Employee Movements from Audit Firms to Audit Clients

Regulators have expressed concerns about the “revolving door” between auditors and clients, whereby audit employees move directly from audit firms to audit clients (i.e., “direct alumni hires”). Regulators are concerned that these direct hires could compromise audit quality, partly because these employees could have previously audited their hiring company's financial statements. In contrast, we examine accounting and finance executives who move indirectly from audit firms to audit clients and who could not have previously audited the hiring company's financial statements (i.e., “indirect alumni hires”). We show that indirect hires occur more often than the direct hires that have concerned regulators. We predict and find that both direct and indirect alumni hires are associated with lower rates of executive turnover and audit firm turnover. However, there is no evidence that the reduced rates of executive turnover are explained by managerial entrenchment or that these hires are associated with lower audit quality. Overall, our findings suggest that direct and indirect employee movements from audit firms to audit clients are beneficial to executives, audit clients, and audit firms because they reduce the incidence of costly turnover.     

Are Auditors Compromised by Nonaudit Services? Assessing the Evidence*

Ruddock, Taylor, and Taylor (2006) use an earnings conservatism framework to investigate the effects of nonaudit services (NAS) on earnings conservatism, and to test whether audit quality was impaired by NAS in Australia during the 1990s. They find no evidence of differential conservatism conditional on the level of NAS fees paid to auditors, and thus conclude that NAS have no adverse effect on audit quality. While this result may not extrapolate to the U.S. setting due to institutional difference between the two countries, the study does add to a growing body of empirical evidence that questions whether there is any logical rationale for restricting the scope of the services that auditors provide to their audit clients. In reviewing the NAS research literature over the past 40 years, one has to conclude that there is no “smoking gun” evidence linking the provision of nonaudit services with audit failures. However, the literature also finds that NAS can adversely affect the appearance of auditor independence, and this may be more than a “mere perception” problem, because there is also evidence that stock prices are significantly lower for companies that pay their auditors large fees for nonaudit services.     

Nonaudit Services and Earnings Management: UK Evidence*

Using a sample of UK firms for the period 1996‐98, we provide empirical evidence on the relation between nonaudit services (NAS) purchase and three proxies for earnings management: (1) the likelihood that client firm accounting practices during the sample period were publicly criticized or subject to regulatory investigation; (2) the likelihood that client firms were required to restate prior financial statements or adjust current year results upon adoption of Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) No. 12, which was intended to curb opportunistic use of provisions; and (3) the mean absolute value of client discretionary working capital accruals over the sample period. The level of NAS purchase is measured, alternatively, as (1) the ratio of nonaudit to total auditor fees, (2) the natural log of NAS fees, and (3) the decile rank of a particular client's NAS fees given all NAS fees received by the audit firm practice office. With one exception, we find that all three measures of earnings management are positively and significantly associated with the three measures of NAS purchase.     

An Empirical Investigation of Audit Fees,Nonaudit Fees,and Audit Committees*

This study examines the association between audit committee characteristics and the ratio of nonaudit service (NAS) fees to audit fees, using data gathered under the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) fee disclosure rules. Issues related to NAS fees have been of concern to practitioners, regulators, and academics for a number of years. Prior research suggests that audit committees possessing certain characteristics are important participants in the process of managing the client‐auditor relationship. We hypothesize that audit committees that are independent and active financial monitors have incentives to limit NAS fees (relative to audit fees) paid to incumbent auditors, in an effort to enhance auditor independence in either appearance or fact. Our analysis using a sample of 538 firms indicates that audit committees comprised solely of independent directors meeting at least four times annually are significantly and negatively associated with the NAS fee ratio. This evidence is consistent with audit committee members perceiving a high level of NAS fees in a negative light and taking actions to decrease the NAS fee ratio.     

An Economic Analysis of Audit and Nonaudit Services: The Trade‐off between Competition Crossovers and Knowledge Spillovers*

In this paper, I present a model in which both markets for audit services and nonaudit services (NAS) are oligopolistic. Accounting firms providing both audit services and NAS will employ oligopolistic competition in each of these markets. In addition to auditors' gaining “knowledge spillovers” from auditing to consulting or vice versa, oligopolistic competition in one market will influence the counterpart in the other market ‐ what I call “competition crossovers”. Although scope economies due to knowledge spillovers (for example, cost savings) are always beneficial to auditors, such benefits can entice accounting firms to adopt strategies (for example, price reductions) to compete aggressively in the audit market so that some, or all, firms become worse off. A trade‐off arises between these two economic forces in the two oligopolistic markets. Given the trade‐off between competition crossovers and knowledge spillovers, accounting firms may not reduce their audit prices, even though supplying NAS enables firms to decrease auditing costs — a nontrivial impact of oligopolistic competition in two markets on audit pricing. The empirical implication of my results is that because of competition‐crossover effects between the auditing and consulting service markets, finding empirical evidence for knowledge‐spillover benefits is likely to be difficult. Control variables for “audit‐market concentration” concerned with competition‐crossover effects and “auditor expertise” concerned with knowledge‐spillover benefits should be included in audit‐fee regressions to increase the power of empirical tests. With regard to policy implications, my analyses help explain the impact of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act on “market segmentation” and, hence, the profitability of accounting firms.     

Pricing of Initial Audit Engagements by Large and Small Audit Firms*

We investigate the extent to which auditors of U.S. companies reduce fees on initial audit engagements (“fee discounting”). We hypothesize that rivalries among sellers, in terms of client turnover and price competition, are more intense among small audit firms. The data support this hypothesis. New clients account for 34 percent of all clients for small audit firms, but only 9 percent of all clients for large audit firms. We theorize that differences in client turnover rates between large and small audit firms can be explained by the market structure of the audit industry, which consists of an oligopolistic segment dominated by a few large audit firms and an atomistic segment composed of many small audit firms. We further hypothesize and confirm that fee discounting is more extensive in the atomistic sector, and our results confirm this hypothesis. Our analysis of audit fee changes indicates that clients who switch auditors within the atomistic sector receive on average a discount of 24 percent over the prior auditor's fee. However, clients who switch auditors within the oligopolistic sector receive on average a discount of only 4 percent. Given that price competition is known to be less intense in oligopolistic markets than in atomistic markets, we believe that market structure theory can explain why fee discounting is lower when larger audit firms compete for clients.     

The Influence of Nonaudit Service Revenues and Client Pressure on External Auditors' Decisions to Rely on Internal Audit*

This paper investigates how external auditor provision of significant nonaudit services and client pressure to use the work of internal audit influence external auditors' use of internal auditors' work. More specifically, we study how external audit evidence gathering choices are influenced by nonaudit fees and client pressure. Our research is motivated by an observation that the magnitude of nonaudit services provided to audit clients introduces the risk that client management may leverage its position with the external auditor and potentially affect the audit process. We address this issue by extending prior research and focusing on the importance of various explanatory variables, including nonaudit service revenues, client pressure, internal audit quality, and coordination, to the external auditor's decision to rely on the work of internal audit. We use data primarily obtained through surveys completed by internal and external auditors. The survey responses represent 74 separate audit engagements. Our findings reveal that when significant nonaudit services are not provided to a client, internal audit quality and the level of internal‐external auditor coordination positively affect auditors' internal audit reliance decisions. However, when the auditor provides significant nonaudit services to the client, internal audit quality and the extent of internal ‐ external auditor coordination do not significantly affect auditors' reliance decisions. Furthermore, when significant nonaudit services are provided, client pressure significantly increases the extent of internal audit reliance. Thus, external auditors appear to be more affected by client pressure and less concerned about internal audit quality and coordination when making internal audit reliance decisions at clients for whom significant nonaudit services are also provided.     

Outsourcing and Audit Risk for Internal Audit Services*

Some companies now outsource their internal audit function to public accountants. Internal auditors and accounting firms disagree about the merits of outsourcing. Each type of auditor claims to provide more cost‐effective services and appears to claim superior expertise. This paper uses agency theory to examine outsourcing and reconciles the outsourcing debate without resorting to differential auditor expertise. Under the assumptions that public accountants' “deep pockets” provide incentives to outsource and their higher opportunity cost provides a disincentive, we characterize the optimal employment contract with each auditor. We find that public accountants provide higher levels of testing, but possibly for a higher expected fee. This result supports both the internal auditor's claim as the lower cost provider, and the public accountant's claim of higher quality. We also find that incentives to outsource generally increase in various measures of risk, including the risk that a control weakness exists and the size of the loss that can result from an undetected control weakness.     

Production Efficiency and the Pricing of Audit Services*

In this paper, we examine the relative efficiency of audit production by one of the then Big 6 public accounting firms for a sample of 247 geographically dispersed audits of U.S. companies performed in 1989. To test the relative efficiency of audit production, we use both stochastic frontier estimation (SFE) and data envelopment analysis (DEA). A feature of our research is that we also test whether any apparent inefficiencies in production, identified using SFE and DEA, are correlated with audit pricing. That is, do apparent inefficiencies cause the public accounting firm to reduce its unit price (billing rate) per hour of labor utilized on an engagement? With respect to results, we do not find any evidence of relative (within‐sample) inefficiencies in the use of partner, manager, senior, or staff labor hours using SFE. This suggests that the SFE model may not be sufficiently powerful to detect inefficiencies, even with our reasonably large sample size. However, we do find apparent inefficiencies using the DEA model. Audits range from about 74 percent to 100 percent relative efficiency in production, while the average audit is produced at about an 88 percent efficiency level, relative to the most efficient audits in the sample. Moreover, the inefficiencies identified using DEA are correlated with the firm's realization rate. That is, average billing rates per hour fall as the amount of inefficiency increases. Our results suggest that there are moderate inefficiencies in the production of many of the subject public accounting firm's audits, and that such inefficiencies are economically costly to the firm.     

Competition in the Market for Audit Services: The Effect of Supplier Concentration on Audit Fees*

Abstract. This article investigates the relationship between supplier concentration and competition in the market for audit services. The study is motivated by the concern that high levels of concentration may be detrimental, resulting in lower levels of competition, which could harm clients through higher fees and lower levels of service. However, a counterargument is that high levels of concentration may not be detrimental but may result because market leaders display exceptional performance, providing lower-priced audits (perhaps due to economies of scale) and/or enhanced service to clients. We obtained audit fee and financial data on 140 life and health insurance companies and 101 property and casualty insurance companies. Our findings indicate that concentration is negatively associated with fees, suggesting that higher levels of concentration are related to higher levels of price competition (i.e., lower fees). Additionally, we address the validity of concentration as a surrogate for competition by examining competition among the market leaders. Our analysis examines the fees paid by 47 insurance companies that switched auditors during the sample period. We investigate the effect of industry specialization on fees paid by clients that switch auditors, finding evidence of significant fee cutting among market leaders for each others' clients but no evidence of fee reductions for clients switching from nonleaders to market leaders. This is consistent with the claim that there is significant price competition for clients among the market leaders, suggesting that high concentration need not result in low levels of price competition (i.e., higher fees). Résumé. Les auteurs analysent la relation entre la concentration des fournisseurs et la coocurrence sur le marché des services de vérification. L'étude découle de la préoccupation suivant laquelle des niveaux élevés de concentration pourraient être préjudiciables et donner lieu à une intensité plus faible de la concurrence qui risquerait de léser les clients, en augmentant les honoraires et en diminuant la qualité du service. L'argumentation opposée veut qu'un degré élevé de concentration ne soit pas préjudiciable et puisse être attribuable au fait que les chefs de file du marché affichent une performance exceptionnelle, offrant des services de vérification à meilleur prix (peut-être en raison d'économies d'échelle) et (ou) mettent l'accent sur le service à la clientèle. Les auteurs ont recueilli des données relatives aux honoraires de vérification et des données financières provenant de 140 sociétés d'assurances vie et maladie et 101 sociétés d'assurances I.A.R.D. (incendie, accidents et risques divers). Les résultats de leurs recherches indiquent que la concentration est en relation négative avec les honoraires, ce qui donne à penser que des niveaux plus élevés de concentration sont reliés à des niveaux plus élevés de concurrence relative au prix (c'est-à-dire à des honoraires inférieurs). Les auteurs se sont également penchés sur la validité de la concentration à titre de substitut à la concurrence en examinant la concurrence que se livraient les chefs de file sur le marché. Ils ont analysé les honoraires versés par 47 sociétés d'assurance qui ont changé de vérificateurs au cours de la période analysée. Us ont étudié l'incidence de la spécialisation sectorielle sur les honoraires versés par les clients qui changent de vérificateurs; les résultats de l'étude démontrent que les cabinets chefs de file réduisent leurs honoraires de façon appréciable à l'intention des clients de leurs concurrents appartenant au groupe des chefs de file; ces résultats ne permettent cependant pas de conclure à des réductions d'honoraires pour les clients qui passent de vérificateurs n'appartenant pas aux chefs de file à des vérificateurs chefs de file sur le marché. Ces constatations sont conformes à l'hypothèse selon laquelle les chefs de file sur le marché se livrent une âpre concurrence relative au prix pour attirer la clientèle, ce qui laisse croire que la concentration élevée ne donne pas nécessairement lieu à une faible intensité de la concurrence relative au prix (c'est-à-dire à des honoraires supérieurs).     

Audit Qualifications of Income‐Decreasing Accounting Choices*

In this study we conduct an experiment to examine how qualifying an income‐decreasing accounting change in years of strong financial performance affects financial report users' assessments of strategic reporting, current financial performance, and future financial performance (performance over the next three years). We find that without the qualification, users viewed the income‐decreasing accounting change as relatively nonstrategic and that user assessments of current and future performance were not different. In the presence of the qualification, users believed that the accounting change was relatively strategic, and they discounted the income effect of the accounting change. We find further that their assessments of future performance were below their assessments of current performance but no different from the assessments of future performance in the absence of the qualification. Although our findings suggest that audit qualifications encourage users to be skeptical of income‐decreasing accounting changes, we find no evidence that they impose negative consequences on management in terms of lower assessments of financial performance.     

The Difficult Client‐Acceptance Decision in Canadian Audit Firms: A Field Investigation*

Auditing is often depicted in scientific and professional literature as being subject to conflicting forces, such as mechanization versus flexibility, and professionalism versus commercialism. This paper examines how auditors actually make the client‐acceptance decision in the midst of these forces. The investigation was conducted via a field study at three Big 6 firms located in Canada. The results show that in all firms the client‐acceptance decision process in action is largely flexible, being characterized by a high degree of informal communication and the adaptation of the client‐acceptance written policies and decision aids to circumstances. Furthermore, while commercialism in one firm (A) has a significant influence on the decision process, in the two other firms (B and C) the decision process is mostly consistent with professionalism. This result conflicts with the concerns that North American regulators have recently expressed about auditors' professionalism.     

Discretionary Accounting Accruals,Managers' Incentives,and Audit Fees*

This paper examines the linkages between discretionary accruals (DAs), managerial share ownership, management compensation, and audit fees. It draws on the theory that managers of firms with high management ownership are likely to use DAs to communicate value‐relevant information, while managers of firms with high accounting‐based compensation are likely to use DAs opportunistically to manage earnings to improve their compensation. OLS regression results of 648 Australian firms show that (1) there is a positive association between DAs and audit fees; (2) managerial ownership negatively affects the positive relationship between DAs and audit fees; and (3) this negative impact is further found to be weaker for firms with high accounting‐based management compensation.