会计师事务所合并与审计收费

以中国2005年以来发生的14起会计师事务所合并案为例,通过大样本的经验研究方法探讨了会计师事务所的合并对审计收费的影响。研究发现,总体来看,会计师事务所合并后审计收费有显著提高;但分组研究发现,只在小客户市场上,会计师事务所合并后审计收费有了显著的提高。进一步的研究发现,在大客户市场上,之所以事务所合并对审计收费的影响无显著的影响,是因为会计师事务所在合并后尽管议价能力有了较大的提升,但同时规模效率也得到了充分的发挥。     

我国本土会计师事务所合并对审计收费的影响研究

本文以我国证券审计市场2009年的事务所合并案为例,通过合并前一年至合并后两年共四年数据之间的两两比较,考察了本土事务所合并对审计收费影响的动态变化过程。研究发现,合并后两年与合并前一年相比、合并后两年与合并当年相比,事务所的审计收费显著提高,而其他组没有显著变化。     

会计师事务所合并能提高财务报表的可比性吗?——基于中国上市公司的经验证据

以1998-2012年中国A股上市公司数据为样本,本文考察了会计师事务所合并对客户财务报表可比性的影响。研究发现,合并后事务所审计的财务报表可比性显著高于合并前事务所审计的财务报表可比性。进一步的研究还发现,事务所合并后的整合程度会影响合并的效果。合并后事务所对签字会计师重新配置的比例越高,则事务所合并对报表可比性的提升作用越明显。本研究为监管层更全面地评价和改进事务所"做大做强"政策提供实证支持。     

会计师事务所合并对审计收费的影响研究

本文以2006年至2008年间我国证券审计市场中会计师事务所合并案例为研究样本,对审计收费与事务所合并行为及其带来的事务所规模扩大之间的关系进行回归分析,考察了会计师事务所合并对其审计收费的影响.研究发现,在控制了客户的规模、客户报表的复杂程度、客户的风险、审计意见类型等因素之后,事务所之间的合并行为和由此带来的事务所规模的扩大与审计收费之间存在显著的正向相关关系,这也从一个侧面提供了有关事务所合并的经济后果的经验证据.     

审计失败与会计师事务所声誉损失:来自IPO审核的证据

本文分析了会计师事务所审计失败对其客户IPO审核拒绝率的影响。我们研究发现,会计师事务所审计失败会导致其声誉损失,其客户的IPO审核拒绝率将显著提高。发生审计失败后,不管事务所是否受到监管处罚,其客户的IPO审核拒绝率都会显著提高,但审计失败后受处罚的会计师事务所(受处罚所)的客户IPO审核拒绝率显著高于审计失败后未受处罚的会计师事务所(未受处罚所)的客户IPO审核拒绝率,即监管处罚对会计师事务所的声誉产生了更严重的后果。我们进一步发现,不同类型的会计师事务所,审计失败对其客户IPO审核拒绝率的影响不同。     

会计师事务所合并对审计质量的影响机理研究——基于2007-2009年的合并案例

基于2007-2009年间证券市场上内资非十大所合并成为内资十大所案例,文章分析了合并对审计质量的影响,发现:事务所合并没有提高不变更事务所客户的审计质量,合并后变更到非十大所的客户审计质量明显过低,合并后变更到十大所的客户与不变更事务所的客户审计质量接近。这表明事务所合并后提高了审计质量标准,使审计质量过低的客户变更审计师。     

企业集团统一审计能降低审计收费吗

审计收费是审计研究的重要问题。已有审计研究文献通常关注的是对单个公司的审计收费,本文则关注在同一实际控制人控制下的企业集团中,多家上市公司选择同一家会计师事务所审计,即集团统一审计对审计收费的影响。研究发现,集团统一审计不但不能降低审计收费,反而会增加审计收费;选择大所进行统一审计可以降低审计费用,而小所执行统一审计则可能存在牺牲独立性以获得更多审计收费的情形。此外,事务所尤其是小规模事务所,在招揽集团客户时存在激烈的低价竞争。     

上市公司法律风险与审计收费——来自中国上市公司的经验证据北大核心

本文实证检验了法律风险对审计收费的影响。结果发现:上市公司的法律风险和审计收费显著正相关。进一步研究表明,国内会计师事务所审计的上市公司,法律风险和审计收费显著正相关,而由"四大"会计师事务所审计的上市公司,法律风险和审计收费相关性不显著。这可以用审计质量溢价来解释,比起国内会计师事务所,"四大"会计师事务所存在明显的审计质量溢价,在审计定价时,法律风险不是主要影响因素。     

事务所客户重要性影响审计质量吗?——来自A股市场2003—2006年的证据

客户重要性对审计质量的影响是不确定的,随着时间的推移,各国制度环境发生变化,客户重要性对事务所审计质量的影响也在改变。本文以我国A股市场2003—2006年数据为样本,实证检验客户重要性对事务所审计质量的影响。结果发现,在2004年和2005年,客户重要性与审计质量不存在统计上的显著关系;2006年,客户重要性与审计质量显著正相关。进而对会计师事务所分组检验,在"十大"样本组,客户重要性与审计质量没有显著统计关系;在"非十大"样本组,2006年客户重要性与审计质量在1%水平上显著正相关。统计结果表明,我国审计环境得到了有效改善,对重要客户更加谨慎。     

媒体负面报道与审计收费：基于事务所组织形式变更的视角

事务所向特殊普通合伙制的转变,为研究审计师法律责任的增强对媒体治理作用的影响提供了现实样本.以公司层面的负面报道和审计收费数据进行研究发现,转制后,负面报道与审计费用和正向异常收费显著正相关,但在转制前均不显著;考虑事务所规模的差异后,发现对大型事务所,转制提高了负面报道与正向异常收费的相关性,但对小型事务所,审计收费和异常收费与负面报道的相关性在转制前后没有显著变化,表明审计师法律责任的强化是媒体发挥治理作用的重要路径.     

Audit firm merger and the strategic response by large audit firms

We examine the impact of a change in the audit industry structure in China as a result of two recent mergers involving large non-Big 4 audit firms. The ‘New Big’ audit firms, Ruihua and BDO Lixin, became the third and fourth largest audit firms in China following audit firm mergers, outranking both EY and KPMG in terms of total audit revenues in 2013. We find a significant audit fee and audit quality increase for the New Big audit firms relative to the Big 4 audit firms following the mergers. While this finding could be interpreted as an increase in quality as a result of audit firm consolidation, we find that this net effect is due to a decrease in audit fees and audit quality for the Big 4 following the mergers, rather than an increase in audit fees and audit quality by the New Big audit firms. We discuss the implications of our findings for various regulators.     

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.     

Competition in the Audit Market: Policy Implications

The audit market's unique combination of features—its role in capital market transparency, mandated demand, and concentrated supply—means it receives considerable attention from policy makers. We explore the effects of two market scenarios that have been the focus of policy discussions: mandatory audit firm rotation and further supply concentration due to the exit of a “Big 4” audit firm. To do so, we first estimate publicly traded firms' demand for auditing services, allowing the services provided by each of the Big 4 to be differentiated products. We then use those estimates to calculate how each scenario would affect client firms' consumer surplus. We estimate that, for U.S. publicly trade firms, mandatory audit firm rotation would induce consumer surplus losses of approximately $2.7 billion if rotation were required after 10 years and $4.7–5.0 billion if after only four years. We find similarly that exit by one of the Big 4 would reduce client firms' surplus by $1.4–1.8 billion. These estimates reflect only the value of firms' lost options to hire the exiting audit firm; they do not include likely fee increases resulting from less competition among audit firms. The latter could result in audit fee increases between $0.75–1.3 billion per year for mandatory rotation and $0.47–0.58 billion per year for the disappearance of a Big 4 audit firm. Such losses are substantial; by comparison, total audit fees for public firms were $11 billion in 2010.     

分所审计是否影响审计质量和审计收费?

随着注册会计师行业的扩大和分所的不断增加,分所的执业行为值得关注。我们采用2005—2008年会计师事务所分所数据,考察了会计师事务所总所和分所在审计质量和审计收费上的差异,以及分所规模大小对审计质量和审计收费的影响。结论总体上表明,会计师事务所分所的审计质量和审计收费更低,并且,规模越小的分所,其审计质量和审计收费越低。在此基础上,我们根据样本是否由十大会计师事务所审计,进行了分组检验,结果显示分所审计质量和审计收费更低主要体现在非十大会计师事务所上。     

The effect of large audit firm mergers on audit pricing in the UK

This paper examines the effects on UK audit market concentration and pricing of mergers between the large audit firms and the demise of Andersen. Based on data over the period 1985–2002, it appears that mergers contributed to a rise in concentration ratios to levels that suggest concern about the potential for monopoly pricing. The high concentration ratios have not improved the level of price competition in the UK audit market. Our pooled models suggest that concentration ratios are associated with higher audit fees. The evidence suggests that the effects of mergers between big firms on brand name fee premium and on price competition vary depending on the particular circumstances. The brand name premium is strongest for the largest quartile of companies prior to the mergers. After the Big Six mergers, the premium increases for average‐sized companies but falls for the smallest and largest companies. Following the PricewaterhouseCoopers merger, the premium increases for below median‐sized clients but decreases for above‐median sized clients. For the Deloitte‐Andersen transaction, the premium falls for the smallest and largest companies but increases for those in the second quartile. Our results provide evidence that auditees are likely to pay higher fees if their auditor merges with a larger counterpart. We attribute merger‐related fee hikes to product differentiation, rather than anti‐competitive pricing.     

Explaining Variability in External Audit Fees

This study examines the effect of several factors on the level of external audit fees using a multiple regression model. Audit fee data were provided by 95 US publicly held companies for the years 1983 to 1985. Variables measuring client industry membership and auditor involvement in the security registration process were proxies for client regulatory aspects. These variables were significant and provide support for the hypothesis that scale economies and/or specialization effects accrue to audit firms in dealing with the regulatory complexities faced by clients. Variables measuring auditee size and complexity, auditee/auditor loss sharing risk, and audit firm size were also significant in explaining variability in external audit fees.     

中国本土会计师事务所的市场地位与经济回报

区域规模化和行业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区域市场领先地位以及具有行业市场领先地位的中国本土会计师事务所伴随的经济回报(以审计定价度量)。基于全样本的证据显示: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;具备行业市场领先地位则伴随着显著更高的经济回报;同时具备行业市场领先地位和区域市场领先地位则伴随着更大的经济回报。进一步的分析显示,不同本土会计师事务所可能需要考虑在发展战略及其实现途径上的差异化。本文的发现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。     

The Contribution of Internal Audit as a Determinant of External Audit Fees and Factors Influencing This Contribution

Despite extensive research on the determinants of external audit fees, there is little empirical evidence on the effect of internal audit contribution on the external audit fee. Using a cross-sectional regression model based on prior audit fee research, this study provides evidence that internal audit contribution is a significant determinant of the external audit fee. Further, a second model that provides evidence on the determinants of internal audit contribution is developed and tested. This second model indicates that internal audit contribution is influenced by internal audit quality and, conditional on the level of inherent risk, the availability of internal audit and the extent of coordination between internal and external auditors. These results are based on a unique data-set comprised of publicly available data matched with survey responses from internal and external auditors affiliated with 70 non-financial services Fortune 1000 firms. The sample includes all of the former "Big 6" international accounting firms and clients from twenty-nine different industries.     

Auditors' Perceived Business Risk and Audit Fees: Analysis and Evidence

This study analyzes the relation between auditors' perceived business risk and audit fees to determine whether audit firms or their clients bear the expected legal costs of business risk. We predict that hourly audit fees and the number of audit hours are increasing in business risk. Using confidential survey data collected by a large international accounting firm for 422 audits, we find that high business risk increases the number of audit hours, but not the fee per hour. This implies that firms perceive firm-level differences in business risk and obtain compensation through billing additional hours, not by raising the hourly charge.