跨市场上市公司审计定价研究

本文从我国跨市场上市公司审计师选择的特点出发,考察了境内外审计市场不同需求弹性对审计收费的影响,并对协同效应和范围经济对审计定价的影响进行了研究。结论表明,当审计师对境外报表进行审计时,“四大”的审计收费显著高于非“四大”。而当会计师事务所对境内报表进行审计时,“四大”的审计定价与非“四大”相比无显著差异。结论验证了“四大”不同市场不同定价的竞争策略,如果进行审计的会计师事务所之间可以实现协同效应或范围经济,从而能节约跨市场上市公司的时间和精力,上市公司将愿意付出更多的审计费用。结论支持了境内会计师事务所可以通过与境外会计师事务所建立联系构筑竞争优势的策略。     

年报监管问询、非控股大股东退出威胁与审计费用

以2016—2020年A股上市公司为研究对象,研究年报监管问询对审计师定价决策的影响机制。结果表明：年报监管问询通过增加非控股大股东退出威胁的可信度和威胁程度,提高了审计费用,即非控股大股东退出威胁发挥了中介效应。从问询函特征来看,被问询次数越多以及公司回函越详细,非控股大股东退出威胁的中介效应越显著。进一步从内外部监督视角来看,非控股大股东退出威胁的中介效应在选择不具有行业专长事务所以及董事会独立性低的上市公司中更显著。拓展性研究发现,审计费用的增加是因为购买高质量的审计服务,而并不是因为审计意见购买。上述结论丰富了年报监管问询在公司治理层面经济后果的研究,拓展了非控股大股东退出威胁和审计费用的相关研究。     

我国会计师事务所转制对审计质量的影响

为了响应国家对会计师事务所做大做强的要求,大中型会计师事务所纷纷向特殊普通合伙组织形式转变,这种转变会对审计质量有怎样的影响是一个值得关注的话题.采用沪深两市上市公司2009年到2012年数据,运用实证方法检验了会计师事务所转制对审计质量的影响.回归结果显示由转制的事务所审计的上市公司其总体审计质量低于由未转制事务所审计的上市公司的审计质量,相对于事务所转制前事务所审计的上市公司的审计质量显著提高.发现事务所的特征会影响到转制所带来的效果,且支持事务所转制产生了积极的政策效果.     

企业与会计师事务所规模错配对审计费用与审计质量影响

本文选取2010—2018年制造业上市公司数据,分析了企业-会计师事务所规模错配对企业审计费用、审计质量的影响,并探讨企业盈利水平对这一影响的调节作用,并进一步讨论企业-事务所规模错配是否与企业业绩"突变"有关.研究发现:"大所-小企"规模错配会提高企业审计质量,同时增加审计费用,"小所-大企"规模错配会降低企业审计质量和审计费用.企业盈利水平能对企业-事务所规模错配与企业审计费用、审计质量的影响关系产生同向的调节作用.此外,企业业绩"突变"并非是造成企业-事务所规模错配的显著原因.     

审计委员会女性董事、事务所声誉与审计定价

文章以2011-2013年我国A股上市公司为研究样本,考察审计委员会女性董事、事务所声誉以及二者之间的交互作用对审计定价的影响。研究结果表明,审计委员会女性董事与审计定价之间存在负相关关系,国际"四大"与审计定价之间存在正相关关系,审计委员会女性董事削弱了国际"四大"与审计定价之间的正相关关系。进一步研究发现,审计委员会女性董事和事务所声誉两者之间的交互作用对审计定价的影响在非国有控股公司中更为显著。     

产品市场竞争对审计风险应对策略的影响研究

随着我国市场经济体制的逐步完善,要素在行业和企业之间的流动性增强,大多数行业的进入难度逐渐降低,个体公司面临的产品市场竞争日渐激烈,优胜劣汰竞争规则将会充分发挥作用.文章利用2014-2018年沪深A股上市公司的数据实证检验产品市场竞争对审计风险应对策略的影响,以期为会计师事务所实施有效的风险应对策略提供指导,提示会计师事务所风险管理可能存在的不足,促进会计师事务所健康发展.研究发现:上市公司面临的产品市场竞争越激烈,会计师事务所收取的审计费用越高,审计投入时间越长,出具非标准审计意见的可能性越大.进一步研究发现,本着对声誉的维护和未来发生较大诉讼损失的担忧,大规模会计师事务所会强化产品市场竞争与审计收费、审计投入时间和审计意见之间的关系.     

竞争压力、竞争对手特征与会计师事务所审计定价

使用2001—2013年会计师事务所向上市公司提供审计服务的审计收费数据,考察会计师事务所面临的竞争压力以及竞争对手特征如何影响审计定价。结果表明,会计师事务所面临的竞争压力会对审计定价产生重要影响。当竞争对手声誉较低、不具有行业专长、处于相对弱势竞争地位时,会计师事务所会迫于竞争压力而降低审计收费与其对手竞争。稳健性测试与正文结果保持一致。     

上市公司环境风险对审计定价的影响研究

文章以国内A股上市公司2007年到2012年的年报数据,考察会计师事务所对环境违规公司审计定价的影响。研究结果显示,在控制其他影响因素后,上市公司环境风险与审计定价整体上呈显著正相关关系,且在地方政府环境治理力度较低的地区,会计师事务所对较高环境风险的公司审计溢价尤为明显。这表明会计师事务所为了降低被审单位环境风险带来了审计风险,增进了相应审计程序和风险补偿要求。     

上市公司非标准审计意见影响因素的实证研究——来自沪市A股证券市场的经验证据

本文以2007年至2008年沪市A股上市公司为样本,研究了上市公司和事务所对非标审计意见的影响,结果表明:上市公司的财务状况越差、第一大股东绝对控股及上年收到非标审计意见是上市公司本年收到非标审计意见的正向影响因素;设置了审计委员会可以减少非标审计意见;事务所规模对非标审计意见没有显著影响;审计费用率对非标审计意见有正向显著影响,审计费用率越高,越容易收到非标审计意见。     

上市公司非标准审计意见影响因素的实证研究——来自沪市A股证券市场的经验证据

本文以2007年至2008年沪市A股上市公司为样本,研究了上市公司和事务所对非标审计意见的影响,结果表明：上市公司的财务状况越差、第一大股东绝对控股及上年收到非标审计意见是上市公司本年收到非标审计意见的正向影响因素;设置了审计委员会可以减少非标审计意见;事务所规模对非标审计意见没有显著影响;审计费用率对非标审计意见有正向显著影响,审计费用率越高,越容易收到非标审计意见。     

Audit committee effectiveness and the audit fee

The UK is the only major country within the European Union the majority of whose listed companies have formed audit committees composed of non-executive directors to monitor financial reporting, the external auditors, and internal control strength. The adoption of audit committees in contrast to the approach in Europe has arisen despite the lack of evidence on their effectiveness even in the USA and Canada, where they have been mandatory since the 1970s. This paper seeks to establish whether audit committees are effective in ensuring audit quality by protecting the auditors from fee cuts which might affect audit quality, and signal tighter internal controls which help to reduce audit time and hence audit fees. The problem is that the audit committee may be expected to exert a two-way pressure on audit fees. To the extent that audit committees should enhance audit quality, partly by ensuring that audit hours are not reduced, an audit committee may be expected to increase total audit fees. At the same time, an audit committee may reasonably be thought to be a proxy for internal control strength. Ceteris paribus, companies with strong internal controls may be expected to pay lower audit fees than those with weak internal controls. Our paper argues that the ‘quality’ aspect of the audit can be captured through a dummy firm size variable, whilst the internal control aspects can be captured through dummy risk and complexity variables. The hypotheses examined are that size related audit fees are higher in companies with an audit committee; and that risk- and complexity-related audit fees are lower in companies with audit committees. The hypotheses are tested by developing a regression model for audit fees of a sample of the companies which comprise the FT-SE 500, with variables being included for the presence or absence of an audit committee. The results show that the relationship between size-related audit fees and the presence of an audit committee is positive and statistically significant, but that although there is a negative relationship between risk- and complexity-related audit fees and the presence of an audit committee, the relationships are not conclusively significant. The findings provide support for the contention that audit committees are at least partially effective in preventing reductions in the audit fee to levels where the quality of the audit may be compromised.     

Audit Services and Fees of Large Accounting Firms

In the audit literature, it was postulated that audit firms are differentiated due to their quality and, thus, the fees charged are a function of quality. We hypothesize that this may lead to audit firm specialization in different amounts of auditing, leading to a differential audit fee structure. This hypothesis is empirically tested by using a very large sample of audit fees paid to then Big Eight auditors. The results are consistent with the hypothesis in that three Big Eight auditors are observed to charge significantly different fees when compared with the other firms.     

Audit firm tenure and audit quality: A cross‐European study

Directive 2014/56/EU and Regulation (EU) No. 537/2014, which came into effect in June 2016, introduced the mandatory rotation of audit firms after a maximum period of 10 years with the same client. We conduct a cross‐European study with the aim of assessing whether long audit firm tenures are associated with lower levels of audit quality. The sample for the study is based on the constituents of the Standard & Poor's Europe 350 index for the years between 2009 and 2016, and we utilize three different sets of proxies for audit quality: discretionary accruals, differences between reported earnings and earnings benchmarks, and accounting restatements. The main result of the study finds that companies with more than 10 years of tenure with their auditors do not have a lower audit quality than other firms. In fact, this study provides some evidence of a higher audit quality for these firms. The results are robust to various checks. Therefore, if there does not seem to be a problem of a lack of audit quality associated with long audit firm tenures, the necessity of establishing a maximum tenure, as the new European regulation does, may be questioned.     

European Market Reaction to Audit Reforms

Abstract

This paper investigates European stock market reaction to events associated with the proposed EU audit reforms that were ultimately implemented in 2016. These include, inter alia, mandatory audit firm rotation, prohibition of non-audit services, and fee caps. We find that investors react positively to the proposals, lifting aggregate market value by approximately €108,630 million. In cross-sectional analysis at both country and firm level, we find that these net benefits arise from the prohibition of non-audit services and the placing of a cap on total fees charged by the auditor. Furthermore, we find investors in firms with low earnings quality appear to perceive the greatest benefits from the proposed reforms.     

A descriptive analysis of audit price changes in the UK 1991–95

This paper examines changes in the audit fees of quoted public limited companies in the UK during the period from 1991 to 1995. After controlling for changes in the size, complexity and risk of auditees, it is shown (based on a logarithm audit fee model) that the audit market experienced a 9.7% reduction in inflation-adjusted fees over this five-year period. The results also provide evidence of overall fee reductions by each of the Big Six. On closer examination, a mixture of fee increases, decreases and no changes were observed for auditees of the Big Six and for the groups of medium-sized and small audit firms investigated. These results, which pertain to a period when market concentration increased markedly (Beattie and Fearnley, 1994; Peel, 1997; Pong, 1999), offer some amelioration of the concerns of the purchasers of audit services that, in general, audit fees will rise in response to an increase in dominance by a few large firms.     

Consequences of the Abandonment of Mandatory Joint Audit: An Empirical Study of Audit Costs and Audit Quality Effects

This paper focuses on the unique Danish setting in examining the consequences of abandoning a mandatory joint audit regime. We study the effects on audit costs (measured by audit fees) and audit quality (measured by abnormal accruals) of the abandonment of the mandatory joint audit in Denmark in 2005. We perform our analysis on non-financial listed Danish companies for the 2002–2010 period. Our results show that a joint audit is associated with higher fees, but that the association between joint audit and abnormal accruals is insignificant. This suggests that the higher audit fees cannot be explained by higher audit quality. Our results are robust to alternative measurements of fees and audit quality. Additional analyses show that the fee premium related to a joint audit decreases over time and that the Big 4 concentration in our sample has increased since the switch from mandatory to voluntary joint audit. Our results are consistent with the motivations driving the regulatory change in Denmark and are of interest to regulators and actors in the audit market.     

The Impact of the Big 8 Mergers on Market Power: Evidence from the Hong Kong Market

This study examines the impact of the Big 8 mergers on market power in an audit market where the merging firms have little presence. Audit fee changes for each merger participating firm are identified and fee changes for several post‐merger years are examined. The pre‐merger differential market power between the merging and non‐merging long‐established Big 8 firms (Price Waterhouse and KPMG Peat Marwick) in Hong Kong provides a unique opportunity to examine whether the mergers could help the merging firms to increase their market power. The results are consistent with the hypotheses that the audit fees of the merging firms were significantly lower than that of the non‐merging, long‐established Big 8 firms before the mergers, but the audit fees of the merged firms increased significantly to a level comparable with that of the latter group after the mergers. In addition, the market share of the merged firms increased significantly after the mergers. However, no association is found between market concentration and market power. Overall, the results show that the Big 8 mergers have helped the merged firms increase their market power and market share in the Hong Kong audit market where they had little presence.     

会计师事务所合并、审计市场结构与审计定价

以2006年至2009年初发生的8起"强强联合"会计师事务所合并案为研究对象,分析合并发生前后审计市场结构与审计定价的变化后发现:随着会计师事务所合并案的增多,市场结构呈现出市场集中度增加以及大所之间竞争更为均衡的特点,国内本土所的市场力量在逐渐增强,但与国际"四大"之间还存在着十分明显的差距。从单变量检验来看,合并后会计师事务所对同一客户的审计收费较合并前显著增加,但在控制其他影响审计定价的因素后,合并因素对审计定价虽仍有正向作用,但是在统计上并不显著。     

Audit Market Response to PCAOB Censures of US Big 4 Firms

Abstract

Subsequent to the first-ever Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) censure of a US Big 4 firm (Deloitte) in December 2007, there were two other PCAOB US Big 4 firm censures as of 2016 year-end. We examine whether these two post-2007 PCAOB censures of US Big 4 firms conveyed new information to the audit market. For both censures, we find little or no evidence of any change in the factual audit quality of the censured firm over a three-year window surrounding the censure. Our findings suggest that the quality control deficiencies (identified during inspection of specific audit engagements) that triggered the PCAOB censure were isolated occurrences rather than systemic to the firm at large, i.e., the censures do not imply an impairment in the US Big 4 firm's overall factual audit quality. We also find that the negative response of investors and audit committees documented in prior research for the 2007 Deloitte censure disappeared for the later US Big 4 firm censures. Given that the PCAOB inspects (and can censure) non-US auditors who audit US-listed foreign companies, our findings are of potential interest to regulators, investors and audit committees outside the US.