The impact of audit firms’ characteristics on audit fees following information security breaches

Given the importance of auditors’ assessing business risks and evaluating internal controls, we investigate whether an audit firm’s industry expertise, tenure, and size can help its auditors better understand external and internal threats faced by the client with less effort. Using reported information security breach incidents from 2004 to 2013, we find that, consistent with prior studies, audit fees are higher after the occurrence of an information security breach. However, such an association is negatively moderated when the audit firm has industry-specific expertise, longer experience with the client, and is one of the Big 4 firms. Our results suggest that because of their better knowledge about a specific industry, increased familiarity with the client’s operations, and more resources to understand a client’s vulnerabilities and/or information security policies and procedures, these auditors are more capable of assessing the potentially changing information security risks implied by the occurrence of information security breach incidents. Our results are robust to a variety of sensitivity checks.     

“Surprise” material weakness disclosures: Effects on audit fees and audit report lags

Prior research shows that many of the companies that disclose material weaknesses in internal control (MWs) do not disclose such weaknesses in earlier quarterly 10-Q filings for the same year—i.e., the year-end MW disclosures are “surprise” disclosures. I first show, using data from 2009 to 2019, that such surprise MWs continue to be the majority of MW disclosures as late as 2019. I find that accelerated filer companies with surprise MWs pay lower fees compared to companies with no-surprise MWs; however, this finding does not hold for non-accelerated filers. I also find that there are no significant differences in the audit report lag of surprise and no-surprise MW disclosers. Thus, the lower audit fee paid by surprise MW disclosure companies may offer a possible explanation for the widespread prevalence of surprise MW disclosures. The results also highlight the importance of the external auditor in public disclosures of MWs. The findings have public policy relevance given the ongoing efforts to expand the set of companies that would be exempt from the auditor attestation of internal controls.     

To switch or not to switch? The effect of audit firms’ economies of scale on audit firm switches after audit price deregulation in China

We exploit the unique setting of China’s 2014 audit price deregulation policy to examine whether audit firms use their economies of scale (EOS) to compete for clients. We find a significant increase in client firms switching from a non-EOS auditor to an EOS auditor after the audit price deregulation policy was implemented. The additional analyses show that EOS audit firms are more likely to offer audit fee discounts than non-EOS audit firms while retaining audit quality. We also find that the auditors’ EOS effect is more pronounced for highly homogeneous industries and firms paying high abnormal audit fees, firms in financial distress, and firms receiving less capital market attention than for less homogeneous industries and firms paying low abnormal audit fees, financially stable firms, and firms receiving more capital market attention. Finally, we find that the presence of state-owned enterprises and political connections both separately and jointly moderate the effect of audit firm–client realignments from a non-EOS auditor to an EOS auditor after the audit price deregulation. Overall, our study provides important insights for policymakers and regulators reviewing and developing new policies on audit services.     

Is the objectivity of internal audit compromised when the internal audit function is a management training ground?

We conduct an experiment with 74 internal auditors to examine the effects of using the internal audit function as a training ground for future senior managers. Specifically, we investigate internal auditors' willingness to resist current management's aggressive revenue recognition policies, assuming that internal auditors expect to move into senior management positions in the future. We also examine whether increasing the power of the board of directors can reduce threats to internal auditors' objectivity. This is the first study to empirically examine whether training grounds influence internal auditors objectivity. Results of our study indicate that internal auditors are less objective (i.e. they are more likely to side with management's aggressive revenue recognition policies) when they expect to move into senior management positions, relative to when internal auditing is not used as a training ground. We also find that empowering the audit committee further decreases the objectivity of internal auditors. These results suggest that board power can have unintended consequences on the behaviour of internal auditors and that board empowerment does not guarantee improved governance or improved oversight of financial reporting.     

Are fully independent audit committees really necessary?

Accounting scandals and concerns about the quality of financial statements have led to many calls for improved audit committee effectiveness. Prior research indicates that audit committee independence is positively related to effective oversight of the financial reporting process. Unfortunately, prior research has not provided an answer as to how much independence on the audit committee is enough. This is an important unanswered question because while Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) currently requires all listed companies to maintain an audit committee that is 100% independent there has been much debate regarding easing the SOX requirements for smaller and foreign companies. In this paper we examine whether the regulatory requirements of a completely independent audit committee are necessary to obtain the monitoring benefits related to audit committee independence that have been documented in prior literature. Our results suggest that the benefits of audit committee independence are consistently achieved only when the audit committee is completely independent. These results provide support for the SOX requirement of 100% independent audit committees.     

Was audit quality of Laventhol and Horwath poor?

Laventhol and Horwath (L&H), the then seventh largest accounting firm in the US, declared bankruptcy in November 1990. The firm claimed that its bankruptcy was due to the perception of it being a deep pocket rather than inherent deficiencies in its performance. In this study, we examine whether the audit quality of L&H was lower than other auditors. Results do not show that L&H is associated with lower quality audits either in terms of lower likelihood of issuing modified audit opinion, higher levels of discretionary accruals for its clients, or lower predictability of discretionary accruals for future non-discretionary net income for its clients than for clients of other auditors. Results of additional tests also do not suggest that auditors that take up clients of L&H report differently from L&H. This evidence does not support the proposition that L&H’s audit quality was less than audit quality of other audit firms during the period leading up to the bankruptcy.     

Effects of audit partners on clients’ business risk disclosure

We empirically investigate audit engagement partners’ involvement in business risk disclosure. Specifically, we examine whether the quality of business risk disclosure is influenced by engagement partner tenure and knowledge. We also examine whether the effects of partner tenure and knowledge are similar for Big 4 audit firms and non-Big 4 firms. Since fiscal year 2003, listed companies in Japan have been required to disclose business risk information. Although the business risk information is not audited, auditors concerned about their audit quality may seek to influence clients’ business risk disclosure practices. Giving advice to management on the narrative business risk disclosure can contribute to improving the perceived value of the auditor’s services which can be a competitive advantage. Using a sample of Japanese listed companies from 2003 to 2010, we find that if the engagement partners’ tenure is shorter, a company discloses more business risk information and the disclosure is more detailed. Furthermore, companies with audit partners who have a larger number of client engagements disclose larger amounts of business risk information in more detail. However, the engagement partner effects are mitigated if they belong to a Big 4 firm.     

New development: Local public audit—the changing landscape

This article considers the implications for local public audit of the abolition of the Audit Commission and its audit practice (District Audit). The audit regime of NHS foundation trusts, where the Audit Commission is not responsible for auditor appointments or their oversight, is investigated to provide insights for the future of local public audit.     

On the effort-saving effect of audit committee–auditor interlocking

Using unique data on audit hours from China, this paper investigates the effort-saving effect of the audit committee–auditor interlocking (AClk). We find that AClk is negatively associated with audit effort without any deterioration in audit quality. The results suggest that AClk has an effort-saving effect through information sharing between interlocked audit committee members and auditors. However, auditors retain the effort-saving benefits of AClk without sharing them with their client firms. Further analysis shows that the effort-saving effect of AClk is more pronounced for client firms whose auditors have industry expertise, for client firms that share the same individual auditor, or for client firms that share audit committee members with financial expertise.     

What factors influence auditors' use of computer-assisted audit techniques?

To meet the challenges of rapid advances in client technology, audit standards urge auditors to use computer-assisted audit tools and techniques (CAATs). However, recent research suggests that CAAT use is fairly low. This paper uses the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to identify and then examines factors potentially influencing auditors' use or non-use of CAATs. Examining auditor use of CAATs is important because CAATs hold out the promise of improving audit efficiency and effectiveness. Data was obtained from 181 auditors from Big 4, national, regional, and local firms. Results indicate that outcome expectations, the extent of organizational pressures and technical infrastructure support influence the likelihood that auditors will use CAATs.     

The determinants of audit fees—evidence from the voluntary sector

Given the growing demand for accountability in the public sector, there is a need to begin to investigate audit pricing issues in this sector. This study makes three contributions. First, it develops and estimates, for the first time, a model of audit fee determinants for the charity sector. As in previous private sector company studies, size, organisational complexity and audit firm location are the major determinants. A positive association between audit fees and fees for non-audit services is also observed. Charity sector factors of empirical significance include the nature of the charity (i.e., grant-making or fund-raising), its area of activity and the importance of trading income. Separate models for grant-making and fund-raising charities reflect the relative complexity of the audit of fund-raising charities. Second, the lower auditor concentration in the charity sector market, compared to the private sector market, permits a more powerful test of whether large firms and/or auditor expertise are rewarded with a fee premium. In the more complex audit environment of fund-raising charities, the results show that Big Six audit firms receive higher audit fees (18.5%, on average) than non-Big Six firms. Also, non-Big Six audit firms with charity expertise are rewarded with a fee premium over other non-Big Six firms. Finally, the study demonstrates that the charity audit fee rate is significantly lower than that of private sector companies; in fact it is approximately half. A change in the reporting of charity audit fees is proposed to reflect any element of ‘charitable giving’ by the audit firm.     

Do Big-Four affiliates earn audit fee premiums in emerging markets?

The paper investigates whether Big-Four affiliated (B4A) firms earn audit premiums in an emerging economy context, using Bangladesh as a case. The joint determination of audit and non-audit service fees is also examined using a sample of 122 companies listed in the Dhaka Stock Exchange. Our findings reveal that although the B4A firms do not generally earn a fee premium in Bangladesh, they charge higher audit fees for clients not purchasing non-audit services. This suggests that the B4A firms may actually lower audit fees to attract non-audit services, and cross subsidizes audit fees through non-audit-services fees. The lack of a B4A premium implies that there is lack of quality audit in emerging markets. We also document that audit and non-audit service fees are jointly determined in Bangladesh. Thus, we provide evidence of joint determination of audit and non-audit service fees in an emerging economy context.     

Discussion of ‘Is the objectivity of internal audit compromised when the internal audit function is a management training ground?’

This article provides a critique of the Rose, Rose, and Norman (2013) article. It focuses on four issues: (i) whether institutional details have been appropriately captured; (ii) whether experiments are an appropriate method to answer the authors' research question; (iii) whether the authors' hypotheses should predict an interaction; and (iv) whether the authors have relied on the appropriate theory.     

Does audit quality matter more for firms with high investment opportunities?

This paper examines the association of firms with high investment opportunities with high quality audits (proxied by Big 5 auditors) and whether that association results in a lower likelihood of earnings management. Firms with high investment opportunities may demand high quality audits for curbing earnings management. This is because they have more flexibility in the provision of discretionary accruals that arises from the attendant operating uncertainty which creates particular monitoring problems. Big 5 auditors will provide high quality audits that will constrain earnings management for firms with high investment opportunities because the risk of losing (and hence the likelihood of maintaining) auditor independence is higher. Results show the following. First, firms with high investment opportunities are more likely to hire Big 5 auditors than firms with low investment opportunities. Second, firms with high investment opportunities are more likely to have more discretionary accruals but this relationship is weaker when they have Big 5 auditors. These results are robust to various sensitivity tests.     

New development: Breaking out or hanging on? Internal audit in government

Public audit is in transition. On the one hand, professional organizations claim it is time ‘to break out’ and develop new roles for auditors that ‘add more value’. On the other hand, critics are concerned about public sector accountability deficits necessitating more control and urging auditors to hold on to their traditional role. This article discusses tensions and relevance between these positions and their implications for auditing in government. The article will help policy-makers in their strategic decision-making on the role and focus of internal audit in government.     

Does auditor designation by the regulatory authority improve audit quality? Evidence from Korea

In Korea, the regulatory authority designates external auditors for firms that are deemed to have strong incentives and/or great potential for opportunistic earnings management, and mandates these firms to replace their incumbent auditors with new designated auditors and to retain them for a certain period, typically one to three years. We call this regulatory regime ‘auditor designation’. This paper investigates whether the auditor designation rule in Korea is effective in deterring managers from making income-increasing earnings management. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that the level of discretionary accruals is significantly lower for firms with designated auditors than firms with a free selection of auditors. We also find that firms with mandatory auditor changes (i.e., auditor designation) report significantly lower discretionary accruals compared to firms with voluntary auditor changes. The above findings are robust to a battery of robustness checks. Overall, our results are consistent with the notion that the auditor designation enhances audit quality and thus the credibility of financial reporting.     

Does sharing the same network auditor in group affiliated firms affect audit quality?

We contribute to the literature on audit quality by examining whether sharing the same network auditor among group affiliated firms is related to lower or higher audit quality in China. We find that choosing the same network audit firm among group affiliated firms is associated with more sanctions by regulators regarding fraudulent financial reporting, higher abnormal accruals, larger standard deviation of abnormal accruals, higher likelihood of a downward restatement in earnings, and lower likelihood of receiving a going concern modified opinion. We further identify contexts that moderate audit quality. Higher audit quality is associated with the use of a specialist auditor and firms that operate in more homogeneous industries. Lower audit quality is associated with longer auditor tenure (more than five years), greater geographic distance between a parent company and its subsidiaries, and greater control by a parent company over its subsidiaries.     

Do regulations limiting management influence over auditors improve audit quality? Evidence from China

We use data from China to examine whether regulations that limit management influence over auditors improve audit quality. China’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) issued two rules in 2004 aimed at improving audit quality for state-owned enterprises ultimately controlled by the central government (CSOEs). These rules limit management influence over auditors by mandating that SASAC assign auditors for CSOEs and by requiring management to retain auditors for at least 2 years and at most 5 years. Since these rules apply only to CSOEs, we use a difference-in-difference design to study the impact of these regulations on audit quality. We find that audit quality for CSOEs relative to other companies improves after the enactment of these rules. Our results are robust to a battery of sensitivity analyses. Our findings suggest that limiting management influence over auditors helps improve audit quality.