scholarly journals Additional Evidence On The Large Audit-Firm Fee Premium As An Indication Of Auditor Quality

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T. Simon
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Auditor Quality ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Big Six ◽  
Big Eight

<span>Several studies of the U.S. market for audit services have found evidence of a large audit-firm fee premium. This premium has been interpreted as an indication that large audit firms (typically defined as the Big Eight, now the Big Six), considered as a group, receive higher fees than non-Big Eight firms and thus are perceived to provide higher quality audit services. A common interpretation has been that there is a strong relationship between audit firms size and audit quality. That is, the observed Big Eight fee premium has been interpreted as evidence that this group of large auditors, as a whole, is perceive to provide higher quality audits. Using larger samples than previous studies, this paper decomposes the large auditor fee premium into a separate fee premium effect for each auditor. The results suggest that the observed fee premium is attributable to a subset of large auditors, and therefore it is possible that not all of this group of large audit firms are perceived as offering significantly different audit products, at least when differential audit fees and used as a measure of product differentiation. In addition, when observed audit fee premiums are related to other proxies for auditor quality, there is confirming evidence that large accounting firms are not perceived as a homogeneous group with respect to audit quality.</span>

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.

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 A Research Note on the Relationship between Regulation and Audit Firm Size on Audit Fees

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 381-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willie E. Gist
Keyword(s):  
Firm Size ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Initial Attempt ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Regulatory Complexity ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Big Six ◽  
Big Eight

This study represents an initial attempt to examine some specific factors that might lead to large firms' economies of scale. Multiple regression analysis is used to test hypotheses concerning scale opportunities conferred on large CPA firms in dealing with regulatory complexity faced by the client. An analysis of interaction between audit firm size and variables measuring client regulatory complexity shows that audit fees are lower for all firms in regulated industries compared to nonregulated industries—the difference being much greater, however, for Big Eight (now Big Six) firms, and audit fees charged by Big Eight firms are much lower when the auditor is involved with client security registrations. This relationship does not hold true for non-Big Eight firms involved with client registration statements. Based on these results, it appears that client regulatory complexity confers greater scale opportunities to larger audit firms compared to smaller ones.

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.

Leaving a joint audit system: conditional fee reductions

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Holm ◽  
Frank Thinggaard
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Theory Development ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit System ◽  
Interaction Terms ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee

Purpose – The authors aim to exploit a natural experiment in which voluntary replace mandatory joint audits for Danish listed companies and analyse audit fee implications of using one or two audit firms. Design/methodology/approach – Regression analysis is used. The authors apply both a core audit fee determinants model and an audit fee change model and include interaction terms. Findings – The authors find short-term fee reductions in companies switching to single audits, but only where the former joint audit contained a dominant auditor. The authors argue that in this situation bargaining power is more with the auditors than in an equally shared joint audit, and that the auditors' incentives to offer an initial fee discount are bigger. Research limitations/implications – The number of observations is constrained by the small Danish capital market. Future research could take a more qualitative research approach, to examine whether the use of a single audit firm rather than two has an effect on audit quality. The area calls for further theory development covering audit fee and audit quality in joint audit settings. Practical implications – Companies should consider their relationship with their auditors before deciding to switch to single auditors. Fee discounts do not seem to reflect long-lasting efficiency gains on the part of the audit firm. Originality/value – Denmark is the first country to leave a mandatory joint audit system, so this is the first time that it is possible to study fee effects related to this.

scholarly journals Kualitas Audit: Ditinjau dari Fee Audit, Risiko Audit dan Skeptisme Profesional Auditor sebagai Variabel Moderating

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Muslim Muslim ◽  
Syamsuri Rahim ◽  
Muhammad Faisal AR Pelu ◽  
Alma Pratiwi
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Professional Skepticism ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Positive Effect

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of audit fees and audit risk on audit quality with auditor professional skepticism as a moderating variable. This research was conducted at 8 public accounting firms in Makassar city with 40 respondents. The analytical method used is multiple regression analysis (Moderated Regression Analysis) which is used to measure the strength of the relationship between two or more variables. The results of this study found that the audit fee variable had a negative and not significant effect on audit quality. These results illustrate that the higher the audit fee received by the auditor, the audit quality will decrease. While audit risk is not a significant positive effect on audit quality. The results of this study illustrate that the higher the audit risk, the audit quality will decrease. The auditor's professional skepticism as a moderating variable is not able to strengthen the effect of audit fees on audit quality. Furthermore, auditor professional skepticism as a moderating variable is also unable to strengthen the effect of audit risk on audit quality

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 Large Audit Firm Fee Premium: A Case of Selectivity Bias?

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jen C. Ireland ◽  
Clive S. Lennox
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Selection ◽  
Selection Bias ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Selectivity Bias ◽  
Big 5 ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Analytical Research

Audit fee studies often find large (Big 5) audit firms earn significantly higher fees than small (non-Big 5) firms, but they treat auditor choice as exogenous. In contrast, this paper takes into account that companies are not randomly assigned to audit firms. We find the effects of auditor selection bias on audit fees are statistically and economically significant. Consistent with the predictions of analytical research, our results suggest large (small) audit firms experience advantageous (adverse) selection in attracting high (low) quality companies. Our results indicate the premium earned by large audit firms is more than twice as large when selectivity effects are taken into account (53.4% compared to 19.2%).

scholarly journals The Relationship Between An Auditing Firm's Characteristics And The Incidence Rate Of Its Clients Subject To AAERs

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 1313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunsung Koh ◽  
Hyunjung Choi ◽  
Sohee Woo
Keyword(s):  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Firm Size ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
A Company

This paper examines the relationship between an auditors characteristics and the incidence rate of its client subject to the Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release. Using the sample of AAERs from 2002 to 2006, we find that when a firm is audited from a large accounting firm, there is a significantly less incidence rate subject to AAERs. Also, we find that the audit time of AAERs firms is significantly less than that of non-AAERs firms. Because AAER is related with audit quality, it implies that AAER depends on audit time and audit firm size, and that a firm is affected by the incidence rate of subjects toward AAERs. However, there is no difference between the audit fee of AAERs firms audit fee and that of non-AAERs firms. Although audit time leads to a high audit fee, audit firms are very competitive and therefore, there are some limitations with receiving a high audit fee according to audit time. Therefore, the audit fee is significantly affected by the incidence rate of subjects toward AAERs. Additionally, we also examine the effectiveness of AAERs and the difference of audit efforts depending on the cause of AAERs and the degree of penalties imposed by FSS. Overall, the results suggest that depending on the auditors characteristics, such as the size of accounting firm, audit time, and audit fee, a company is affected by the incidence rate subject to AAERs.

scholarly journals Family Firms, Audit Fee, and Auditor Choice: Evidence From Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-96
Author(s):  
Senny Harindahyani ◽  
Celine Widjaja
Keyword(s):  
Family Firms ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Agency Problems ◽  
Family Control ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
The Family

Family firms in Indonesia have an important role in the Indonesian economy. However, agency problems might happen inside family firms where it will lead to conflict of interest and information asymmetry, along with the entrenchment effect where it leads firms to produce lower quality earnings report. Research from 305 firms in Indonesia shows that the agency problems and the entrenchment effect has not affected the family firms in Indonesia, reflected from the firm‟s decision making in their amount of audit fee and auditor choice. This study will contribute by providing an empirical evidence of the effect of family control on the audit fee and auditor choice in a developing country. The result shows that the type of firms has no correlation on the amount of audit fee paid to the auditor and both firms‟ demands the same level of audit quality where it is shown by their choices of audit firms, which is Big 4 audit firm or Non-Big 4 audit firm. In conclusion, the level of agency problems and entrenchment effect tends to be lower in the family firms of Indonesia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document