scholarly journals Audit Research Summaries

2017 ◽  
Vol 91 (7/8) ◽  
pp. 244-249
Author(s):  
Philip Wallage
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee

Ook deze maand presenteren wij weer enkele “Audit Research Summaries” uit de database van de American Accounting Association (www.auditingresearchsummaries. org). De eerste samenvatting betreft een onderzoek van Sharma, Tanyi en Litt naar de kosten van verplichte audit partner-rotatie in de VS. Hiertoe wordt nagegaan of partner- rotatie gerelateerd is aan de hoogte van de audit fee en het tijdsverloop tussen einde boekjaar en datum afgifte van de controleverklaring (audit report lag). Uit het onderzoek blijkt onder andere dat een positieve en significante associatie bestaat tussen partner-rotatie en audit fees. Ook blijkt dat deze associatie met name bestaat voor grotere klanten en voor de niet-Big 4-audit firms. Een vergelijkbare associatie bestaat voor rotatie en de lengte van de audit report lag. De volgende samenvatting betreft een experiment van Kim en Harding onder Australische en Zuid Koreaanse accountants naar het effect dat gepercipieerde expertise van een leidinggevende heeft op de besluitvorming van een ondergeschikte. Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat de invloed van de vooraf bekende preferentie van de leidinggevende op een te nemen besluit groter is naarmate de leidinggevende meer deskundigheid wordt toegedicht. Er wordt geen verschil geconstateerd tussen Australische en Zuid Koreaanse accountants.

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.

How do audit fees change? Effects of firm size and section 404(b) compliance

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-437
Author(s):  
Alexey Lyubimov
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Control Effectiveness ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Second Tier ◽  
Changes Over Time ◽  
Over Time

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of the size of the audit firm and compliance with Section 404(b) on how audit fees change over time. Design/methodology/approach This study uses panel data and an OLS regression to examine the relationship between audit fee changes, firms’ size and Section 404(b) compliance. Findings Section 404(b)-compliant companies experience a larger change in audit fees if they are audited by Big 4 firms than second-tier firms. Second-tier audit firms increase the fees primarily for the companies which do not comply with Section 404(b). Practical implications Regulators have been concerned with the Big 4 fee premium for four decades. This study informs regulators that the Big 4 continue increasing their fees at a higher rate than second-tier firms for their Section 404(b)-compliant clients (even though recent research shows that second-tier firms have increased quality to match the Big 4). This suggests that the Big 4 fee premium increases for this subset of clients, adding to the regulatory concerns. Originality/value While prior research has established the existence of the Big 4 fee premium, little is known about how this premium changes over time. Prior research shows that audit fees increase when internal controls are weak; however, little is known about how Section 404(b) compliance (once control effectiveness is controlled) affects fee changes. This paper addresses these voids in research.

The impact of non-timely 10-Q filings and audit firm size on audit fees

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany Chiu ◽  
Feiqi Huang ◽  
Yue Liu ◽  
Miklos A. Vasarhelyi
Keyword(s):  
Regression Model ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Prior studies suggest that non-timely 10-Q filings indicate higher potential risks than non-timely 10-K filings. Furthermore, larger audit firms tend to be more risk-averse and conservative about reporting. Inspired by these research streams, this paper aims to investigate the influence of non-timely 10-Q filings on audit fees and the impact of audit firm size on this association. Design/methodology/approach The cross-sectional audit fee regression model used in this study is similar to that used in prior audit fee research (Simunic, 1980; Francis et al., 2005; Hay et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2013). The model includes the following five major characteristics that would influence auditors’ fee decisions: auditee size (LNAT), complexity (REIVAT, FOREIGN, SEG), financial condition (LOSS, ROA, GROWTH, ZSCORE), special events (ICW, RESTATE, INITIAL, GC) and auditor type (BIG4). To examine the effect of non-timely 10-Q filings on audit fees, the variable NT10Q is included in the audit fee model. Findings The results indicate that when both non-timely 10-K and non-timely 10-Q filings are included in the regression model, only non-timely 10-Q filings are significantly associated with higher audit fees, suggesting that the presence of non-timely 10-Q filings signals more serious underlying problem than non-timely 10-K filings in the audit fees decision processes. In addition, we find that audit fees for firms audited by Big 4 auditors are 26.4 per cent higher when those firms file non-timely 10-Q reports, whereas there is no significant association between non-timely 10-Q filings and audit fees for firms audited by non-Big 4 auditors. Practical implications As no attention has been paid to the investigation of the impact of non-timely 10-Q filings on audit fees, with the aim of filling the gap of this specific research area, this study examines the association between non-timely 10-Q filings and audit fees and the influence of audit firm size on this association. Originality/value The contribution of this paper is threefold: first, it is the first study to examine the association between non-timely 10-Q filings and audit fees. The results show that non-timely 10-Q filings are a better and earlier indicator of audit risk than non-timely 10-K filings. Second, the results reveal that the relationship between non-timely 10-Q filings and audit fees is affected by audit firm size. Specifically, Big 4 auditors tend to charge higher audit fees in the presence of non-timely 10-Q filings, reflecting that they are more sensitive to audit risk than smaller audit firms are. Third, an examination of the quarterly effect of non-timely 10-Q filings on audit fees indicates a stronger effect from the first quarter’s non-timely 10-Q filings, compared to the second or third quarter.

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.

scholarly journals The non-audit fee and the auditee’s failure risk

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (99 (155)) ◽  
pp. 97-118
Author(s):  
Piotr Staszkiewicz ◽  
Rumiana Górska
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Financial Situation ◽  
The Third ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Failure Risk ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Non Audit Services

This paper examines whether the auditee’s financial situation affects the auditor’s non-audit fee and independ- ence. Three sets of tests were used to address the issue. The first examines whether there are cross-border and intertemporal differences in relationships between non-audit fees and audit fees. The second tests whether there is a relationship between non-audit fees and report modification. The third addresses the relationships between audit fees and the auditee’s financial situation. The results suggest a lack of coexistence of all three motives for the purchase of non-audit fee services, and substantial similarities of auditor and auditee behaviors across Po- land and New Zealand. We documented the lack of a significant link between auditee failure risk and the quality of the audit report. Our findings indicate an operational rather than a strategic nature of non-audit services to incumbent clients.

scholarly journals Strong Competition Among Audit Companies and Power to Achieve Higher Audit Fees: Who is at the Forefront?

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-138
Author(s):  
Vesna Štager
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Clear Indication ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Strong Competition

Abstract The aim of the research is to determine if the audit fees are statistically significantly different between the audit companies and vary, depending on the size of client and audit company. We find that for large auditees the average audit fees of the Big 4 Group did not statistically significantly deviate from normative audit fees, even surpass them, but not statistically significant. On average, small audit firms when auditing large auditees do not meet the predicted normative audit fees, and this deviation is statistically significant. Also, we confirm that the Big 4 auditing companies (KPMG, E & Y, Deloitte and PwC) were, statistically, significantly more likely to charge higher audit fees than a small auditing company would charge. The paper contributes to the literature to give users a clear indication about what average audit fees are typical of the Slovenian audit companies and which audit company is at the forefront.

The effect of Legal Entity Identifiers on audit fee changes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ju-Chun Yen
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Learning Effect ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Legal Entities ◽  
Industry Expertise

This study investigates whether a client's use of a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) is associated with audit fee changes. An LEI uniquely identifies different legal entities worldwide, making audit clients' transactions and related parties more transparent and traceable, potentially reducing auditors' costs and audit risks, as reflected in audit fee changes. Using a sample of U.S. firms, I find that audit fees increase more for LEI firms than for non-LEI firms within the first few years of LEI registration, but they increase less for LEI firms than for non-LEI firms afterward. The results support a reduction in audit costs due to LEIs, with a learning effect. I also find that audit firms' brand name and industry expertise strengthen this association. This study provides initial empirical evidence of the effects of LEI and policy implications.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document