Does Auditor Industry Specialization Matter? Evidence from Market Reaction to Auditor Switches

2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Robert Knechel ◽  
Vic Naiker ◽  
Gail Pacheco
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Reaction ◽  
Abnormal Returns ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Market Reactions ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Auditor Switches ◽  
Differential Costs

Numerous capital market studies have investigated the stock market's reaction to firms switching to and from brand name auditors (Big 8/6/5/4 auditors). However, audit firm brand name is only one possible indication of the quality of an auditor. This study contributes to the existing literature on auditor switching, by examining how the market reacts to auditor switches to or from audit firms that are considered to be industry specialists. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that firms switching between Big 4 auditors experience significant positive abnormal returns when the successor auditor is an industry specialist, and they experience significant negative abnormal returns when the successor auditor is not a specialist. We also find that these market reactions are more likely to be due to changes in perceived audit quality rather than differential costs of using specialist auditors. In supplemental analysis of switches involving non-Big 4 auditors, we find that firms that switch from a specialist Big 4 auditor to a non-Big 4 auditor suffer the largest negative market reaction. Surprisingly, we also observe that the market reacts most positively when a company switches from a non-Big 4 auditor to a Big 4 auditor who is not a specialist. These results suggest that the market does perceive audit quality differences based on industry specialization to be relevant to the valuation of a company's market value.

Audit firms and industry specialization in an emerging economy

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-362
Author(s):  
Karim Hegazy ◽  
Mohamed Hegazy
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Capital Investment ◽  
Emerging Economy ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the implications of audit industry specialization on auditor’s retention and growth within an emerging economy. Factors such as whether the firm is a Big 4, a firm with international affiliation, a local firm and the type of industry were studied to analyse the reasons behind audit firm retention and growth.Design/methodology/approachThis research is based on a field study related to audit firms providing services to listed companies in an emerging economy. The sample includes the top 100 publicly held companies’ in the Egyptian stock market during 2006-2011 for which their annual reports are analysed to determine the audit firms’ retention and growth. An assessment of the continuity of the auditors and the increase in the number of audit clients were also measured.FindingsThe results confirm that industry specialization has an important effect on the auditor’s retention, especially for industries where capital investment is significant such as buildings, construction, financial services, housing and real estate. Big 4 audit firms retained their clients because of their industry specialization and brand name. Evidence was found that good knowledge of accounting and auditing standards resulted in audit firms with international affiliation competing with the Big 4 for clients’ retention and growth.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the existing literature, as it is among the first to provide empirical evidence on auditor retention, growth and auditor’s dominance in an emerging economy such as Egypt.

Investor Reaction to the Prospect of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

2016 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren C. Reid ◽  
Joseph V. Carcello
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Reaction ◽  
Abnormal Returns ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

ABSTRACT The PCAOB recently considered implementing mandatory audit firm rotation in hopes of better aligning auditors' interests with investors' interests, suggesting that the PCAOB views long auditor tenure as problematic. However, the accounting profession argues that long tenure actually improves audit quality. This study provides insight into investors' views by evaluating the market's reaction to events related to the potential adoption of rotation that occurred between 2011 and 2013. The results provide some evidence that the market reacts negatively (positively) to events that increased (decreased) the likelihood of rotation, although these results are sensitive to the market index used to calculate abnormal returns. More importantly, particularly given the lack of a U.S.-specific control group, cross-sectional tests provide strong evidence that the market reaction is more negative (positive) on dates that increased (decreased) the likelihood of rotation given longer auditor tenure. Moreover, we also find that the market reaction is more negative (positive) on dates that increased (decreased) the likelihood of rotation given a Big 4 auditor. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources identified in the text.

Auditor Resignations and Auditor Industry Specialization

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Cenker ◽  
Albert L. Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Auditor Industry Specialization ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Logistic Regressions ◽  
Auditor Specialization ◽  
Local Levels

SYNOPSIS: The increase of Big 4 auditor resignations in the newly regulated auditing environment creates a rich setting to examine the supply-side effects of auditor industry specialization. The authors estimate logistic regressions to examine whether audit firms consider industry specialization at both the local and national levels when deciding on whether to retain or resign from audit clients. The results show a negative relation between auditor industry specialization and auditor resignations when the auditor is a joint specialist (i.e., a specialist at both the national and local levels) and when the auditor is a local specialist only (i.e., a local specialist but not a national specialist). The national specialization alone variable (i.e., the auditor is a national specialist but not a local specialist) is not significant for our primary analysis; however, additional analyses reveal that the significance of this variable varies when incorporating alternative measurements for auditor specialization in the models. Thus, the overall evidence of the national specialization effect on the auditor’s resignation decision is mixed and inconclusive at this point. Based on the additional analyses, the joint and the local specialization effects generally appear to be robust. As such, we conclude that auditors perceive their firms’ industry expertise, particularly at the local level, as reducing both clientele mismatch and litigation risks, and hence improving audit quality.

Auditor Industry Specialization and Earnings Quality

2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Balsam ◽  
Jagan Krishnan ◽  
Joon S. Yang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Earnings Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Absolute Level ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Earnings Response Coefficients ◽  
Auditor Industry Specialization ◽  
Earnings Response

This study examines the association between measures of earnings quality and auditor industry specialization. Prior work has examined the association between auditor brand name and earnings quality, using auditor brand name to proxy for audit quality. Recent work has hypothesized that auditor industry specialization also contributes to audit quality. Extending this literature, we compare the absolute level of discretionary accruals (DAC) and earnings response coefficients (ERC) of firms audited by industry specialists with those of firms not audited by industry specialists. We restrict our study to clients of Big 6 (and later Big 5) auditors to control for brand name. Because industry specialization is unobservable, we use multiple proxies for it. After controlling for variables established in prior work to be related to DAC and the ERC, we find clients of industry specialist auditors have lower DAC and higher ERC than clients of nonspecialist auditors. This finding is consistent with clients of industry specialists having higher earnings quality than clients of nonspecialists.

Audit Firms as Networks of Offices

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott E. Seavey ◽  
Michael J Imhof ◽  
Tiffany J. Westfall
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Network Connectedness ◽  
Partner Knowledge ◽  
Office Level

SUMMARY Prior audit research suggests that most, if not all, audit quality can be explained at the office level. However, the question remains of whether office-level audit quality is contingent on how individual offices relate to the firm as a whole. Motivated by theories of knowledge management, organizational learning, and networks, we posit that individual offices are connected to their audit network through partner knowledge sharing and oversight, which impact office-level audit quality. We interview Big 4 audit partners and learn that knowledge sharing between partners in different offices is common and intended to aid in the provision of audit services. Using network connectedness to proxy for knowledge sharing and oversight between offices of the same firm, we document that more connected offices are associated with fewer client restatements and lower discretionary accruals. We additionally find that network effects are magnified when accounting treatments are more complex and require greater auditor judgement.

Market Reaction to Auditor Switching from Big 4 to Third-Tier Small Accounting Firms

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsihui Chang ◽  
C. S. Agnes Cheng ◽  
Kenneth J. Reichelt
Keyword(s):  
Stock Market ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Reaction ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Auditor Switching ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
Second Tier

SUMMARY: After the demise of Arthur Andersen, the public accounting industry has witnessed a significant migration of public clients to second-tier (Grant Thornton and BDO Seidman) and smaller third-tier accounting firms. While prior literature documents that smaller auditors are perceived by the stock market as an inferior substitute for a Big 4 auditor, this perception appears to have changed in recent years. In this paper, we analyze market responses to auditor switching from Big 4 to smaller accounting firms during 2002 to 2006. We break our sample period into two separate periods (Periods 1 and 2) based on when regulatory changes occurred. These changes included Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 404 implementation, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspections, and a tightened Form 8-K filing deadline. We find a relatively more positive stock market reaction to clients switching from a Big 4 to a smaller third-tier auditor in Period 2. This relatively more positive reaction in Period 2 reflects companies seeking better services rather than a lower audit fee, when an audit quality drop is less likely. Overall, our results suggest that companies and investors have become more receptive to smaller accounting firms.

The role of audit quality in firm valuation

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 575-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mishari M. Alfraih
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Value Relevance ◽  
Accounting Information ◽  
Institutional Setting ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Book Value ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Team

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of audit quality on the value relevance of earnings and book value. Because joint audit is mandated for all Kuwait Stock Exchange-listed firms, it is hypothesized that the higher the quality of the audit team (as measured by the number of Big 4 audit firms in the joint audit team), the higher the value relevance of earnings and book values for equity valuation. Design/methodology/approach Consistent with prior research, the value relevance of earnings and book value is measured by the adjusted R2 derived from the Ohlson’s 1995 regression model. The number of Big 4 audit firms represented on the firm’s audit team is used as a proxy for audit quality. Three tiers of audit quality exist, namely, two non-Big 4 audit firms, one Big 4 and one non-Big 4 audit firms or two Big 4 audit firms. To address this paper’s objective, the association between audit quality and the value relevance of earnings and book value were examined using four approaches. The final sample consists of 1,836 firm-year observations and covers fiscal years from a 12-year period (2002-2013). Findings Taken together, the four approaches used collectively provide empirical evidence that audit quality positively and significantly affects the value relevance of accounting measures to market participants. Importantly, the results reveal significant variations in the value relevance of earnings and book value jointly across the three possible auditor combinations. Research limitations/implications Although using auditor size as a proxy for audit quality is well established in the auditing literature, a limitation of that proxy is that it measures audit quality dichotomously, which implicitly assumes a homogeneous level of audit quality within each group. Practical implications The findings show the importance of high-quality and rigorous external audits in improving the value relevance of accounting information. Originality/value This study contributes to the extent literature on audit quality by exploring the role of audit quality in a unique institutional setting that imposes mandatory joint audits. Although prior studies have investigated the effect of joint audit pair choice on earnings management and audit fee premium, this study is the first to investigate the effect of joint audit pair choice on the value relevance of accounting information.

scholarly journals Should the 4 big replace the big 4? An examination of audit quality using internal audit

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Harjinder Singh ◽  
Rick Newby ◽  
Inderpal Singh
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Internal Audit ◽  
Important Research ◽  
Dummy Variable ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Dichotomous Variable ◽  
Audit Fee

Prior research has linked audit quality with large audit firms. Consequently, a dichotomous variable, Big N/non-Big N has traditionally proxied for audit quality. Applying a different measure of audit quality than audit fee, this study investigates whether a single dummy variable for Big N is an appropriate proxy for audit quality in explaining differences in the existence of clients’ internal audit (IA) function. Results indicate that the existence of clients’ IA function is not consistent among Big 4 firms. This has important research implications for the universal use of a Big N dummy variable as a measure for audit quality.

scholarly journals FAR Research Project: The loss of talent: a threat for audit quality?

2017 ◽  
Vol 91 (9/10) ◽  
pp. 268-273
Author(s):  
Isabella Grabner ◽  
Judith Künneke ◽  
Frank Moers
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Recent Survey ◽  
New Professionals ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Labor Inputs

The main priority of the audit industry is to maintain and improve audit quality. While audit quality has been an important topic in both accounting academia and practice, there is still a lack of understanding of what drives audit quality. Given that people are the most valuable asset an audit firm has, we focus on examining the labor inputs as a driver of audit quality. Specifically, we argue that a key threat for audit quality that so far has been largely neglected is the loss of talent across the hierarchy. A well-known problem for audit firms is that they invest enormous resources in new professionals only to have many with talent leave (Patten, 1995; Vera-Muñoz, Ho & Chow, 2006; ACCA & ACRA, 2012). A recent survey by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants finds that only about 38% are satisfied with their career and only 35% plan to stay beyond three years, with no significant differences across Big 4 and midtier firms (ACCA and ACRA, 2012).

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document