审计师收取客户债务风险溢价了吗?

已有研究发现,公司债务风险越高,审计师收取的审计费用越高;然而,审计费用提高的原因可能是审计投入的增加,也可能是审计师收取客户公司的债务风险溢价。由于缺少审计投入的数据,已有研究无法回答审计师是否收取客户公司债务风险溢价的问题。本文以我国A股上市公司为研究样本,运用我国独到的审计工时数据,就此展开相关问题研究。研究发现,在控制了审计投入之后,客户债务风险与审计费用显著正相关,表明审计师收取了客户公司的债务风险溢价。进一步研究表明,审计师对财务状况较差和治理较差的公司以及非国有企业收取更高的债务风险溢价,规模较小的会计师事务所收取的债务风险溢价高于规模较大的会计师事务所。     

关系型交易对审计费用的影响——基于经营风险理论视角

关系型交易模式可能会在议价能力、关系专用性投资成本转换等方面加剧上市公司的经营风险,进而影响审计费用。已有研究主要集中于关系型交易对审计行为的影响,鲜有文献关注其中的作用机制。本文基于经营风险理论视角,选取2008~2017年沪深A股制造业上市公司的相关数据,实证分析了关系型交易对审计费用的影响,结果表明:关系型交易显著加剧了企业经营风险的集聚,进而提升审计费用,即经营风险在关系型交易对审计费用的影响中起到了中介作用。进一步研究,在区分了产权性质以及耐用品特征后,实证结果显示关系型交易与审计费用的正相关关系在非国有企业以及耐用品行业的企业中较为显著,为审计师进行合理审计定价提供了经验证据支持。     

事务所所有权规模对审计收费的影响及检验

根据中国2007~2011年全部A股上市公司的年报数据,从理论上分析了会计师事务所所有权规模对审计收费的影响并进行了实证检验。研究发现有限责任会计师事务所所有权规模与审计收费显著正相关,即随着事务所所有权规模的增大,审计收费也增大。研究同时发现,相对于私有产权上市公司,事务所对国有产权上市公司的盈余管理收取了更高的审计费用。     

Risk in Audit Pricing: The Role of Firm-Specific Dimensions of Risk

This chapter investigates the impact of the firm-specific dimensions of risk suggested in the finance literature, the financial risk, operating leverage and business risk on audit fees. It is hypothesized that audit fees are related to these three dimensions of risk, size, audit complexity and a set of the agency theory based control variables. The hypothesis is empirically tested using a sample from the U.K. audit market. The results of the study show that audit fees as hypothesized are positively related to financial leverage, operating leverage and business risk of a firm and that the control variables behave according to expectations. This implies that the three dimensions of the firm-specific risk are taken into account in audit pricing decisions and should therefore be incorporated into models when investigating the audit pricing issues.     

银行治理、股权结构与审计收费——基于A股上市公司的经验证据

本文利用我国上市公司2004—2009年的数据,从债权人治理的新视角,实证研究了贷款银行的治理作用对会计师事务所审计收费产生的影响。研究发现,贷款银行的治理作用会导致审计收费降低,但这种治理作用的发挥依赖于市场机制。在国有企业中,银行治理的作用并不明显;而在民营企业中,银行治理能通过约束控股股东的机会主义行为,导致审计收费水平下降。与不存在控股股东与中小股东代理问题的民营企业相比,在存在这类代理问题的民营企业中,银行的治理作用更加显著。     

Adjustment costs of institutional tax changes from the audit pricing perspective: Empirical evidence from the VAT reform

Institutional changes inevitably impose adjustment costs on firms while also generating benefits. However, empirical evidence regarding the adjustment costs of institutional changes is limited, with much of the focus centered on benefits. Using data on China’s A-share listed companies from 2010 to 2018 and the nation’s staggered adoption of the “business tax to value-added tax reform” (hereafter, “VAT reform”) as a natural experiment, we examine the impact of this reform on a particular corporate cost: audit fees. We find audit fees to be 8.11% higher for VAT reform firms than for non-VAT reform firms. This difference does not exist before or after the reform year. That is, it is only observed in the year of VAT reform implementation. This indicates the existence of an adjustment cost specifically related to the VAT reform. Furthermore, we observe larger fee increases among firms audited by Big 4 international audit firms, firms that require more audit work, firms that are more complex, and firms with weak internal controls. From the audit pricing perspective, we provide evidence of the economic consequences of tax reform. The corporate adjustment costs that arise from institutional changes deserve more attention from decision-makers.     

The Effect of IPO Risks on Auditors’ Decisions: Auditor Designation Case

This study examines the effect of audit risks in the Korean initial public offering (IPO) market on the designated auditors’ decisions. The Korean External Audit Act requires firms to switch from incumbent to new auditors designated by the Securities and Futures Commission after the firm announces a future IPO. This study shows the effects of audit risks by examining if the quality of reported earnings and audit fees significantly differs between IPO‐eligible and IPO‐ineligible firms. Empirical tests first show that discretionary accruals are significantly lower for IPO‐ineligible firms than for IPO‐eligible firms in both the IPO designation period and the following review period. We interpret this result to mean that designated auditors evaluate the IPO‐ineligible (and eventually failed) firms’ listing possibility as low. Second, audit fees are higher for IPO‐ineligible firms in the auditor designation period. This reflects the fact that designated auditors are exposed to future audit risks associated with firms’ post‐IPO financial market troubles if IPO‐ineligible firms attempt to go public. Our study contributes to IPO‐related research by showing the effects of auditors’ risk evaluation on discretionary accruals and audit fees. This study also contributes to accounting policymaking regarding auditor independence.     

会计准则变革与子公司盈余信息的决策有用性——来自中国资本市场的经验证据

我国自2007年1月1日起实施的新会计准则,扩大了合并报表净利润与母公司报表净利润之间的差异。本文研究新旧准则下该差异相对于合并报表净利润的增量信息含量的变化。实证结果显示,上述差异在旧准则下并没有为母公司投资者的股票定价决策带来额外的信息;而在新准则下,该差异的决策相关性显著提高,并能提供合并报表净利润之外的增量信息含量。这就意味着,合并报表净利润中已包括但母公司报表净利润中未包括的子公司已实现而未分配盈余,能够在合并报表净利润基础上提供增量信息含量。     

The effect of audit firm size on audit prices: A study of the Australian Market

The effect of audit firm size on prizes is a complex function of competition in the market for audit services, product differentiation, and scale economics to large firms. In this study, a competitive market is supported in Australia with product differentiation to Bif Eight accounting firms. Specially, Big Eight accounting firms have significantly higher audit prices than non-Big Eight firms. This results holds for ‘large’ and ‘small’ auditees. A test is also made of price cutting in the Australian market. Price cutting is defined as lower initial audit fees than continuing engagement fees for a comparable audit. Test results do not evidence price-cutting behavior by accounting firms. There is in fact weak evidence that initial audit fees are higher than continuing engagement fee levels. Higher initial fees suggest that accounting firms may recover at least some of the audit start-up costs immediately.     

Workforce environment and audit fees: International evidence

Using a dataset from 30 countries over the period from 2002 to 2017, we examine the effects of auditing clients’ workforce environment on audit fees as well as the role that national labor market flexibility plays in this relationship. We find evidence that audit fees are significantly lower for firms with a good workforce environment, suggesting that auditors perceive such clients as less risky; as a result, auditors expend less effort and/or charge a lower risk premium. Furthermore, we find this effect to be stronger for firms in countries with a more flexible labor market. Our mediation test results indicate that the relationship between the audit client workforce environment and audit fees is mediated by media coverage of workforce controversies. Our study contributes to the international audit fee literature by identifying employee welfare as a distinct audit pricing factor, above and beyond the effects of overall corporate social responsibility practices.     

The Market for External Audit Services in the Public Sector: An Empirical Analysis of NHS Trusts

This study investigates the market for audit services in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The market has a number of interesting features, including the presence of the Audit Commission as a regulator, appointer and provider of audit services. Following a theoretical overview of audit pricing in the NHS, evidence is provided on the behaviour of private sector auditors in an environment where audit risk characteristics differ from the private sector. The research also investigates, for the first time in the public sector, the relationship between audit fees and non–audit (consultancy) fees. Comparisons are also drawn between audit fees in the public and private sectors in an analysis of audit fees by industry. Despite some key similarities, the study shows that a number of differences exist between private and public sector audit fee models. In particular, we find no evidence of Big 6 (or mid–tier) auditor premiums, but we do find a significant negative relationship between audit and consultancy fees providing support for the 'knowledge spill–over' hypothesis. In addition, the fees charged to trusts appear significantly lower than their private sector counterparts, despite trust auditors having additional duties to perform. Possible explanations for this finding are offered in the paper.     

新会计准则研究:分析框架与综述

本文构建了一个新会计准则研究的分析框架,在此基础上,对已有的新准则研究文献进行了系统的回顾与评论。结合分析框架和对已有文献的评述,我们进一步提出了未来尚需探索和拓展的方向。     

对外直接投资、控制风险与上市公司审计费用

本文在国家实施"走出去"战略的背景下,研究企业对外直接投资对审计费用的影响。研究以2007~2018年我国A股上市公司为样本,发现进行对外直接投资的企业,审计费用显著高于没有对外直接投资的企业,说明审计师能够识别因企业对外直接投资导致的审计风险的上升和审计成本的增加,并通过增加审计费用的方式予以补偿;且此差异不因产权性质和企业所在地市场化水平而异;采用改变样本量、PSM及多时点DID等进行稳健性检验后,研究结论保持不变。进一步分析发现,如果企业内部控制质量较高,控制风险水平较低,则对外直接投资与审计费用之间的关系会弱化,表明控制风险在对外直接投资与审计费用之间起到调节作用,且此作用仅在非国有控股及市场化水平较高地区的企业中显著。     

卖空机制的审计收费效应研究

卖空机制作为一种金融创新,如何在提高证券市场定价效率的同时,有效发挥外 部治理功能、改善公司治理、间接推动国内资本市场健康发展成为理论和实践中的一项重要 课题。运用多元回归模型对国内卖空机制改变审计风险、进而影响审计收费行为的实证检验表 明,随着股票卖空比率的上升,公司审计收费也相应增加。而股票卖空比率与公司审计费用受 制度环境影响显著,在市场化水平较高的地区,公司审计面临来自投资者更大的压力。此外, 公司审计收费与股票卖空比率的正相关关系会因卖空机制的存在变得更加显著。     

Public Disclosure of Audit Fees and Bargaining Power between the Client and Auditor: Evidence from China

Before the public disclosure of audit fees was mandated, it was unlikely for an audit client to have accurate information about how much other companies were charged by their auditors. Public fee disclosure decreases the cost of auditees' access to audit fee information for the auditor's portfolio of clients and is thus likely to increase the relative bargaining power of auditees over auditors when they negotiate audit fees. Using both proprietary and public audit fee data before and after public fee disclosure was mandated in China, we provide evidence consistent with the preceding conjecture. We find that public fee disclosure reinforces the magnitude of audit fee decreases for overcharged clients and weakens auditors' ability to raise audit fees for undercharged clients. These findings suggest the existence of unintended consequences of public fee disclosure regulation, the original rationale of which was a concern about audit pricing practices that could undermine auditor independence.     

Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Securities Regulations on Audit Fees

We document in this study that the institutional factor of securities regulations is positively associated with audit fees in low investor-protection countries. Strict securities regulations in these countries are likely to be associated with higher audit effort and risk, which result in higher audit fees. On the other hand, we do not find any significant association between audit fees and securities regulations in high investor-protection countries. Auditors in these countries generally expend higher audit effort to reduce risk irrespective of the strictness of securities regulations. Consequently, strict securities regulations do not have a significant impact on audit fees in these countries. Our findings suggest that strict securities regulations in weak investor-protection countries play an important role in audit pricing.     

Fair Value Exposure,Changes in Fair Value and Audit Fees: Evidence from the Australian Real Estate Industry

This paper investigates the relationship between audit fees and both fair value exposure and changes in fair value of investment properties. The study is motivated by the limited and inconclusive evidence on the effect on audit fees of full fair value reporting for illiquid assets. Using hand‐collected data from the Australian real estate industry, we find a negative (positive) association between audit fees and fair value exposure (changes in fair value of investment properties). Our findings also indicate that the use of unobservable inputs in fair value estimates for investment properties does not significantly increase audit risk and audit fees. Further, we find that audit fees are higher for firms with fair values of investment – properties estimated by external and mixed valuers – compared to firms with fair values estimated by directors alone. This study enriches the audit fee literature by documenting auditors’ pricing decisions in an area that involves significant estimation and valuation risks.     

Pricing and supplier concentration in the private client segment of the audit market: Market power or competition?

This study differs from prior audit-pricing studies as (1) it focuses on the issue of price competition in the (small) private client segment of the audit market and (2) addresses the questions of whether and how the audit-pricing model changed in that market between 1989 and 1997. Given the significant increases in market concentration and two big audit firm mergers in that period, we try to assess whether price competition (market power) has increased (decreased) or decreased (increased). We use Belgian data on privately owned companies from 1989 and 1997 for our analyses. We find that audit fees are significantly associated with the incumbent auditor's market share both in 1989 and 1997. Our results are in line with prior studies on public client samples and hence do not support prior assumptions that there are no price premia charged by large auditors in the small client segment of the audit market. As to the evolution of audit pricing in the private client segment of the Belgian audit market between 1989 and 1997, we find that the impact of various audit fee determinants changed significantly and report evidence supportive of increased price competition.     

Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms

We examine the effect of changes in audit risk standards on the conduct of financial statement audits in a European setting. We investigate this by analysing the audit hours and audit fees for clients of Big 4 audit firms in Finland in 1996 and 2010. Our results show that audit firms became more sensitive to clients’ business risk due to the introduction of the new audit risk standards, with more audit hours allocated to owner-managed companies in 2010 than in 1996, and fewer audit hours allocated to low-risk clients in 2010 than in 1996. Also, the labour mix in the audit team changed for owner-managed companies, with a greater work load carried by junior auditors in 2010 than in 1996. Regarding the price of audit, we find an increase in audit fees for clients with high business risk, while audit fees remained at roughly the same level for low-risk clients. These findings should be of interest to the auditing profession and those involved in the development of auditing regulations.     

An empirical test of spatial competition in the audit market

This study empirically examines the effects of competition through differentiation on audit pricing. Based on prior economic theory on differentiated-product markets (e.g., Hotelling, 1929, Tirole, 1988), we hypothesize that audit fees are affected by an auditor's relative location in a market segment. We define audit markets per industry segment and U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Area and specify an auditor's industry location relative to the client (auditor–client industry alignment) and relative to the closest competitor (industry market share distance to closest competitor). We find that audit fees increase in both auditor–client industry alignment and industry market share distance to the closest competitor.