审计委员会特征与会计师事务所变更的经验研究

本文以会计师事务所变更为视角,探讨具备怎样特征的审计委员会才能有效履行其职责。研究表明:审计委员会的独立性和专业性与会计师事务所变更显著负相关;审计委员会的开会次数与会计师事务所变更没有显著关系,说明审计委员会的存在有助于减少会计师事务所变更。但在对会计师事务所变更的进一步研究中,我们并没有发现会计师事务所变是为了追求更高审计质量的进一步证据,也说明审计委员会对会计师事务所变更的影响仍然有限。这些研究结论为完善我国审计委员会制度提供了经验证据。     

审计师选择与设立审计委员会的自选择问题——来自中国证券市场的经验证据

本文采用Heckman(1978)的二阶段回归方法,以2002-2006年我国证券市场上市公司为研究样本,在研究审计师选择的同时控制了设立审计委员会的自选择问题,并将公司设立审计委员会的实际情况与假设的相反情况进行对比,分析它们不同的审计师选择倾向,从而间接检验了审计委员会的治理效率。研究发现:自选择问题对审计师选择存在显著的影响。因此,拒绝了公司随机设立审计委员会的原假设;在控制自选择之后,回归方程中变量的斜率系数整体上存在显著差异;并且没有设立审计委员会的公司比设立审计委员会的公司更可能聘请四大会计师事务所。     

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.     

From joint to single audits – audit quality differences and auditor pairings

This study analyses audit quality differences between audits by a single big audit firm and joint audits with either one or two big audit firms. We exploit the unique situation in Denmark beginning on 1 January 2005, at which time a long-standing mandatory joint audit system for listed companies was replaced by a voluntary joint audit system. First, we report the results of a survey of Danish CFOs’ views on and their experiences with the choice of single or joint audits and their perceptions of audit quality. Second, based on data from the mandatory joint audit abolition year and the following two years, we test the audit quality differences using abnormal accruals. Most CFOs perceive that audit quality by a single big four audit firm is the same as it is in joint audits with either one or two big four audit firms. The results of our empirical analysis are in line with the perceptions. We find no evidence of audit quality differences between audits made by a single big four firm and those conducted by either of the two combinations of joint audits.     

Perceived auditor independence and audit firm fees

Regulations requiring the disclosure of fees paid to an auditor for audit and non-audit services (NAS) respond to concerns that such payments are potentially detrimental to auditors' actual or perceived independence. Although empirical studies have failed to produce unequivocal evidence of detrimental effects on auditor independence, the actions of regulators, audit firms and companies are consistent with the belief that economic bonding generated by fees can impair perceived levels of auditor independence.

Using a sample of UK companies over a six year period to March 2006, we study perceived impairment of auditor independence by examining the relationship between levels of total relative fees (combined audit and NAS fees payable by a company to its auditor as a proportion of the audit firm's UK income) and market value. This paper's methodological innovation is its use of a valuation framework in this setting. A further contribution lies in dropping the assumption of linearity found in most prior empirical studies. We provide evidence that shareholders perceive a threat to auditor independence only at high total relative fee levels. At lower levels, total relative fees are positively related to company value. These results suggest that disclosure of NAS and audit fees are of relevance to investors, as is information about auditor income. Our results support the view that regulation by reference to the threshold at which total relative fees are perceived negatively is more consistent with investor preferences than prohibition of the supply of NAS by auditors to their audit clients.     

The Market for External Audit Services in the Public Sector: An Empirical Analysis of NHS Trusts

This study investigates the market for audit services in the UK National Health Service (NHS). The market has a number of interesting features, including the presence of the Audit Commission as a regulator, appointer and provider of audit services. Following a theoretical overview of audit pricing in the NHS, evidence is provided on the behaviour of private sector auditors in an environment where audit risk characteristics differ from the private sector. The research also investigates, for the first time in the public sector, the relationship between audit fees and non–audit (consultancy) fees. Comparisons are also drawn between audit fees in the public and private sectors in an analysis of audit fees by industry. Despite some key similarities, the study shows that a number of differences exist between private and public sector audit fee models. In particular, we find no evidence of Big 6 (or mid–tier) auditor premiums, but we do find a significant negative relationship between audit and consultancy fees providing support for the 'knowledge spill–over' hypothesis. In addition, the fees charged to trusts appear significantly lower than their private sector counterparts, despite trust auditors having additional duties to perform. Possible explanations for this finding are offered in the paper.     

The Effect of Corporate Status on External Audit Fees: Evidence From the UK

Abstract:  This paper simultaneously examines, for the first time, the determinants of external audit fees of UK companies drawn from the quoted sector (Main Market, the Alternative Investment Market and Ofex), and the unquoted sector (public and private limited companies). The paper also provides new evidence on the effects of corporate failure and the persistence of the big four and mid-tier auditor premiums across the public and private corporate sectors. After controlling for firm size, audit risk and complexity, we find that quoted and unquoted public limited companies have significantly higher audit fees than their private limited counterparts. Our estimates imply that relative premiums for market/corporate form are as follows: Main Market over AIM, 6.8%; AIM over Ofex, 19.5%; Ofex over unquoted plc, 15.5%; and unquoted plc over private, 16.7%. However, despite indications in prior US research to the contrary, we find no evidence that insolvent firms that failed were charged higher audit fees in the year preceding failure. A positive relationship is also found between audit and consultancy fees – a result that persists using an instrumental variables approach to control for endogeneity.     

Does common auditor have an impact on corporate tax avoidance? An investigation from the supply chain perspective

We find that, at both the audit firm and partner level, having a common auditor in the supply chain has a significant positive association with the supplier company's degree of tax avoidance. Companies report a higher level of tax avoidance when they are audited by an industry-expert or a tax expert common auditor, when the common audit partner is economically dependent on the supplier company, when the audit client is in a highly competitive industry, and when the company is subject to a high level of information asymmetry. Moreover, we find potential audit quality issues embedded in common audits in the supply chain.     

AUDIT FEES AND AUDITOR CHANGE; AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PERSISTENCE OF FEE REDUCTION BY TYPE OF CHANGE

Despite concern expressed over 'low-balling' or competitive price reduction in the market for audit services, the only empirical investigation of the relationship between initial audit fees, fee recovery and auditor change which has been carried out is by Simon and Francis (1988) using US cross-sectional data, although Pong and Whittington (1994, forthcoming) examine the impact on first year fees. We investigate the impact of auditor change on cross-sectional UK data for 1991 with the aim of discovering whether there is any evidence of price cutting and subsequent price recovery in a European, rather than a US context. We find that there is evidence of such a phenomenon, and investigate further to see whether this effect is robust with respect to the definition used of 'auditor change', and whether the effect varies according to whether the old auditor was a 'Big Six' or 'non-Big Six' firm. We find that the largest reductions (controlling for auditor size) are experienced by firms changing to 'Big Six' firms. We further show that involuntary changes (by auditor acquisition) are associated with positive (although statistically insignificant) increases in fees, whereasvoluntary changesare associated with negative (andsignificant) feereductions. These effects are shown to be robust with respect to model specification. This suggests that fee reductions cannot be ascribed to economies of scale or scope, but is consistent with a 'low-balling' model of behaviour.     

The determinants of audit fees—evidence from the voluntary sector

Given the growing demand for accountability in the public sector, there is a need to begin to investigate audit pricing issues in this sector. This study makes three contributions. First, it develops and estimates, for the first time, a model of audit fee determinants for the charity sector. As in previous private sector company studies, size, organisational complexity and audit firm location are the major determinants. A positive association between audit fees and fees for non-audit services is also observed. Charity sector factors of empirical significance include the nature of the charity (i.e., grant-making or fund-raising), its area of activity and the importance of trading income. Separate models for grant-making and fund-raising charities reflect the relative complexity of the audit of fund-raising charities. Second, the lower auditor concentration in the charity sector market, compared to the private sector market, permits a more powerful test of whether large firms and/or auditor expertise are rewarded with a fee premium. In the more complex audit environment of fund-raising charities, the results show that Big Six audit firms receive higher audit fees (18.5%, on average) than non-Big Six firms. Also, non-Big Six audit firms with charity expertise are rewarded with a fee premium over other non-Big Six firms. Finally, the study demonstrates that the charity audit fee rate is significantly lower than that of private sector companies; in fact it is approximately half. A change in the reporting of charity audit fees is proposed to reflect any element of ‘charitable giving’ by the audit firm.     

How does the executive pay gap influence audit fees? The roles of R&D investment and institutional ownership

Using a sample of US firms from 2003–2014, this study examines how the executive pay gap affects audit fees for firms with different levels of R&D investment and institutional ownership. Consistent with managerial power theory, we find that the executive pay gap is positively associated with audit fees, and that the positive association is attenuated by intense R&D investment and higher institutional ownership. We also find that the executive pay gap more strongly affects audit fees after the passage of the 2010 Dodd–Frank Act and the PCAOB's 2012 call to identify the audit risk related to executive incentive compensation. Additional analyses show that the moderating effects of R&D investment and institutional ownership on the pay gap–audit fees association are not conditional on auditor tenure, but the moderating effect of institutional ownership is stronger for firms hiring specialist auditors. Collectively, our findings suggest that auditors consider the business context, such as innovation initiative and external monitoring, when assessing audit risk related to the executive pay gap.     

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.     

Audit Committee and CEO Ethnicity and Audit fees: Some Malaysian evidence

This study extends the literature on audit pricing by examining the relationship between ethnicity (bumiputra vs non-bumiputra), corporate governance attributes, and audit fees using data from 559 publicly-listed companies in Malaysia in 2005. Drawing from theories of ethnicity and political economy, we discuss our two hypotheses that predict positive associations between audit fees and (1) the proportion of bumiputra members on audit committees, and (2) the presence of a bumiputra CEO. The results support the hypothesis that firms with bumiputra CEOs incur higher audit fees, but we do not find an association for firms with bumiputra-dominant audit committees. In additional analysis, we find that the audit premium paid by firms with a bumiputra CEO is higher for the smaller client firms. Further, we find that firms managed by a bumiputra CEO with a fully bumiputra-composed audit committee tend to pay higher audit fees than the other firms, indicating that there is a combined ethnicity effect on audit fees.     

Auditor independence, executive pay and firm performance

This paper investigates whether compensation committees actively intervene to adjust accounting performance‐based incentive schemes for the real, or perceived, reduced earnings credibility signalled by the purchase of non‐audit services. Using a nonlinear, two‐stage least‐squares method that accounts for the simultaneity of executive pay, firm performance and non‐audit fees, we find a significant negative relationship between non‐audit fees and the sensitivity of chief executive officer (CEO) pay to firm performance. Point estimates suggest that the reduced weight applied to accounting performance lowers the incentive component of executive pay between roughly 5 and 8 per cent for the CEO of the ‘average firm’.     

Using machine learning to predict auditor switches: How the likelihood of switching affects audit quality among non-switching clients

In this paper, we utilize machine learning techniques to identify the likelihood that a company switches auditors and examine whether increased likelihood of switching is associated with audit quality. Building on research that finds a deterioration in audit quality associated with clients that engage in audit opinion shopping, we predict and find lower audit quality among companies that are more likely to switch auditors but remain with their incumbent auditor. Specifically, we find that companies more likely to switch auditors have a higher likelihood of misstatement and larger abnormal accruals. These results are consistent with auditors sacrificing audit quality to retain clients that might otherwise switch. Our findings are especially concerning because there is no public signal of this behavior, such as an auditor switch. Our methodology is designed such that it could be implemented by investors, audit firms and regulators to identify companies with a higher probability of switching auditors and preemptively address the deterioration in audit quality.     

Big Six auditors and audit quality: The Korean evidence

This study investigates the association between discretionary accruals and Big Six and non-Big Six auditors, and the direction of auditor change. We hypothesize that there is no significant difference in discretionary accruals between Big Six and non-Big Six clients when there is low incentive for auditors to provide high-quality audits, as in Korea.Upon examination of the discretionary accruals of firms listed on the Korean Stock Exchange from 1994 to 1998, we find there is no significant difference between the discretionary accruals of firms with Big Six and non-Big Six auditors. This holds true for firms that switch from non-Big Six to Big Six auditors and vice versa. These resources imply that there may be no difference in audit quality between Big Six and non-Big Six auditors in Korea. This is consistent with other studies in Korea, while inconsistent with the findings of previous studies on audit quality in other countries.     

An Investigation of Auditors’ Judgments When Companies Release Earnings Before Audit Completion

The majority of U.S. public companies release annual earnings prior to the completion of audit fieldwork. We investigate this phenomenon in a controlled experiment with audit partners and senior managers. We find that releasing earnings before completion of the audit pressures auditors to adopt the goals of management, thereby reducing the likelihood of post‐announcement audit‐adjustment recommendations. We also examine the effect of audit committee (AC) strength in improving auditors’ judgments after annual earnings are released. When ACs are actively involved in accounting issues and proactively communicating with auditors—characteristics currently lacking in most ACs—the negative effects on auditors’ judgments are completely mitigated. Our study provides evidence on potential unintended consequences of early release of earnings and the importance of investing in high‐quality ACs to mitigate adverse effects of client pressures on audit judgment and 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.     

The effect of political visibility on audit effort and audit pricing

This study examines whether auditors adjust their effort and pricing decisions for political visibility. We argue, from the behavioural literature, that political visibility will create the need for more justification by auditors. Using data on actual audit fees, hours and billing rates for a sample of New Zealand public sector companies, we find that total audit fees are positively related to the number of press mentions (our proxy for political visibility). Consistent with our expectations we find that audit fees are monotonically related to audit fees. We also find that auditors increase the hours spent on the audit but not billing rates, which further suggests defensive bolstering by auditors.