中国本土会计师事务所市场地位与经济回报探析

规模化和专长化是会计师事务所通常采取的两种发展战略.本文分析和比较了具有行业市场领先地位以及具有区域市场领先地位的中国本土会计师事务所伴随的经济回报.研究发现:本土会计师事务所仅仅通过在各省际市场取得领先地位并不足以获取明显的经济回报,而通过在各行业做专则可以获取明显的经济回报,而同时实施“专长化”和“规模化”则伴随着更大的经济回报.进一步的分析显示,本土会计师事务所可能需要考虑做强做大、做精做专战略及其实现途径的差异化.本文对本土会计师事务所制定符合自身特征的发展战略具有启示意义.     

基于种群竞争模型的中外会计师事务所竞争均衡分析及实证检验

我国审计市场的发展状况表明垄断型和过度竞争型的市场不利于审计行业的健康发展,前者不利于公平竞争、审计质量提高,后者则不利于提高审计效率、规模经济.目前,审计市场上的绝大多数优质客户资源被国外会计师事务所占据,国内会计师事务所在同其竞争时处于劣势地位.因此,提高本土会计师事务所的市场占有率,进而规范审计市场的竞争态势就显得尤为重要.本文利用种群竞争模型分析了影响会计师事务所实现竞争均衡的重要因素,得出我国会计师事务所应当实行差异化经营,同时要在自身的优势领域保持持续竞争力的结论.     

会计师事务所合并与行业专门化战略研究

本文研究了1998至2007年间发生的会计师事务所合并事件,针对合并后会计师事务所在客户选择方面的战略变化进行了分析。研究发现,合并后会计师事务所的客户行业集中度在平均水平上与合并前持平,甚至有所下降,但是会计师事务所最具优势行业的客户集中度有显著增加。结果表明,与合并之前的战略模糊和多变的特点相比,会计师事务所在合并之后更多地采取了行业专门化的发展战略,审慎挑选适应会计师事务所发展的客户、培育行业专长。本土会计师事务所已经开始制定符合经营发展需要的战略规划,针对环境的变化实行战略转型。     

中国注册会计师行业的规模经济效应研究

大型会计师事务所具有规模优势,但规模优势并非无处不在,它主要体现在大客户市场上。本文从资产专用性、产品异质、合约范围经济三个角度对其进行了探讨。在我国注册会计师行业,“四大”在大客户市场上表现出明显的规模经济效应,本土事务所则呈现出规模不经济的状态。制约本土大型事务所规模经济效应发挥的主要原因包括:准入管制、价格管制、监管当局的不信任、事务所内部管理混乱以及缺乏国际经验。     

会计师事务所的行业专门化是一种有效的竞争战略吗?——来自中国审计市场的经验证据

会计师事务所的行业专门化可以被视为一种相对于非行业专家审计师的可持续的竞争优势。本文的经验结果表明:行业专门化的审计师会以目标集聚为基本战略,基于其差异化的能力在大客户市场上实施差异化的具体战略,而基于其规模经济优势在小客户市场上实施成本领先的具体战略;相对于非行业专家,行业专门化的事务所在大小客户市场上均能获得超额利润。这一经验结果支持行业专门化的发展道路可以成为会计师事务所行之有效的一种竞争战略。     

内地事务所参与H股审计问题研究——基于内地事务所国际化战略与H股审计市场格局

2010年12月,首批12家获推荐从事H股审计的会计师事务所名单公布,除国际四大外,亦有8家内地本土事务所获得H股审计的入场券,标志着内地会计师事务所的国际化取得重大进展。从会计师事务所国际化的动因、模式和路径,以及我国会计师行业发展的特点看,进入香港审计市场对我国内地本土会计师事务所具有特殊意义。分析H股审计市场的基本格局和竞争状况,以及内地事务所参与香港审计市场的现状,可以发现规模、人力资源、市场信任等因素影响内地会计师事务所的竞争力,并导致内地会计师事务所面临国际四大垄断市场的挑战,但参与H股审计为内地会计师事务所提供了重要的发展机会。因此,充分利用自身比较优势和有利条件,确保审计质量提升,立足于国际化长远目标并适时调整发展战略,是内地会计师事务所参与H股审计的基本策略。     

中型会计师事务所发展战略分析

战略的本质是抉择、权衡和各适其位。对企业来讲,就是确定自己在市场中的位置,把重要的资源集中到相应的地方。所以,分析会计师事务所发展战略的一个重要方面就是确定具体的会计师事务所在整个审计市场中的定位。不同群体的会计师事务所由于其规模、地域、渊源等属性特征各有不同,其在审计市场中的定位也各有不同,战略决策亦当有所不同。本文以A会计师事务所为例,针对与其类似的中型会计师事务所的竞争态势,试提出一项适合其实际情况的“战略”,以期对与其在行业中所处位置相似的本土中型会计师事务所的战略决策过程起到一定参考作用。一、…     

江浙两地资本市场下的审计服务供求分析

本文通过对江苏省会计师事务所与浙江省会计师事务所进行比较分析,揭示长三角地区资本市场下的审计服务需求和供给的特征,指出江苏本土所与四大国际合作所和国内浙江省会计师事务所存在的差距,并探讨了相关原因,最后对如何发展资本市场审计服务功能,提高江苏本土所的品牌和声誉提出了相应对策。     

大型会计师事务所发展战略研究

本文通过对中国目前排名本土所前十位的会计师事务所的品牌创建战略、专业化经营战略、规模化做大战略、国际化服务战略的分析研究,探寻大型事务所从内涵发展和外延拓展方面实现做大做强有效的有效途径.研究发现,本文所研究的这些大型事务所是中国注册会计师行业恢复重建以来,特别是1999年脱钩改制之后,会计师事务所科学发展战略的忠诚执行者,是促进中国注册会计师行业做大做强做出去的典范.     

我国审计市场结构研究——基于2011-2013上市公司审计数据

本文以2011-2013年会计师事务所对上市公司的审计数据为依据,对我国审计市场的结构从审计市场集中度以及规模经济变化两个角度进行了分析.发现我国民间审计市场总体来说呈现出了集中度寡占型的市场结构,“四大”仍占据我国大型事务所前列,但我国本土大型事务所的竞争能力明显加强,发展迅猛,呈现出规模经济的特征,已打破四大的垄断格局.本土中小型会计事务所效率较低,发展较为缓慢.我国本土事务所的效率仍落后于先进水平,审计市场的结构有待于进一步完善.     

The Effect of Client Industry Agglomerations on Auditor Industry Specialization

Prior research on auditor industry specialization documents fee premiums for local audit offices that are industry specialists. This research assumes that the effects of specialization are uniform across markets. We examine industry specialization based on the economic theory of industry agglomeration (geographic areas with high industry concentration). Agglomeration economies can facilitate access to knowledge for auditors serving a specific industry in those locations. We find that industry specialists in agglomerations earn a fee premium in excess of specialists in other markets. We find that nonspecialist offices in agglomerations also earn fee premiums in that industry when compared to nonspecialists in other markets even when controlling for these groups’ absolute share of the national market. We also address whether or not this expertise can be shared among offices in an agglomeration specialist's firm. We find that audit offices that have easy connections to a within-firm office in an agglomerated market can earn a fee premium relative to more distant offices, suggesting a benefit from knowledge transfer. This fee premium accrues to offices that would not be considered a specialist using traditional market share measures in a given industry. These findings indicate that the benefit of industry specialization depends on more than local market share.     

Note on audit fee premiums to client size and industry specialization

This research note examines the impact of client size on the estimation of audit fee premiums in the Australian market for audit services. Previous research suggests that higher audit fees are expected for both larger clients and for industry specialization. We find that in the Australian market for audit services, the fee premium attributed to industry specialist audit firms is concentrated in the audit fees paid by the largest clients in each industry. One reason for higher fees paid by larger clients is the demand for additional audit services. We find higher fees for companies cross‐listed on US exchanges. We also find that fee premiums to auditors that are city‐industry leaders are strongly related to client size.     

Audit Firm Ranking,Audit Quality and Audit Fees: Examining Conflicting Price Discrimination Views

In this study, we examine whether highly ranked audit firms in Iran, as determined by the Securities and Exchange Organization (SEO), earn a fee premium, firstly, by providing superior quality audit services or, secondly, due to reputation created by the ranking system implemented by the SEO. We employ price discrimination theory, and we test quality discrimination versus brand reputation explanations in the context of a unique institutional setting (where international audit firms are not allowed to operate). The data are derived from firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) for the period 2006 to 2015. Our results show that the quality of audit services (using all of our measures) provided by the highest ranked audit firms is not superior to that of the non-highest ranked firms. In addition, the audit fee models suggest that the highest ranked firms charge significantly more audit fees compared to lower ranked firms. We employ several sensitivity tests and the results do not change materially. Such findings go against the “quality-based price discrimination” view but support the reputation-based view, and make a significant contribution towards understanding the economic consequences of state-determined ranking of audit firms rather than allowing the market to determine quality differentiation.     

Market competitiveness and Big 5 pricing: Evidence from China's binary market

Big 5 auditors enjoy a worldwide audit fee premium that is believed to be attributable primarily to their reputation for providing high-quality services to clients. This study finds that the fee premium is also attributable to a lack of competition in the market. Taking advantage of the binary structure of the audit market in China, we compare the pricing practices of the Big 5 in the competitive statutory market and the less competitive supplementary market. Although the Big 5 have a reputation for high-quality audits in both markets, the degree of competition in the two markets is very different. Using audit fee data from the period 2000 to 2003, we find that the Big 5 earn a significant fee premium in the less competitive supplementary market, but not in the competitive statutory market. Although our results do not completely rule out reputation as an explanation, they are consistent with the notion that the audit fee premium that is earned by the Big 5 is more likely to be attributable to their dominant market position than to their reputation in the emerging Chinese markets, in which the usual audit-quality benefits for investors and managers are either absent or minimal.     

Audit pricing and auditor industry specialization in an emerging market: Evidence from China

In this paper we examine the determinants of audit fees by focusing on auditor industry specialization and second tier auditors in the Chinese market. We find evidence of Big 4 premiums for brand name as well as industry specialization in both the statutory and supplementary market. Big 4 industry specialists earn additional premiums in the statutory market as compared to non-industry specialists. We also find that market expansion did not provide the second tier auditors any price advantage. These auditors increased their market share mainly in the mid- and small-sized clienteles. Moreover, industry experience developed by the second tier firms may have helped them gain economy of scale and reduce service fees. This may be their strategy to win future clients that seek low-priced audits.     

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.     

Note on Self‐Selection of Auditors in the Municipal Sector*

The objective of this article is to revisit the literature on Big‐N audit fee premiums in the municipal setting using a methodology that controls for self‐selection bias. Because auditor choices can be predicted based on certain client characteristics, using standard one‐stage ordinary least squares regressions to draw inferences about the presence or absence of such a premium in the extant public‐sector audit fee studies may not be appropriate. Results indicate that, after controlling for a self‐selection bias, Big‐6 (non‐Big‐6) municipal clients on average pay a fee premium, compared to the case if they were to retain a non‐Big‐6 (Big‐6) auditor. Results continue to hold when we conduct further analyses on a subset of municipalities with access to both Big‐6 and non‐Big‐6 auditors in a local market defined by a 60‐km radius, rather than over a province‐wide audit market. The existence of non‐Big‐6 audit fee premiums has not been documented previously in the private‐ or public‐sector audit fee literature. We surmise that it may be caused by the dominance (79.4 percent) of non‐Big‐6 auditors in the Ontario municipal market, compared to most private‐sector audit markets where their market share generally does not exceed 20 percent. The strong market position of non‐Big‐6 firms in turn may have allowed these auditors to command a fee premium for the subset of municipalities that self‐selects to be audited by them. An implication from our study is that Ontario municipalities often choose to be audited by more costly auditors, even though they could have paid lower audit fees by switching to an alternative auditor type. These results do not support those reported by Chaney et al. (2004) , who find that U.K. private firms are audited by the least costly auditor type. The conflicting findings may be attributable to the fact that the Ontario municipal audit market is subject to regulation by not just the audit profession but also the Ontario government and that, unlike business corporations, municipalities receive funding from provincial governments to fulfil much of their financial requirements. Thus, municipal clients may be relatively more willing to accept higher audit fees provided their chosen auditor (or auditor type) matches their needs.     

中国内资会计师事务所合并效果研究——基于国际“四大”审计收费溢价的分析

近年来,我国注册会计师行业管理部门颁布了一系列政策法规,大力鼓励内资事务所进行合并以实现行业做大做强的目的。本文比较分析了2002-2008年内资事务所和"四大"审计收费情况,发现经历第一轮合并浪潮后审计收费溢价仍在不断增加。针对这一现象,我们深入挖掘了其内在原因,总结了经验教训,并结合相关部门2009年以来一系列最新措施,对已经拉开帷幕的新一轮的内资事务所合并提出了对策建议。     

Does Auditor Industry Specialization Improve Audit Quality?

This study examines whether auditor industry specialization, measured using the auditor's within‐industry market share, improves audit quality and results in a fee premium. After matching clients of specialist and nonspecialist auditors on a number of dimensions, as well as only on industry and size, there is no evidence of differences in commonly used audit‐quality proxies between these two groups of auditors. Moreover, there is no consistent evidence of a specialist fee premium. The matched sample results are confirmed by including client fixed effects in the main models, examining a sample of clients that switched auditors, and using an alternative proxy that aims to capture the auditor's industry knowledge. The combined evidence in this study suggests that the auditor's within‐industry market share is not a reliable indicator of audit quality. Nevertheless, these findings do not imply that industry knowledge is not important for auditors, but that the methodology used in extant archival studies to examine this issue does not fully parse out the effects of auditor industry specialization from client characteristics.     

The Pricing of Audit Services: Further Evidence from the Canadian Market

Since the seminal work of Simunic (1980), many studies have investigated audit pricing, competition in the audit industry, product differentiation and audit cost functions. This study expands on the work done to date by examining Canadian audit fees across time, audit firm and industry. The observations of audit fee data span the period of time during which the provincial codes of professional ethics with respect to fee tenders and advertising in general were relaxing in Canada. The results reported in this study support the existence of differentiated audit services in the Canadian audit market, and are consistent with DeAngelo's (1981) size interpretation of audit quality. Although no significant differences in the pricing of audit services across time are detected, the data provide evidence of significant pricing differences across (pre-merger) Big Eight audit firms in the small auditee market, suggesting that treating these audit firms as a homogeneous group in future research may not be appropriate. These inter-firm pricing differences do not appear to be due to the potential confounding effects of the auditee's industry. In contrast to previous studies, a significant positive association between internal and external audit costs is observed, suggesting a complementary, rather than a substitute, relationship.