Does Fee Disclosure Type Matter? Evidence from Price Adjustment in the Audit Market of Taiwan

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-61
Author(s):  
Jengfang Chen ◽  
Rong-Ruey Duh ◽  
Kuei-Fu Li
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Price Adjustment ◽  
Regulatory Change ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT While mandatory audit fee disclosure makes fee information transparent, there have been concerns about the impact of price adjustment on audit quality. Taking advantage of a regulatory change in Taiwan that required public companies to disclose audit fee but allowed two alternative disclosure forms (amount disclosure or range disclosure), this study investigates the impact of the fee disclosure form on price adjustment and the influence of such adjustment on audit quality. Using a dataset including audit fees under the two disclosure forms, we find that, for overcharged companies, the downward adjustment is larger for amount disclosure companies than range disclosure companies and such downward adjustment increase discretionary accruals in amount disclosure companies but not for range disclosure companies. Our study helps understand the impact of different fee disclosure forms on price adjustment and audit quality, which should be of interest to regulators and financial statement users in Taiwan and beyond.

The association between abnormal audit fees and audit quality after IFRS adoption

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soo-Jung Jung ◽  
Bum-Joon Kim ◽  
Ju-Ryum Chung
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Discretionary Accrual ◽  
Ifrs Adoption ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose This paper aims to examine how the relationship between abnormal audit fees and audit quality changed after adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Korea. Design/methodology/approach Using empirical data collected over the period from 2008 to 2013, this study analyzes the association between abnormally high/low audit fee and audit quality. This study uses linear regression to test the hypothetical relation using discretionary accrual as a proxy for audit quality. Findings This study finds that there exists no significant relationship between abnormally high audit fees and audit quality measured by the magnitude of discretionary accruals in the pre-IFRS adoption period. However, the relationship between abnormally high audit fees and the magnitude of discretionary accruals turns to be positive in the post-IFRS adoption period. These finding suggests that the IFRS enables some clients to engage more discretion in the choice of discretionary accruals and auditors charge higher audit fees in return for allowing the discretion for such clients. Practical implications This study provides insight to regulators of the need to review carefully the financial statements of firms with abnormally high audit fees, and to investors to be more cautious when using financial information about these firms. Originality/value To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to assess IFRS impact on audit fee-quality relation. Also, unique Korean audit market with intensifying competition and discounting audit fee provides interesting setting to review the impact of abnormal audit fee on audit quality.

Impact of firm’s specific factors on audit fee of quoted consumer goods firms

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Wasiu Ajani Musa ◽  
Ramat Titilayo Salman ◽  
Ibrahim Olayiwola Amoo ◽  
Muhammed Lawal Subair
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Goods ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
P Value ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Ifrs Adoption ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
The Impact

Greater pricing presume on audit service has been put by the regulations of the auditing and accounting practices for the disclosure of audit fees, since audit fee is directly related to audit quality. However, the audit fees perceived by the client is often different from the amount charged by the auditors. Hence, this study investigated the impact of firm-specific characteristics on audit fees of quoted consumer goods firms in Nigeria using a purposive sampling technique. Secondary data were obtained from annual reports of the companies for the period from 2009-2016. The empirical result from Breusch-Pagan Lagrange Multiplier Test (BP-LM) produced a chi-square value of 13.94 with p-value of 0.0001 indicating that pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) will not be appropriate for the study. The Hausman test showed a chi-square of 23.55 with a p-value of 0.001 indicating that the null hypothesis is strongly rejected. Thus, the only estimate from the fixed effect model was interpreted to explain the relationship between firm-specific characteristics and audit fees of quoted consumer goods firms in Nigeria. The result revealed that auditee size, auditee risk, auditee profitability and IFRS adoption are the firm specific characteristics that impact on audit fees with only auditee size and IFRS adoption being positively related to audit fees while the other factors are negatively related to audit fees. Based on this finding, this study concluded that the firm’s specific factors are the major drivers of audit fees in Nigeria consumer goods firms. This study recommends among others that companies should implement corporate governance principles that address issues relating to board independence and committee sizes to guide activities in the consumer goods sector since profitability behave negatively with audit fees.

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.

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.

Investigating the impact of audit features on money laundering

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 913-930
Author(s):  
Shaban Mohammadi ◽  
Nader Naghshbandi ◽  
Zahra Moridahmadibezdi
Keyword(s):  
Money Laundering ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Statistical Population ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Quality Audit ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of the present study is to investigate the impact of audit features, including audit quality, audit fees and auditor tenure on money laundering in Iranian stock companies. Design/methodology/approach This research is descriptive-correlational and applied in terms of purpose. To evaluate the audit features, variables including audit quality, audit fee and auditor tenure were used. The statistical population of this study includes all companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange and the research period from 2012 to 2018. A sample of 150 companies was selected by the screening method. In this study, logistic regression and Eviews 10 software were used for data analysis and hypothesis testing. Findings The results showed that variables including audit quality, normal audit fee and auditor tenure have a significant effect on money laundering. Originality/value Observing money laundering rules and regulations for businesses involves is a critical issue. In auditing the financial statements of the business units subject to these laws, the auditor reviews their actions to obtain reasonable assurance of guaranteeing the money laundering laws, evaluates their effectiveness and gains approval of managers regarding observing laundering regulations. In this regard, the auditor is required to report definitive or suspected money-laundering cases or its certain or suspected evidence to the relevant authorities. Although the law prohibits the auditor from disclosing such matters to the client, it is not necessary. It seems that even if the auditors perform non-audit functions, they should report money laundering or suspicious operations and transactions.

Auditor switching and audit fee discounting: the Iranian experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fakhroddin MohammadRezaei ◽  
Norman Mohd-Saleh
Keyword(s):  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Initial Period ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Maximum Point ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Auditor Switching ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Relative Bargaining Power ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of auditor switching on audit fee discounting in Iran. The increased competition in the Iranian audit market following audit market liberalization in 2001 has resulted in a rapid increase in auditor switching and reduces the relative bargaining power of auditors compared to the clients. It is expected that auditor switching results in fee discounting because the relative bargaining power of an auditor (client) is likely to be at the minimum (maximum) point during the initial period of engagement. Since the increased bargaining power of a client in initial year seems to be different in the case of different type of auditor switching (from a state auditor to a private and from a private auditor to another), the magnitude of fee discounting is expected to be different. Design/methodology/approach The objective is tested using a sample of 1,022 firm-year observations between 2001 and 2010. This study applies the multivariate regression model using the first difference specification of audit fee as a dependent variable. Findings Multivariate analysis reveals that auditor switching results in 14 percent of fee discounting. In addition, the results show that 18 and 13 percent of fees discounting during the initial year of engagement arise from cases of auditor switching involving a change from state auditors to private auditors, and a change from one private auditor to another, respectively. The findings support bargaining power view explanation in relation to audit fees discounting in initial year engagement. Originality/value This study is the first to examine the impact of auditor switching (and analyzed different types of auditor switching) on audit fee discounting using the bargaining power view.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Abnormal Audit Fees and Audit Quality: Evidence from the Korean Audit Market

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-60
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Behrend ◽  
Sarfraz Khan ◽  
Young Woo Ko ◽  
Sung-Jin Park
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Earnings Forecasts ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Confounding Effect ◽  
Public Firms ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Analyst Earnings ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Quality Evidence

ABSTRACT Do abnormally high or low audit fees reflect audit quality? In this paper, we re-examine this issue after controlling for the confounding effect of audit hours by using a sample of public firms in the Korean audit market, which publicly discloses both audit fees and audit hour information. While we do not find a significant association between abnormally high audit fees and audit quality, we find that abnormally low audit fees are associated with larger discretionary accruals and a higher likelihood of meeting or beating analyst earnings forecasts. Further, we find that the relationship between abnormally low audit fees and audit quality indicators persists regardless of the level of audit hours. To the extent that audit hours represent audit effort, these findings suggest that greater audit effort alone may not lead to higher audit quality as fee pressure from abnormally low fees may discourage the provision of high-quality audit services. JEL Classifications: M42; M48.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document