scholarly journals How to regain public trust in audit firms? The case of the Financial Reporting Council

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Khaled Eldaly ◽  
Magdy Abdel-Kader
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Uk

Purpose This study aims to provide a better understanding of the role of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), as the unified regulator of the audit profession in the UK, in restoring public trust in audit profession in the UK. It further analyses the views of partners in the Big 4 audit firms on this role. Design/methodology/approach The research data were gathered by conducting 17 semi-structured interviews with the top management of FRC’s members and executive partners of the Big 4 firms in the UK. The interviews were complemented by analysing data available on the web pages of the Big 4 firms and published reports related to the FRC’s projects. Findings This study identified three main strategies followed by the FRC to promote the trust and enhance the choice of auditors in the UK audit market. These strategies are improving the audit quality, increasing the transparency of the big audit firms and reducing the barriers to compete in the big audit market. Practical implications An analysis of the FRC’s efforts may help auditors to identify what they are expected to do to improve the reliability of information provided in the capital market. Audit committees can get a better understanding of the criteria that they need to improve the process of auditors’ choice. Auditors will also better understand how and why current audit regulations have been issued. This may improve their satisfaction with regulations and standards, and their efficient implementation. Furthermore, it is believed that audit regulators need to get feedback additional to the formal feedback they receive to improve their performance and current regulations. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature by discussing the auditors’ criticism to the Audit Inspection Unit’s inspectors and the way the inspectors defend themselves. The findings suggest that partners of the Big 4 believe that the FRC’s projects effectively participate in improving the audit quality, as well as providing wider information about the audit firms to the public. However, different actions need to be taken to enhance the choice of auditors and increase the number of big audit firms that compete in the market.

“Big 4 fee premium” and audit quality: latest evidence from UK listed companies

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 680-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Campa
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Uk

PurposeUsing the most recent observations (2005‐2011) from a sample of UK listed companies, This paper aims to investigate whether Big 4 audit firms exhibit a “fee premium” and, if this is the case, whether the premium is related to the delivery of a better audit service.Design/methodology/approachUnivariate tests, multivariate regressions and two methodologies that control for self‐selection bias are used to answer the proposed research questions. Data are collected from DataStream.FindingsFindings provide consistent evidence about the existence of an “audit fee premium” charged by Big 4 firms while they do not highlight any significant relationship between audit quality and type of auditor with respect to the audit quality proxies investigated.Research limitations/implicationsEvidence from this paper might signal the need for legislative intervention to improve the competitiveness of the audit market on the basis that its concentrated structure is leading to “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients. Findings might also enhance Big 4 client bargaining power. However, as the paper analyses only one country, generalizability of the results might be a limitation.Originality/valueThis study joins two streams of the extant literature that investigate the existence of a “Big 4 audit fee premium” and different levels of audit quality among Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients. Evidence supports the concerns raised by the UK House of Lords in 2010 that the concentrated structure of the audit market could be the driver of “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients as it does not find differences in audit quality between Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients.

The role of the Big 4 and second-tier international networks in redeveloping China’s audit market

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Camillo Lento ◽  
Wing Him Yeung
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Tier 2 ◽  
Least Squares Regression ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Second Tier

Purpose This study aims to explore the audit quality supplied by the Big 4, large indigenous Chinese (LIC) and five largest second-tier international network (Tier 2) audit firms in China during the second phase of their audit market development. Design/methodology/approach Ordinary least squares regression is used on an archival sample of firm-year observations. Endogeneity and self-selection bias are addressed by creating a propensity score matched sample and using two-stage regression with the inverse Mills’ ratio. Findings Strong evidence is found for higher levels of actual audit quality for the Big 4 relative to both LIC and Tier 2 audit firms. Weak evidence is found regarding the audit quality superiority of Tier 2 relative to LIC audit firms. Furthermore, the actual audit quality differential between the Big 4 relative to the LIC and Tier 2 firms widens after adopting International Financial Reporting Standards, which is contrary to the intention of Chinese regulators. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first known empirical study to trisect Big N and non-Big N audit firm proxies into the Big 4, LIC and Tier 2. Currently, only qualitative studies have fully appreciated the unique regulatory roles of these three firm structures in developing China’s audit market, which reflect tensions between reliance on foreign expertise and self-determination. In addition, this study adds to the ongoing global dialogue on Tier 2 as an alternative to the Big 4 and the benefits of international accounting network membership.

Abnormal audit fees and accrual and real earnings management: evidence from UK

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Alhadab
Keyword(s):  
Earnings Management ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Real Earnings Management ◽  
Direct Impact ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Negatively Associated ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Uk

Purpose This paper aims to examine the relationship between abnormal audit fees and accrual-based and real-based earnings management by using a sample of 1,055 UK firm-year observations from 2006 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach Linear regression was used to test the hypothetical relation between abnormal audit fees and accrual and real earnings management. Following prior research, several proxies have been used to measure abnormal audit fees, accrual earnings management and real earnings management. Findings Abnormal audit fees were negatively associated with real earnings management. A higher level of abnormal audit fees was the major driver of enhanced audit quality, in turn reducing managers’ flexibility to use real earnings management and to manipulate reported earnings. Abnormal audit fees were found to be negatively associated with abnormal discretionary expenses, abnormal production costs and the aggregated measure of real earnings management. Practical implications This paper outlines the importance of considering any abnormal audit fees paid to audit firms. It is expected that the abnormal audit fees might compromise auditor independence and lead to a higher level of earnings management. However, the findings of this paper provide a new insight to many interested parties, e.g. regulators, audit firms, investors and creditors, that abnormal audit fees are associated with higher audit quality and higher financial reporting quality in the UK. Regulators in the meanwhile should reform the audit market by, e.g. revising the types of non-audit services that are provided for the same client, setting a cap on the maximum fees that can charged by auditors and monitoring earnings management practices. Audit firms should take into consideration that any charged abnormal level of audit fees may have a direct impact on audit quality. Originality/value This is the first study to examine the impact of abnormal audit fees on accruals and real earnings management after major regulatory changes that took place in the UK. These major changes are the adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards in 2005 and the new legislation concerning the ethical standards issued by the UK Audit Practice Board in 2004. These two major changes are expected to have a direct impact on both earnings management and audit fees, notably for the largest public listed firms. This study also focuses on one of the very developed and attractive stock markets in the world, the UK FTSE 350 stock index, that incorporates that largest 350 public firms.

The impact of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital: evidence from a developing market

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Le ◽  
Paula Hearn Moore
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

Purpose This study aims to examine the effects of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital (COE) considering the impact of two owner types: government ownership and foreign ownership. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a panel data set of 236 Vietnamese firms covering the period 2007 to 2017. Because the two main dependent variables of the COE capital and the absolute value of discretionary accruals receive fractional values between zero and one, the paper uses the generalised linear model (GLM) with a logit link and the binomial family in regression analyses. The paper uses numerous audit quality measures, including hiring Big 4 auditors or the industry-leading Big 4 auditor, changing from non-Big 4 auditors to Big 4 auditors or the industry-leading Big 4 auditor, and the length of Big 4 auditor tenure. Big 4 companies include KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PwC, whereas the non-big 4 are the other audit companies. Findings The study finds a negative relationship between audit quality and both the COE capital and income-increasing discretionary accruals. The effects of audit quality on discretionary accruals and the COE capital depend on the ownership levels of two important shareholders: the government and foreign investors. Foreign ownership is negatively associated with discretionary accruals; however, the effect is more pronounced in the sub-sample of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the firms where the government owns 50% or more equity, than in the sub-sample of Non-SOEs. Originality/value To the best of the knowledge, no prior similar study exists that used the GLM with a logit link and the binomial family regression. Global investors may be interested in understanding how unique institutional settings and capital markets of each country impact the financial reporting quality and cost of capital. Further, policymakers of developing markets may have incentives to improve the quality of financial reporting and reduce the cost of capital which should result in attracting more foreign investments.

Narratives of the Big-4 transparency reports: country effects or firm strategy?

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 951-985
Author(s):  
Ana Zorio-Grima ◽  
Pedro Carmona
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Voluntary Disclosure ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Firm Strategy ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Country Effects ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Uk

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether audit firms use transparency reports (TRs) as a tool to standardize their brand image or whether the semantic and content analysis in these reports indicates a higher importance of country effects. Design/methodology/approach The sample includes 28 TRs published in English by the Big-4 audit firms from five EU countries (the UK, Ireland, Luxemburg, Hungary and Malta), as well as in the USA and Australia. Findings Using content analysis, this research finds that there is variation in the language used in TRs both across audit firms and jurisdictions. Most TRs from different countries of the same firm tend to be clustered, suggesting that audit firms use transparency reporting as a strategy to differentiate themselves from their competitors. In fact, EY and KPMG seem to have more standardized internal procedures and standardized information. Regarding country effects, the results indicate that TRs in the UK are longer and show more detailed information. Originality/value Overall, this research is innovative in the sense that it applies a new methodological approach to an emerging topic such as audit transparency reporting. It identifies emerging topics of voluntary disclosure, such as financial data of the firm, gender and ethnic origin of employees, community involvement or sanctions, among other topics of interest which might be explored in detail by future research to understand the construction of the profession.

Audit quality and earnings management: evidence from Jordan

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebraheem Saleem Salem Alzoubi
Keyword(s):  
Earnings Management ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Least Square ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Jones Model

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the association between audit quality and earnings management (EM). Audit quality studies documented that accruals would reduce when the auditor is independent or the audit firm is large. Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses generalised least square regression to investigate the influence of audit quality on EM. The sample contained 86 companies listed on the Amman Stock Exchange from 2007 to 2010. The cross-sectional modified Jones model was employed to measure discretionary accruals as a proxy for EM. Findings – This paper revealed that there is a significantly negative association between audit quality and EM. The result inferred that EM level is significantly lower among companies using the services of independent auditors. Moreover, this study exposed that the level of EM is significantly less among companies hiring a Big 4 audit firm, as compared to companies utilising the service of a non-Big 4 audit firm. Research limitations/implications – The measurement error, which is a rigorous concern for studies on EM, is one of the limitations in this study. Hence, the current study wholly inherited the limits of the modified Jones model. Practical implications – The findings based on the current study would provide beneficial information for regulators in Jordan and other countries with an institutional environment similar to that of Jordan. Moreover, the results provided valuable information to investors in assessing the influence of audit quality on financial reporting quality (FRQ). Originality/value – The current study contributed to auditing and corporate governance literature and its influence on EM among Jordanian companies. This research will be of value to companies seeking to reduce EM and enhance FRQ.

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 Joint audit, audit market concentration, and audit quality: Perceptions of stakeholders in the UAE

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-45
Author(s):  
Yasser Barghathi ◽  
Esinath Ndiweni ◽  
Alhashmi Aboubaker Lasyoud
Keyword(s):  
Emerging Economies ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Practical Implication ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Quality Perceptions ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Cost

The present study is intended to scholarly explore auditors’ perceptions regarding joint audits; whether it can improve audit quality. To reach this goal, participants were enrolled from Big 4, non-Big 4, and other stockholders. In addition, the present study examines the perception of the same stakeholders in terms of how audit concentration affects the audit market in the UAE. Being a qualitative study, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect required data; 4 face to face and 8 through using Google forms. The finding of the study revealed mixed perception regarding joint audits; it may improve audit quality at the cost of high fees and free-rider problems. Findings of the study has practical implication for policymakers of emerging economies around the globe, such as policymakers who can make joint audits as compulsory. Another significance of the present work is that it has allowed for the perception of stakeholders, who are at the center of the controversial subject of joint audits and audit market concentration. The study suggests that there is a need for removing language barriers; it will benefit some firms in the form of directly communicating with auditors either in English or in Urdu.

scholarly journals Who gets all the PIE? Regulation of the statutory audit for private UK companies

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 1297-1324
Author(s):  
Iain Clacher ◽  
Alan Duboisée de Ricquebourg ◽  
Amy May
Keyword(s):  
Accounting Profession ◽  
Private Company ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk

Purpose While recently introduced EU regulation on the statutory audit of public interest entities (PIEs) aims to improve audit competition and quality, its success and impact depends on the definition of a PIE applied across the various EU Member States. In the UK, even though little is known about their auditing choices, these changes will not apply to most private companies despite their importance to the wider economy. The purpose of this paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of the private company audit market and examine the lobbying behaviour of the accounting profession around the definition of a PIE in the UK. Design/methodology/approach Using a large panel of independent private company audits in the UK and a textual analysis of submitted comment letters to a government consultation on the new regulation, this paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the audit market for private companies by measuring supplier concentration using four different measures of market share, and of the lobbying behaviour of the accounting profession. Findings There are two main findings. First, the private company audit market is characterised by low auditor switching rates along with a tight oligopoly of the largest independent private company audits maintained by the Big Four audit firms. Second, the lobbying behaviour of accounting and audit firms sought, and succeeded, to limit the scope of the definition of a PIE in the UK, consistent with the theoretical predictions of monopoly capitalism and the theory of professions. Originality/value The paper shows that the definition and scope of a PIE needs revisiting both within the UK and across all EU Member States, with a view to including more of these economically important private companies and highlights the policy challenge of increasing competition and choice in a concentrated audit market.

scholarly journals Audit committees and financial reporting quality

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Habiba Al-Shaer ◽  
Aly Salama ◽  
Steven Toms
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Corporate Governance Mechanisms ◽  
International Comparative Research ◽  
Environmental Disclosures ◽  
International Comparative ◽  
The Uk

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the determinants of the volume of environmental disclosures and their quality, with particular focus on the role of audit committees (ACs) and the effects of the Smith report recommendations for the UK Corporate Governance Code. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative large sample analysis of UK FTSE350 companies for the period 2007-2011. Findings Firms with higher quality ACs make higher quality disclosures. Larger firms with block shareholders have greater volume of disclosures, whilst AC quality does not increase disclosure volume. Research limitations/implications Findings are based on evidence from single country and imply further international comparative research. Practical implications ACs mitigate the requirement for prescriptive legislation on narrative accounting disclosures relating to environmental issues. Originality/value The paper contributes to research that has examined the relationship between corporate governance mechanisms, specifically ACs, and the quality of financial reporting by considering voluntary narrative disclosures on environmental matters.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document