher quality audits. Using larger samples than previous studies, this paper decomposes the large auditor fee premium into a separate fee premium effect for each auditor. The results suggest that the observed fee premium is attributable to a subset of large auditors, and therefore it is possible that not all of this group of large audit firms are perceived as offering significantly different audit products, at least when differential audit fees and used as a measure of product differentiation. In addition, when observed audit fee premiums are related to other proxies for auditor quality, there is confirming evidence that large accounting firms are not perceived as a homogeneous group with respect to audit quality.</span>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document