Customer-Base Concentration: Implications for Audit Pricing and Quality

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gopal V. Krishnan ◽  
Panos N. Patatoukas ◽  
Annika Yu Wang
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Customer Relationships ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Process ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Customer Base ◽  
Conventional View ◽  
Audit Fee

ABSTRACT What are the implications of major customer dependency, i.e., the degree of a supplier firm's dependency on its major customers, for external auditors? While the conventional view emphasizes the negatives of major customer dependency for client business risk, we find that suppliers with more concentrated customer bases spend less on audit fees. The evidence is consistent with reduced audit effort due to efficiency gains in the audit process, especially when suppliers with more concentrated customer bases share the same auditors with their long-standing major customers. The audit fee discount we identify does not imply that audit quality declines with customer-base concentration. In fact, we find that suppliers with more concentrated customer bases are less likely to experience material restatements of previously audited financial statements. Taking the external auditors' perspective, our study provides new managerial insights on the costs and benefits of major customer relationships for supplier firms. Data Availability: All data are available from sources identified in the text.

Did the 2007 PCAOB Disciplinary Order against Deloitte Impose Actual Costs on the Firm or Improve Its Audit Quality?

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff P. Boone ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rates ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
The Other ◽  
Archival Studies ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Fee

ABSTRACT We examine whether the December 2007 PCAOB disciplinary order against Deloitte affected Deloitte's switching risk, audit fees, and audit quality relative to the other Big 4 firms over a three-year period following the censure. Our findings suggest that the PCAOB censure was associated with a decrease in Deloitte's ability to retain clients and attract new clients, and a decrease in Deloitte's audit fee growth rates. However, methodologies used in extant archival studies yield little or no evidence to suggest that Deloitte's audit quality was different from that of the other Big 4 firms during a three-year window either before or after the censure. Overall, our results suggest that the PCAOB censure imposed actual costs on Deloitte. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

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 Female Audit Fee Premium

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 171-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Hardies ◽  
Diane Breesch ◽  
Joël Branson
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Supply Side ◽  
Matched Sample ◽  
Fixed Effects Models ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Supply Side Factors

SUMMARY This study investigates the existence of a female audit fee premium (i.e., higher audit fees for female audit engagement partners). We analyze 57,723 firm-year observations from Belgian firms that were audited by 93 female and 599 male audit partners during the period 2008–2011. The results suggest that client firms pay higher audit fees (by about 7 percent) to female auditors. The findings are confirmed by an array of robustness checks, including a propensity score matched sample, a Heckman two-stage procedure, an examination of a sample of clients that switched audit partners, and fixed effects models. The combined evidence in this study suggests the existence of a female audit fee premium. This fee premium may exist because of gender differences in knowledge, skills, abilities, preferences, and behavior or due to supply-side factors (e.g., a demand for diversity, gendered perceptions about audit quality, or client satisfaction). Data Availability: The data are publicly available from the sources identified in the paper.

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison K. Beck ◽  
Robert M. Fuller ◽  
Leah Muriel ◽  
Colin D. Reid
Keyword(s):  
Present State ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Contextual Information ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Comparative Audit

ABSTRACT: We investigate how audit fee disclosures affect investor perceptions of audit characteristics. We find evidence that when audit fees are presented to investors with supplementary contextual information indicating that the fees are low, average, or high (as compared to industry averages), investors perceive audit quality and auditor effort as being low, average, or high, respectively. When not provided with any additional information concerning the audit fee (similar to the present state of disclosures), investors assess audit quality and auditor effort as being average. Surprisingly, we find that while investors perceive auditor independence as low, average, and high when fees are presented as high, average, or low, respectively, investors not provided with any relative fee information assess auditor independence as low, similar to the investors who are presented with high relative fees. This latter finding provides important insight regarding investors' current perceptions of auditor independence, particularly in the absence of relative or comparative audit fee information. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

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.

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.

Did the 2005 Deferred Prosecution Agreement Adversely Impact KPMG's Audit Practice?

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Baugh ◽  
Jeff P. Boone ◽  
Inder K. Khurana ◽  
K. K. Raman
Keyword(s):  
Service Provider ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Spillover Effect ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Tax Shelters

SUMMARY We examine the consequences of misconduct in a Big 4 firm's nonaudit practice for its audit practice. Specifically, we examine whether KPMG's audit practice suffered a loss of audit fees and clients and/or a decline in factual audit quality following the 2005 deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the Department of Justice for marketing questionable tax shelters. We find little evidence that the DPA adversely impacted KPMG's audit practice by way of either audit fees or the likelihood of client gains/losses, suggesting little or no harm to KPMG's audit reputation. We also find that the DPA had no effect on the firm's factual audit quality, even for those audit clients that dropped KPMG as their tax service provider. Collectively, our findings suggest that there was no spillover effect from the DPA to KPMG's audit practice. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

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.

Strategic Audit Inquiry: The Impact of Timing and the Promotion of Statutory Protections on Client Fraud Disclosures

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 153-167
Author(s):  
John R. Lauck ◽  
Stephen J. Perreault ◽  
Joseph R. Rakestraw ◽  
James S. Wainberg
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Extant Literature ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Inquiry Process ◽  
The Impact

SYNOPSIS Auditing standards require external auditors to inquire of client-employees regarding their knowledge of actual or suspected fraud (PCAOB 2010b; AICPA 2016). However, the extant literature provides little guidance on practical methods that auditors can employ to increase the likelihood of fraud disclosure and improve audit quality. Drawing upon best practices in the whistleblowing literature and psychological theories on self-regulation, we experimentally test the efficacy of two practical strategies that auditors can employ during the fraud inquiry process: actively promoting statutory whistleblower protections and strategically timing their fraud inquiries. Our results indicate that auditors are more likely to elicit client-employee fraud disclosures by actively promoting statutory whistleblower protections and strategically timing the fraud inquiry to take place in the afternoon, when client-employee self-regulation is more likely to be depleted. These two audit inquiry strategies should be of considerable interest to audit practitioners, audit committees, and those concerned with improving audit quality. Data Availability: From the authors by request.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document