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.     

Board Characteristics and Audit Fees*

This paper examines the relations between three board characteristics (independence, diligence, and expertise) and Big 6 audit fees for Fortune 1000 companies. To protect its reputation capital, avoid legal liability, and promote shareholder interests, a more independent, diligent, and expert board may demand differentially higher audit quality (greater assurance, which requires more audit work) than the Big 6 audit firms normally provide. The audit fee increases as the auditor's additional costs are passed on to the client, such that we expect positive relations between audit fees and the board characteristics examined. We find significant positive relations between audit fees and board independence, diligence, and expertise. The results persist when similar measures of audit committee “quality” are included in the model. The results add to the growing body of literature documenting relations between corporate governance mechanisms and various facets of the financial reporting and audit processes, as well as to our understanding of the determinants of audit fees.     

A Note on the Association between Audit Firm Size and Audit Quality*

Abstract. This study proposes that comparison of management earnings forecasts with audited, reported earnings provides an approach to the measurement of audit quality. Assuming that managers have incentives to minimize the difference between forecasted and reported income, higher-quality audit firms will tend to be associated with larger forecast errors. Therefore if, as previous literature suggests, larger auditing firms provide higher-quality audits than do smaller auditing firms, larger auditing firms will tend to be associated with larger forecast errors, all else being equal. Data from the Toronto Stock Exchange are used to examine this proposition. After controlling for client characteristics such as risk, the results indicate that larger auditing firms tend to be associated with larger forecast errors consistent with the proposition that, other things being equal, larger auditing firms provide higher-quality audits than do small auditing firms. Résumé. Les auteurs proposent une technique de mesure de la qualité de la vérification qui consiste à comparer les prévisions de la direction relatives aux bénéfices et les bénéfices déclarés qui ont été vérifiés. Si l'on suppose que les gestionnaires ont intérêt à minimiser l'écart entre les bénéfices prévus et les bénéfices déclarés, les vérificateurs de haut calibre auront tendance à être associés à des erreurs prévisionnelles plus importantes. Par conséquent, si, comme l'ont suggéré les études antérieures, les cabinets d'experts-comptables importants offrent des services de vérification de meilleure qualité que les cabinets d'experts-comptables de taille plus modeste, les cabinets d'experts-comptables importants auront tendance à être associés aux erreurs prévisionnelles plus grandes, toutes choses étant égales. Les auteurs utilisent les données de la Bourse de Toronto pour vérifier cette affirmation. Une fois contrôlées les caractéristiques du client telles que le risque, les résultats indiquent que les cabinets d'experts-comptables de grande taille tendent à être associés aux erreurs prévisionnelles plus importantes, ce qui confirme l'hypothèse voulant que, toutes choses étant égales, les cabinets d'experts-comptables de grande taille offrent des services de vérification de meilleure qualité que les cabinets d'experts-comptables de taille plus petite.     

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.     

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.     

Learning by Doing and Audit Quality*

In this study, we present a nonstrategic, dynamic Bayesian model in which auditors' learning on the job and their choice of professional services jointly affect audit quality. While performing audits over time, auditors accumulate client‐specific knowledge so that their posterior beliefs about clients are updated and become more precise (that is, precision is our surrogate for audit quality) — what we call the learning effect. In addition, auditors can enrich their knowledge accumulation by performing nonaudit services (NAS) that, in fact, may influence clients' managerial decisions — what we call the business advisory effect. This advisory effect permits auditors to anticipate and to learn about changes in clients' business models, which in turn improves their advisory capacity. These dual “learning” and “advisory” effects are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The advisory effect of NAS may increase or reduce auditors' engagement risk. We show that large professional fees can induce auditors to provide NAS that increase engagement risk and diminish audit quality. However, when NAS reduce engagement risk and increase audit quality, auditors may provide NAS without charging clients. The feature that distinguishes our study — the interdependence between the learning and advisory effects — provides new insight into the trade‐off between audit fees and audit quality. Consequently, our analysis helps explain why the scope of the audit has evolved over time and why the boundaries between audit and NAS are constantly shifting. A recent example of such a shift is that the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act adds control attestation to audits for public companies traded in U.S. markets.     

Management Ownership and Audit Firm Size*

The finance literature identifies two agency problems between managers and outside shareholders. First, there is a divergence‐of‐interests problem as management ownership falls. Second, there is an offsetting entrenchment problem when management ownership increases within intermediate regions of ownership. Agency problems are mitigated through contracting, but contracts are often based on accounting numbers prepared by management. Because accounting numbers must be reliable for contracts to be enforced, agency theory predicts a demand for higher‐quality auditors when agency problems are more severe. However, extant studies find no significant or robust relation between management ownership and audit firm size. In contrast to extant research, this study samples unlisted companies rather than listed companies for two reasons. First, the monitoring value of auditing may be higher in unlisted companies because they are less vulnerable to takeover and they are required to disclose much less nonaccounting information to shareholders. Second, unlisted companies have greater variation in management ownership, which permits more powerful tests of the demand for auditing as ownership varies between 0 percent and 100 percent. Consistent with a divergence‐of‐interests effect, the association between management ownership and audit firm size is found to be significantly negative within low and high regions of management ownership. The association is flatter and slightly positive within intermediate regions of management ownership, suggesting the existence of an opposite entrenchment effect. The negative association and the nonlinearity is consistent with the finance literature and with the predictions of agency theory.     

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.     

Client Satisfaction and Big 6 Audit Fees*

This study examines whether client satisfaction can help explain cross-sectional variation in Big 6 audit fees paid by Fortune 1000 clients. After controlling for other factors related to audit fees (including audit quality attributes), client satisfaction with the audit team is positively associated with fees. It appears that a dimension of client satisfaction unrelated to audit quality attributes is the factor associated with an audit fee premium. This dimension of satisfaction may reflect other aspects of service quality not documented in the literature, or it may simply enable an auditor to earn economic rents through enhanced bargaining power. Client satisfaction with the audit firm does not appear to be priced in this segment of the audit market. The results are consistent with the view that a Big 6 audit is a service that is differentiable in the eyes of client management, and the results highlight the importance of the audit team composition in allowing a Big 6 audit firm to differentiate the audit product. Also, if auditors are earning local rents due to enhanced satisfaction levels, then a perfect competition model may not be appropriate for the audit services market.     

Audit planning: an algorithmic approach*

Abstract. A major task in audit planning is the design of a proper evaluation procedure for the existing accounting and internal control system. In an era when most accounting systems are “engineered” and computerized, a structured “systems approach” can replace the traditional audit planning methods with formal algorithms to assure that the evaluation is economical and within time and resource constraints. This paper combines the concepts of reliability modeling of internal control systems with those of sequential covering in mathematical programming and provides an algorithm for audit planning in two situations: (1) a dichotomous, deterministic condition where each control mechanism can either operate properly or fail, and (2) a probabilistic situation in which probabilities of success and failure are considered. The objective function is the minimization of audit cost in the first case and is the minimization of expected audit cost in the second one. In addition to the optimization effect achieved by applying the algorithm, a “stopping rule” is defined for the termination of the audit investigation. Résumé. Une tâche importante dans la planification en vérification est de concevoir une procüdure d‘évaluation appropriée pour le système de contrôle interne comptable considéré. Dans une ère où la plupart des systèmes comptables sont “machinés” et informatisés, une “approche système” structurée peut remplacer les méthodes traditionnelles de planification en vérification par des algorithmes formels, afin de donner l'assurance que l’évaluation est économique et à l'intérieur des contraintes de temps et de ressources. Cet article combine les concepts de la fiabilité du modelage des systèmes de contrôle interne avec ceux de couverture séquentielle en programmation mathématique, et présente un algorithme pour la planification en vérification dans deux situations: (1) une condition dichotomique et déterministique où chaque mécanisme de contrôle peut soit fonctionner correctement ou ne pas fonctionner, et (2) une situation probabilistique où l'on considère les probabilitès de succès et d‘échec. La fonction “objectif” est de minimiser le coût de la vérification dans le premier cas et de minimiser le coût prévu de la vérification dans le deuxième cas. En plus de l'effet d'optimisation atteint par l'utilisation de l'algorithme, on définit une “règle de fin de vérification” visant à mettre fin à la vérification.     

Resource Allocation Decisions in Audit Engagements*

Abstract. We examine the empirical relationship between auditors' resource allocations and selected engagement characteristics. Our measure of resources is hours of grades of labor (partner, manager, etc.) “charged” to audit activities (planning, internal control evaluation, etc.). Engagement characteristics examined are client size, industry affiliation, client complexity, risk, auditor provision of management advisory services to the auditee, and degree of control reliance. The data were obtained from publicly available sources and a survey developed and administered by an international public accounting firm. We find the cross-sectional variation in the labor charged to various audit activities can be explained by engagement characteristics found to be important in prior studies on audit fees, total labor inputs, and the mix of labor inputs. Measures of client size, industry, complexity, risk, and services provided are associated with changes in the allocation of labor among audit activities. We find no substitution of internal control review/testing for substantive testing on reliance audits. Task assignments vary by rank. Measures of client size, complexity, risk, and services provided are associated with activity-specific changes in the labor mix.     

Economic and financial reporting effects of inventory tax allowances*

Abstract. This study documents management's reactions to an inventory tax allowance that is based on inventory levels at the beginning of the year. Such an allowance was permitted by the tax authorities in Canada and Israel. The study develops a theoretical model which shows that a rational management should increase the firm's inventory levels on the balance sheet date beyond what the normal ordering policy would indicate. Moreover, tax authorities, in failing to anticipate this behavior, may, ceteris paribus, overcompensate firms for inflation. Empirical evidence shows that firms do, indeed, alter their ordering policies so that they will hold larger inventories on the balance sheet date. The study also shows that the tax authorities overcompensated firms in Israel, but did not overcompensate firms in Canada. Résumé. Cette étude documente les réactions du management à un dégrèvement fiscal afférent aux stocks basé sur les niveaux des stocks au début de l'année. Un tel dégrèvement était permis par les autorités fiscales au Canada et en Israël. L'étude développe un modèle théorique qui montre qu'un management rationnel devrait augmenter les niveaux des stocks de la firme à la date du bilan, au-delà de ce que la politique normale d'approvisionnement pourrait indiquer. D'ailleurs, les autorités fiscales qui n'anticipent pas ce comportement peuvent ceteris paribus, sur-idemniser les firmes pour l'inflation. L'évidence empirique montre en effet, que les firmes modifient leurs politiques d'approvisionnement de façon à avoir de plus gros stocks à la date du bilan. L'étude montre aussi que les autorités fiscales ont sur-indemnisé les firmes en Israël, mais ne les ont pas sur-indemnisées au Canada.     

Expertise and Its Relation to Audit Decision Quality*

Abstract. This research study examines the effect of expertise on the quality of audit decision making in an audit planning context. Unlike previous studies, expertise is measured in terms of domain-specific knowledge. The quality of audit decision making is evaluated with three measures: consistency with professional standards, consistency with the firm's standards, and consensus among auditors. In general, findings indicate that the quality of audit decision making, as defined in this study, is better among experts than among novices. More specifically, it appears that both experts and novices possess some minimum level of knowledge to be consistent with professional standards. Second, experts are more consistent with firms' standards for both reliance and substantive decisions, indicating that expert auditors may have finer knowledge than novices. Finally, the experts' consensus level is higher than the novices' consensus level for standard auditing situations although for less standard situations, the consensus level is lower for experts.