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。     

构建会计师事务所拓展非审计业务领域运作模式探讨

注册会计师行业大力拓展非审计业务领域的成效,有赖于会计师事务所积极构建由拓展非审计业务来源切入点、打造非审计业务专长团队、开发与完善非审计业务执业规程、调动执业人员拓展非审计业务积极性以及确立打造非审计业务经营战略等五大要素有机结合的非审计业务拓展运作模式.     

拓展非审计业务的实践与体会

目前我国会计师事务所业务结构比较单一,审计业务占绝对优势,管理咨询等非审计业务所占比重非常小.特别是经济危机的来临使得会计师事务所面临法定业务整体萎缩、收费有所下降的形势.如何提高非审计业务收入,使之成为国内注册会计师行业"新的经济增长点",已成为目前国内注册会计师行业讨论的热点.     

注册会计师发展非审计业务探讨

本文在对比考察国内外注册会计师发展非审计业务的实践和遇到的问题后得出以下结论:会计师事务所超出审计范围从事会计服务和管理咨询服务等非审计业务,属于注册会计师职能的拓展;注册会计师有能力和优势从事非审计业务服务;非审计业务是一把双刃剑,它需要在政府的监管下规范发展。这些研究有利于进一步规范非审计业务的发展,促进注册会计师深度服务于中国经济发展。     

审计收费信息强制披露与审计环境的改善——来自中国审计市场的证据

2001年开始实施的审计收费信息强制披露规定，是改善了我国审计环境还是恶化了审计环境？本文采用三种相互补充的研究设计具体考察2001年开始实施的审计收费信息强制披露政策对我国审计环境的影响，结果发现强制披露规定颁布日国内会计师事务所主审的上市公司的累计异常回报高于中外合作会计师事务所主审的上市公司，进一步研究发现，在审计收费信息首次披露后年度（2002-2003），国内会计师事务所的审计收费与中外合作会计师事务所的审计收费的差异显著缩小、审计质量显著提高。而且上述发现在国内小会计师事务所表现更为明显。这基本上支持审计环境改善的假说。     

我国会计师事务所非审计业务基本问题及对策研究

经济全球化环境下,传统审计业务市场已处于基本饱和状态,会计师事务所开展非审计业务已成为不可阻挡的趋势。然而国内的大多数事务所却并没有意识到非审计业务的重要性,鉴于此,本文先使用STP理论进行市场细分及定位,明确非审计业务发展方向,再针对非审计业务发展过程中遇到的问题,并提出相应的建议,推动国内非审计业务市场向国际靠拢。     

非审计服务对审计独立性的影响分析

随着注册会计师行业竞争日趋激烈,非审计服务已经成为会计师事务所重要的业务组成,其收入占比越来越高。然而非审计服务可能会危害到会计师事务所的审计服务的独立性,影响审计服务质量。本文从审计独立性的基本层面出发,就非审计服务对审计独立性可能会产生的影响进行了深入探讨。     

我国审计收费现存问题及对策

审计收费是会计事务所的工作报酬,也是其自身生存发展的基础,而审计收费可能使会计师事务所在经济地位上陷入被动地位,由审计收费引发的审计独立性和审计质量等问题关系到整个审计行业的长远健康发展,所以深入研究审计收费问题具有重要意义.本文论述了当下我国审计服务市场中审计收费存在的几个问题,并提出了解决问题的一些对策.     

开展非审计业务的一些探索

会计师事务所在做好法定审计业务的同时,还可大力开展非审计业务。审计业务和非审计业务相互依存,相互促进,既满足了社会需求,也使事务所得到发展。笔者拟结合本所实际情况,谈谈事务所可开展的一些新的非审计业务及开展非审计业务应注意的问题。     

浅析当前我国审计收费现状

利用中小事务所客户市场竞争力差的缺点,通过变更会计师事务所同时利用审计契约的折扣行为,不诚信的被审计单位既获得了想要的审计意见,又压低了审计收费。作为自负盈亏的市场实体,不规范的委托模式为会计师事务所带来的是高额的审计成本,不但直接降低了注册会计师的执业质量,也在很大程度上造成审计市场的不正当竞争,进而影响了审计收费。     

On the Relationship between Audit Tenure and Fees Paid to the Audit Firm and Audit Quality

Abstract

We investigate the impact of audit firm tenure, partner tenure, audit fees, fees for non-audit services and total fees on audit quality, as measured by discretionary accruals. Our sample consists of Spanish non-financial public companies for the years between 2006 and 2013. Results indicate that audit quality increases with audit firm tenure but decreases with partner tenure. Moreover, the level of fees paid to the audit firm seems to have a negative impact on audit quality, which is mainly driven by fees for audit services. In this regard, we do not observe any significant relationship between fees for non-audit services and audit quality. Our results also show that the negative relationship between either long partner tenures or high fees and audit quality does not occur when the tenure with the audit firm is long. Therefore, long audit firm tenures do not only seem to involve higher audit quality ‘per se’, but also moderate the negative effects of partner tenure and audit fees on audit quality. The results of this study, which are robust to several sensitivity checks, may be relevant for the current debate on auditor rotation and the joint provision of audit and non-audit services.     

The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals

Prior research has estimated piece-meal the determinants of audit fees, non-audit fees and abnormal accruals. Intuition, informal analysis, and a variety of theories suggest that audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals are jointly determined. We address this endogeneity issue by modeling the confluence of audit fees, fees for non-audit services and abnormal accruals in a system of simultaneous equations. Our joint estimation provides a starting point to look simultaneously at several competing theories. Using audit and non-audit fee data from the UK for 1994–2000, we find evidence consistent with knowledge spillovers (or economies of scope) from auditing to non-audit services and from non-audit services to auditing. While knowledge spillovers from non-audit services to auditing have been found in prior research [e.g. see Simunic, 1984], the presence of knowledge spillovers from auditing to non-audit services is a new result. Contrary to recent results in Ferguson et al. (2000) and Frankel et al. (2002), we do not find support for the assertion that fees for non-audit services increase abnormal accruals. In fact, contrary to the results in Ashbaugh et al. (2003) and Chung and Kallapur (2003), we find that non-audit fees decrease abnormal accruals, which we attribute to the productive effects of non-audit services. We also find evidence that audit fees increase abnormal accruals, consistent with behavioral theories of unconscious influence or bias in the auditor-client relation. The findings are robust to tests with US data. JEL Classification C30 · M40 · M41 · M49     

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.     

The effect of mandatory auditor assignment and non-audit service on audit fees: Evidence from Korea

In Korea, regulators could assign auditors to firms. We investigate the relationship among audit fees, mandatory auditor assignment, and the joint provision of non-audit and auditor services in Korea. We find that assigned auditors charge significantly higher audit fees than freely selected auditors. We also find that the joint provision of non-audit and audit services does intensify the relation between auditor assignment and audit fees. Combined with the results of other studies that have shown that firms audited by assigned auditors report smaller amounts of discretionary accruals than firms audited by freely selected auditors, our results suggest the possibility that mandatory auditor assignment may improve auditor independence.     

Non-audit fees, institutional monitoring, and audit quality

We posit that the effect of non-audit fees on audit quality is conditional on the extent of institutional monitoring. We suggest that institutional investors have incentives and the ability to monitor financial reporting quality. Because of the reputation concerns and potential litigation exposure, auditors are likely to provide high audit quality, when they also provide non-audit services to clients, particularly when clients are subject to high institutional monitoring. We find evidence that, as non-audit fees increase, audit quality (measured by performance-adjusted discretionary current accruals and earnings-response coefficients) reduces only for clients with low institutional ownership but not for clients with high institutional ownership. Our results are robust after controlling for auditor industry specialization, firms’ operating volatility, size effect, and potential endogeneity between institutional ownership and audit quality.     

The pricing of audit and non-audit services in a regulated environment: a longitudinal study of the UK life insurance industry

This paper studies the relationship between audit and non-audit service fees paid to the statutory auditor by UK life insurance firms, utilising an extensive panel-data sample set for the period 1999–2009. Consistent with a knowledge spillover (impairment of independence) hypothesis, we predict and find that audit fees are positively (negatively) associated with actuarial (tax service) fees. Additionally, our results indicate that regulatory changes enforced after 2004 deterred UK life insurance firms from purchasing non-audit services that are perceived to impair auditor independence. Finally, we find evidence concerning the inter-temporal determination of audit fees.     

Non-audit Services and Auditor Independence: New Zealand Evidence

Abstract:  This paper examines evidence in New Zealand about whether auditors providing more non-audit services are less independent. Three sets of tests are used to address the issue. The first examines whether there is a relation between non-audit fees and audit fees, the second examines whether there is a relation between non-audit fees and audit report qualification or modification, and the third examines whether there is a relation between non-audit fees and stability of audit tenure. The results suggest a potential for the impairment of auditor independence in appearance when auditors provide non-audit services but no evidence of any impact on independence of mind.     

The vanishing searches and audit fees: Evidence from Google's withdrawal from China

I investigate the impact of the disruption of free information access via search engines on audit fees using a quasi-natural experiment provided by Google's withdrawal from China. Employing a difference-in-differences design, I document an increase in audit fees for firms with overseas business relative to firms without overseas business after Google's withdrawal. The results are robust to matched samples, placebo tests, alternative specifications, excluding alternative explanations and different event windows. This trend in audit fees suggests that Google's withdrawal hampers firms' foreign information streams and increases audit risk and audit effort. Consistent with this argument, after Google's withdrawal, firms with overseas business conduct more earnings management, pay more abnormal audit fees and experience longer audit report lags. Furthermore, the increase in audit fees is greater for firms with poor information environments, more retail investors or non-Big 4 auditors. My findings suggest a potential auditing cost of restricting the free flow of public foreign information about firms.     

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.     

The Provision of Non-audit Services and the Pricing of Audit Fees

There have been a number of studies examining audit fees and this research has covered various nations. Recent legislation in Norway requires a company to disclose information on the audit fee and the fees for non-audit services paid to its auditor. Using this data, models of audit fee structure are developed. As with other studies, the size of the company is a major determinant of the audit fee. Payments for non-audit services are positively and significantly associated with audit fees; this relationship is difficult to explain although it parallels some research in the United States. Overall, the models explain about 75 per cent of the variability in audit fees.