The Effect of Supply Chain Knowledge Spillovers on Audit Pricing

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jengfang Chen ◽  
Hsihui Chang ◽  
Hsin-Chi Chen ◽  
Sungsoo Kim
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Knowledge Spillovers ◽  
National Level ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Office Level

ABSTRACT We present evidence on the effect of audit firms' supply chain knowledge spillover on audit pricing. Analyzing data from Audit Analytics and Compustat for the seven-year period from 2003 to 2009, we find that audit firms' supply chain knowledge has a negative effect on audit fees. Specifically, an audit firm with more supply chain knowledge charges lower audit fees to its clients when the firm also audits its clients' major buyers. In addition, we find that the fee discount is greater when the audit firm possesses major buyer-related supply chain knowledge at the office level compared to the national level. Our findings are consistent, albeit weaker, to an expanded sample of companies that voluntarily disclose their major buyers. Data Availability: The data are publicly available.

scholarly journals Audit Office Size, Audit Quality, and Audit Pricing

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Hag Choi ◽  
Chansog (Francis) Kim ◽  
Jeong-Bon Kim ◽  
Yoonseok Zang
Keyword(s):  
Firm Size ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
National Level ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Specific Factor ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Industry Leadership ◽  
Office Size ◽  
Office Level

SUMMARY: Using a large sample of U.S. audit client firms over the period 2000–2005, this paper investigates whether and how the size of a local practice office within an audit firm (hereafter, office size) is a significant, engagement-specific factor determining audit quality and audit fees over and beyond audit firm size at the national level and auditor industry leadership at the city or office level. For our empirical tests, audit quality is measured by unsigned abnormal accruals, and the office size is measured in two different ways: one based on the number of audit clients in each office and the other based on a total of audit fees earned by each office. Our results show that the office size has significantly positive relations with both audit quality and audit fees, even after controlling for national-level audit firm size and office-level industry expertise. These positive relations support the view that large local offices provide higher-quality audits compared with small local offices, and that such quality differences are priced in the market for audit services.

CEO Turnover and Audit Pricing

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua-Wei Huang ◽  
Robert J. Parker ◽  
Yun-Chia Anderson Yan ◽  
Yi-Hung Lin
Keyword(s):  
Voluntary Turnover ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Ceo Turnover ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Predictor Variables ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Relationship

SYNOPSIS This study examines the relationship between CEO turnover in client companies and the fees charged by their audit firms. We propose that forced CEO turnover (such as dismissals) pose higher business and audit risks for the audit firm than voluntary turnover (such as retirements); further, greater risk leads to higher audit prices. We develop a regression model of audit fees that includes, as predictor variables, type of CEO turnover and control variables identified in prior studies (e.g., ROA, total assets, and corporate governance). Results reveal that companies with forced CEO turnover have significantly higher audit fees than companies with either voluntary turnover or no turnover. Further, we find no difference in audit fees between firms with voluntary turnover and firms without turnover. Data Availability: The data used in this study are publicly available.

City-Level Auditor Industry Specialization, Economies of Scale, and Audit Pricing

2012 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 1281-1307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Yu Kit Fung ◽  
Ferdinand A. Gul ◽  
Jagan Krishnan
Keyword(s):  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Scale Economies ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
The United States ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Auditor Industry Specialization ◽  
Negative Effect

ABSTRACT We examine the effects of city-level auditor industry specialization and scale economies on audit pricing in the United States. Using a sample of Big N clients for the 2000–2007 period, and a scale measure based on percentile rankings of the number of audit clients at the city-industry level, we document significant specialization premiums and scale discounts in both the pre- and post-Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) periods. However, the effects of industry specialization and scale economies on audit pricing are highly interactive. The negative effect of city-industry scale on audit fees obtains only for clients of specialist auditors. By contrast, clients of non-specialist auditors obtain scale discounts only when they enjoy strong bargaining power, suggesting that auditors are “forced” to pass on scale economies to clients with greater bargaining power. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the article.

Client-Auditor Supply Chain Relationships, Audit Quality, and Audit Pricing

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 119-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla M. Johnstone ◽  
Chan Li ◽  
Shuqing Luo
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
National Level ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Supply Chain Relationships ◽  
Revenue Cycle ◽  
The City

SUMMARY: We investigate the association between auditors' supply chain knowledge and companies' audit quality and audit pricing. Auditor supply chain knowledge is a specialized understanding of information and processes regarding accounting and auditing issues that relates to both a supplier and its major customer, regardless of industry commonalities, that is particularly useful for understanding complexities associated with the revenue cycle. We find that auditors' supply chain knowledge at the city level is associated with higher audit quality and lower audit fees, compared to companies employing auditors with supply chain knowledge at the national level or employing auditors without supply chain knowledge. Such effects are stronger for supplier companies that derive a high proportion of revenue from their major customers, and when the revenue cycle for the supplier companies is more important. We obtain these results while controlling for the usual determinants of audit quality and fees, along with auditors' industry specialization.

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.

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.

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.

Hiring Auditors with a Part II Quality Control Report: An Opportunity for Increased Earnings Management or Lower Audit Fees?

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-93
Author(s):  
Jared Eutsler ◽  
D. Kip Holderness ◽  
Megan M. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
General Demand ◽  
Systemic Quality

ABSTRACT The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) Part II inspection reports, which disclose systemic quality control issues that auditors fail to remediate, signal poor audit quality for triennially inspected audit firms. Auditors that receive a Part II inspection report typically experience a decrease in clients, which demonstrates a general demand for audit quality. However, some companies hire auditors that receive Part II inspection reports. We examine potential reasons for hiring these audit firms. We find that relative to companies that switch to auditors without Part II reports, companies that switch to auditors with Part II reports have higher discretionary accruals in the first fiscal year after the switch, which indicates lower audit quality and a heightened risk for future fraud. We find no difference in audit fees. Our results suggest that PCAOB Part II inspection reports may signal low-quality auditors to companies that desire low-quality audits. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

scholarly journals Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation for Listed Companies: The Effects in the Netherlands

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-966
Author(s):  
Bas de Jong ◽  
Steven Hijink ◽  
Lars in ’t Veld
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
First Year ◽  
Financial Reports ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

AbstractThe Audit Regulation was adopted in 2014 to address many of the perceived failings in the market for statutory audits. It introduced mandatory audit firm rotation for public-interest entities, including listed companies, as of 17 June 2020/2023. Mandatory audit firm rotation was also considered by the Dutch legislator in 2012. Therefore, many Dutch listed companies had already switched audit firm in anticipation of the national requirement. In this article, we investigate the effects of mandatory audit firm rotation in the Netherlands by examining the financial reports of Dutch listed firms over the financial years 2012–2016 and by conducting a survey among stakeholders. We conclude that there is broad support for mandatory audit firm rotation in the Netherlands. Although mandatory audit firm rotation was seen as controversial at the time of adoption, it is now considered desirable by various stakeholders, including auditors themselves. However, mandatory audit firm rotation appears to have had some adverse effects. Most notably, our study shows a higher probability of errors in first year audits. The discount in audit fees provided by audit firms to lucrative larger public-interest entities for first year audits—the trophy client effect—may exacerbate the negative effect on audit quality. The Audit Regulation’s goals to improve the market for statutory audits have not been met so far.

scholarly journals A Test of Audit Pricing in the Small-Client Segment: A Comment

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willie E. Gist
Keyword(s):  
Product Differentiation ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Price Premium ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Size Classes ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Second Tier ◽  
The U.S

This study is the second to provide a richer test of the association between auditor size and audit fees by using three audit firm size classes in the small-client segment of the U.S. audit market. The finding of a Big 8 (now Big 6) price premium is consistent with Francis and Simon [1]. However, this price premium exists only with respect to local/regional firms. Francis und Simon showed that the Big 8 price premium exists with respect to both second-tier and local/regional firms. The present study also provides evidence of a second-tier price premium over local/regional firms. The results imply product differentiation to both Big 8 and second-tier firms. Plausible reasons for differences in results between the two studies are given.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document