The Effect of Previous Working Relationship between Rotating Partners on Mandatory Audit Partner Rotation

This study adds to the literature on mandatory rotation of audit partners in Chinese companies by examining the effect of the pre-rotation relationships between incoming and outgoing partners. We consider the rotating partners to have prior working relationship if they were cosigners of audit reports before the rotation. We find two different outcomes of having prior working relationship: (a) increasing the likelihood that outgoing partners rotate back after the cooling off period, and (b) lower audit quality improvement after rotation. These findings bring into question the extent to which rotating partners with prior working relationships are truly independent.     

The Effect of Auditor Style on Reporting Quality: Evidence from Germany

This paper examines whether the ‘style’ of individual auditors influences financial reporting quality in Germany. Audit quality in Germany should be uniformly high, because of strong reputational needs, strict controls on operating procedures, and quality enforcement mechanisms. An audit partner's style should not affect this quality level. However, our results do not support this expectation. Exploiting a unique dataset comprising the names of the audit engagement and review partners of listed German companies, we find that audit engagement partners in Germany have a significant influence on audit quality, beyond firm‐ and office‐level factors. In contrast, audit review partners do not have a consistent significant influence on audit quality. We measure audit quality by the level of a firm's abnormal accruals and its propensity to meet or beat an earnings target. We also find that the 2005 adoption of a new audit quality enforcement system that includes ‘naming and shaming’ does not reduce the influence of audit partner style on financial reporting quality.     

Busy auditors,financial reporting timeliness and quality

We investigate whether audit partners with multiple clients are able to complete their audits in a timely fashion, an important but largely unexplored area of academic research. One view is that having multiple clients increases the knowledge and experience of the audit partner resulting in a more efficient and therefore, quicker audit. On the other hand, having multiple clients may over-burden an audit partner resulting in a slower audit process and longer completion times. We find that audit partners with multiple clients take longer to complete their annual audit. More importantly, we also find that companies with busy auditors who take longer to complete their audits also have poorer levels of financial reporting quality. Additionally, in terms of consequences for busy auditors, firms with lengthy audit report lag switched their auditors the next year suggesting that busy audit partners may lose clients if their workload is excessive and they are not able to maintain audit quality. Our results are robust to alternative measures for both audit report lag and audit partner busyness and a range of endogeneity tests. We also undertake simultaneous quantile regression to assess changes in audit report lag depending on the number of audit clients per partner where we find preliminary evidence of a knowledge spill-over effect. Consequently, our results have implications for companies, audit firms, regulators and other key stakeholders.     

Do Audit Clients Successfully Engage in Opinion Shopping? Partner‐Level Evidence

This study investigates whether companies engage in audit opinion shopping activities by exerting influence over an audit firm's decision to switch the engagement partner (“partner‐level opinion shopping”) in the Chinese setting, where the identities of engagement partners are publicly disclosed. Adopting the empirical framework developed by Lennox [2000], we show evidence that companies successfully engage in partner‐level opinion shopping. Further, partner‐level opinion shopping is more likely to be successful if a company is economically important to an audit firm, and it is less likely to be successful if the audit firm is formed as a partnership rather than a corporation. We also find that companies successfully engaging in partner‐level opinion shopping exhibit significantly lower earnings quality. Finally, we directly compare audit records between incoming and outgoing partners and find that, for companies that successfully improve audit opinions after partner switching, incoming partners have a significantly higher propensity to issue clean opinions than their outgoing counterparts.     

Mandatory audit partner rotation,audit market concentration,and audit quality: Evidence from China

This research examines the audit quality consequences of China's mandatory audit partner rotation (MPR) regulation, which became effective in 2004. The rule requires firms to rotate signing audit partners of audit reports every five years. We find that audit quality improves in the three years immediately following a client firm's MPR during the 2004–2011 period for a sample of 273 Chinese publicly listed firms. Specifically, we find that the improvement is most pronounced in those Chinese provinces with both low levels of audit market concentration and low levels of legal development. However, MPR does not improve audit quality in jurisdictions where legal conventions are more developed and/or where audit markets are highly concentrated with a handful of large audit firms dominating the market.     

Audit Partner Disciplinary Actions and Financial Restatements

This study investigates the signalling role and rectification effectiveness of an audit partner disciplinary system. The signalling role refers to whether sanctions reflect the poor audit quality of disciplined audit partners, and rectification effectiveness addresses whether disciplinary actions enhance subsequent audit quality. The sample consists of Taiwanese listed companies, in the period 2000 to 2006, where the identities of audit partners who sign audit reports and who are sanctioned are accessible. Empirical results indicate that in the pre‐sanction period, the probability of financial restatements by clients of disciplined audit partners is significantly higher than that of non‐disciplined audit partners. The more severe or frequent the sanctions, the higher the likelihood of financial restatements in the pre‐sanction period. These findings imply that audit partner disciplinary actions can serve as a signal of lower audit quality provided by those partners. The rectification effectiveness of disciplinary actions is examined from two perspectives: (1) the effects on subsequent improvements of audit quality of disciplined audit partners; and (2) audit quality enhancement of successor non‐disciplined audit partners who accept clients from disciplined audit partners. Empirical results show a lower probability of restating financial statements audited by disciplined audit partners after sanctions. We also find a lower likelihood of restating financial statements audited by successor non‐disciplined audit partners in the post‐sanction period. Both findings support our conclusion that audit partner sanctions improve audit quality. Overall, audit partner disciplinary actions can signal lower quality audit partners and are effective in enhancing audit quality.     

Client Importance and Audit Quality at the Individual Audit Partner,Office, and Firm Levels

We investigate whether audit partner level data provides a more powerful measure than office or firm level measures of client importance. We find that the likelihood of issuing a going-concern opinion (any and first-time) increases, and the absolute value of discretionary accruals decreases, in relation to the proportion of audit fees to the total audit fees received by audit partners from all their clients. We also find that the likelihood of issuing a going-concern opinion (any and first-time) increases, and the absolute value of discretionary accruals decreases, in relation to the proportion of non-audit services fees from a client to total non-audit service fees, and the proportion of total audit and non-audit service fees from a client to total fees from all their clients at the office and firm levels. Our findings provide evidence to regulators, audit clients, and stakeholders that audit partners do not succumb to pressure from economically more important clients as audit quality has a positive association with client importance.     

The costs and benefits of retirement policies at U.S. audit firms

The mandatory retirement age within U.S. Big 4 audit firms ranges from 55 to 62, which has attracted controversy and legal scrutiny. The potential costs of an earlier retirement age include the loss of established networks, experience, and expertise. However, studies in non-U.S. jurisdictions conclude that partners nearing retirement disengage from their work, which manifests in lower audit quality. Using intensive hand-collected data on the age of 3,148 U.S. audit partners, we provide the first evidence of the costs and benefits of mandatory retirement policies at U.S. audit firms. We find that audit quality does not vary, but that fees are significantly higher for U.S. partners approaching retirement. These findings suggest that U.S. mandatory retirement policies are forcing out experienced revenue earners that are producing audit quality equivalent to younger partners. Additional analysis reveal that partner retirements are mechanisms to promote and grow the client portfolios of younger and female audit partners, and therefore increase partner diversity. Our additional analysis of non-U.S. audit partners leading audits of U.S. listed companies shows that partners approaching retirement are associated with lower audit quality across certain measures. This suggests that the audit quality of older U.S. partners is superior to their non-U.S. counterparts.     

Further evidence on mandatory partner rotation and audit pricing: a supply‐side perspective

This study examines effects of mandatory partner rotation (MPR) on audit fees of Australian‐listed companies. Using a fee changes approach, evidence of fee increases in year of the MPR driven by smaller offices of non‐Big 4 auditors is found, consistent with supply‐side resource constraint arguments. Broadly consistent findings are observed using a fee levels approach. Appointment of inexperienced partners to MPR engagements has no discernible effect on fees. Additional analysis of audit reporting lag indicates fee increases reflect additional audit effort as opposed to a pricing strategy. Overall, the evidence supports recent moves by policy‐makers to soften MPR requirements.     

Effects of audit partners on clients’ business risk disclosure

We empirically investigate audit engagement partners’ involvement in business risk disclosure. Specifically, we examine whether the quality of business risk disclosure is influenced by engagement partner tenure and knowledge. We also examine whether the effects of partner tenure and knowledge are similar for Big 4 audit firms and non-Big 4 firms. Since fiscal year 2003, listed companies in Japan have been required to disclose business risk information. Although the business risk information is not audited, auditors concerned about their audit quality may seek to influence clients’ business risk disclosure practices. Giving advice to management on the narrative business risk disclosure can contribute to improving the perceived value of the auditor’s services which can be a competitive advantage. Using a sample of Japanese listed companies from 2003 to 2010, we find that if the engagement partners’ tenure is shorter, a company discloses more business risk information and the disclosure is more detailed. Furthermore, companies with audit partners who have a larger number of client engagements disclose larger amounts of business risk information in more detail. However, the engagement partner effects are mitigated if they belong to a Big 4 firm.     

Do supply shocks in the audit partner labor market affect auditor choice? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment

We examine whether supply shocks in the audit partner labor market induce clients to switch audit partners. We argue that audit partners in their early careers (i.e., junior partners) charge low audit fees to attract clients, which induces client firms to switch from senior partners to junior partners when there are more junior partners available. Utilizing the Big4 localization policy, we find that Big4 clients are more likely to replace senior auditors with junior auditors to cut costs after the policy. Furthermore, the results are mainly driven by clients who are charged high fees. Our empirical evidence enriches the understanding of auditor choice determinants and informs the ongoing debates surrounding new regulations for Big4 firms in China.     

The Effect of Audit Partner Diversity on Audit Quality: Evidence from China

This study examines the effects of audit partner diversity on audit quality. Using a sample of Chinese listed companies from 2004–2018, we find that audit quality is positively associated with audit partner diversity in educational background, gender, and generational cohort. These findings suggest that diverse partner teams outperform homogenous teams and support the information perspective that audit partner diversity produces different viewpoints and perspectives, thus reducing judgement bias and leading to higher audit quality. Furthermore, we find that client information asymmetry, auditor task motivation, and task ability play a moderating role in reinforcing the positive effects of audit partner diversity on audit quality. Our findings have practical implications for audit firm personnel dispatching and team formation, and heighten the need to integrate team dynamics in the audit quality framework.     

How do auditor rotations affect key audit matters? Archival evidence from South African audits

The expansion of the auditor's reporting duties with the introduction of critical or key audit matters (KAMs) has reignited interest in the determinants and consequences of the rules and regulations aimed at improving audit's functionality and quality. This paper expands on a growing body of work which investigates possible determinants of the KAMs being included in audit reports. It provides an original perspective on KAM identification and reporting in three ways. Firstly, the paper deals specifically with audit partner and firm rotations as possible KAM determinants. Secondly, hand-collected details are analysed to test for changes in the absolute number of KAMs as well as for KAMs added to or removed from audit reports to provide a more refined measure of how KAM disclosures are varying. Finally, data are gathered from South Africa to complement the empirical work which, to date, has largely focused on the U.S. and U.K. Our findings reveal a duality of stability and variability in how the requirement to report KAMs is being operationalised. A change in audit partner is not associated with changes in reported KAMs but changing audit firms appears to have a significant impact on the KAMs added to or removed from an audit report. The provisions of ISA 701 promote consistency in how KAMs are identified and disclosed by individual partners. However, ISA 701 cannot define and control every aspect of KAM determination. As a result, there is a degree of agency at the firm-level which allows for differences in how audit firms choose to implement the standard's provisions. Our study makes an important contribution by providing evidence of the complex interaction between standardisation of audit practice and sources of performative variability and may lend weight to the regulatory arguments in favour of mandatory firm rotation.     

Does shared tenure between audit committee chair and engagement partner affect audit outcomes? Evidence from the UK

Social psychology literature suggests that shared working experience between individuals affects the way in which they communicate, interact and exchange information. Given that the relationship between audit committee (AC) and engagement partner (EP) involves extensive interactions and information sharing with the aim to protect the integrity of financial statements, this study examines whether the co-tenure relationship between the person who leads the AC (audit committee chair (ACC)) and EP affects audit outcomes. Using 234 UK non-financial companies, we find that longer co-tenure between ACC and EP improves accruals quality and reduces the propensity to meet or beat the earnings benchmark. Moreover, we do not find a significant relationship between ACC–EP shared tenure and audit fees, alleviating the concern that ACC–EP shared tenure could lead to collusion or inappropriate favoritism towards the EP regarding audit fees. Our findings offer a valuable contribution to the literature, practice, and regulators.     

Do investors perceive a change in audit quality following the rotation of the engagement partner?

Though Section 203 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) calls for the rotation of the audit partner every five years, we do not know whether investors value audit partner rotation. This is an important issue since many in the auditing profession believe that mandatory rotation of the audit partner is unnecessary and may in fact impair audit quality. We identify a sample of firms that disclosed changes in the engagement partner in the proxy statement and examine whether equity investors perceive a change in audit quality following the partner rotation. We find a significant increase in earnings informativeness following audit partner rotation. We also find that short sellers regard earnings in the post-rotation to be of higher quality than earnings prior to the rotation. Finally, cost of equity capital is lower following partner rotation. Our findings have important implications for the regulators, auditors, and investors.     

Is the effect of shared auditors driven by shared audit partners? The case of M&As

Recent research suggests that shared auditors impact firm outcomes by facilitating information flows across clients and increasing financial statement comparability. This study argues that since client specific knowledge resides with audit partners the effects of shared auditors on corporate outcomes is primarily driven by client engagements with shared audit partners. We test this argument using Australian merger and acquisitions, where there is a longstanding requirement for the disclosure of audit partner details. We find: (i) a positive association between shared audit partners and the likelihood of a friendly acquisition, (ii) a negative association between shared audit partners and takeover premiums, and (iii) a positive (negative) association between shared audit partners and acquirer (target) and total cumulative abnormal returns. We also document that the significant effect of shared auditors is restricted to takeovers with shared audit partners.     

Conservative Reporting and the Incremental Effect of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation Policy: A Comparative Analysis of Audit Partner Rotation vs Audit Firm Rotation in South Korea

In this paper, we take advantage of Korea's unique experiment with mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR) and mandatory audit partner rotation (MAPR) to ascertain their influence on audit quality, proxied by conditional conservatism. Overall, we find that the implementation of MAFR did not have the desired effect. Firms that adopted MAFR demonstrate higher levels of conservatism in previous periods under MAPR (or compared to voluntary adopters). Furthermore, we find that audit tenure increases conservatism levels consistent with the auditor expertise hypothesis. However, whilst evidence suggests MAFR decreases audit quality on the whole, we find that firms that switch from non‐Big 4 to Big 4 auditors demonstrate higher conservatism because Big 4 auditors are more likely to demand conservative accounting practices, consistent with Big 4 audit firm knowledge superiority. Overall, the results suggest that MAFR's negative effect on audit quality can be mitigated by Big 4 auditor supervision.     

Auditor sanction and reputation damage: Evidence from changes in non-client-company directorships

This study examines whether audit partners who have also served on the boards of directors of companies other than the audit firms' clients lose their directorships after they are sanctioned. Using 2002–2015 Taiwanese samples, the empirical results at the company level show that sanctioned audit partners, particularly those with a serious sanction, are less likely to gain or retain their directorships than the non-sanctioned ones following sanctions. Moreover, the results at the individual level show that, among the audit partners already serving as directors, those who have a serious sanction hold fewer directorships and are more likely to exit the director market than the non-sanctioned ones. Among the audit partners not yet holding director positions, those who have been sanctioned, regardless of the sanction severity, are less likely to enter the director market than the non-sanctioned ones. These contrasting results suggest asymmetric reputation penalties for existing partner directors and potential partner directors following auditor sanctions. Overall, sanctions damage auditors’ reputation capital, and the adverse consequences spill over into the director market.     

The association between audit committee effectiveness and audit risk

Audit committees (ACs) are expected to play a key role in improving financial statement integrity and as a consequence reduce audit risk. Companies reporting conformity with regulations can have an AC that appears effective but is not actually effective in substance. We surveyed audit partners and managers to identify their indicators of actual AC effectiveness (auditor‐chosen list). We hypothesize a negative association between AC effectiveness and audit risk, only when an auditor‐chosen list, rather than extent of conformity with regulations, is used to measure effectiveness. Results support our expectations.     

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.