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.     

Audit market structure,fees and choice in a period of structural change: Evidence from the UK – 1998–2003

This paper presents evidence on audit market concentration and auditor fee levels in the UK market in the crucial period of structural change following the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PwC) merger and encompassing Andersen’s demise (1998–2003). Given the current interest in auditor choice, analysis is also undertaken at the individual audit firm level and by industry sector. There is evidence of significant upward pressure on audit fees since 2001 but only for smaller auditees. Audit fee income for top tier auditors (Big 5/4) did not change significantly while the number of auditees fell significantly, consistent with a move towards larger, less risky, clients. A decomposition analysis of the aggregate Big 5/4 concentration ratio changes over the period identifies the impact of four distinct consumer-based reasons for change: leavers; net joiners; non-par auditor switches; and (only for the audit fees measure) audit fee changes. Andersen’s demise markedly reduced the level of inequality among the top tier firms but PwC retained its position as a ‘dominant firm’. On switching to the new auditor, former Andersen clients experienced an initial audit fee rise broadly in line with inflation, with no evidence of fee premia or discounting. They also reported significantly lower NAS fees, consistent with audit firms and auditees responding to public concerns about perceptions of auditor independence. There is no general evidence of knowledge spillover effects or cross-subsidisation of the audit fee by NAS. The combined findings provide no evidence to indicate that recent structural changes have resulted in anticompetitive pricing; the key concerns remain the lack of audit firm choice and issues concerning the governance and accountability of audit firms.     

International evidence on economic policy uncertainty and asymmetric adjustment of audit pricing: Big 4 versus non‐big 4 auditors

By investigating the association between economic policy uncertainty and audit fees using data from eight countries, this study examines whether and how Big 4 auditors reinforce their advantages over non‐Big 4 auditors through audit pricing. We find that both Big 4 and non‐Big 4 auditors reduce their audit fees when economic policy uncertainty increases. However, while non‐Big 4 auditors adjust audit pricing asymmetrically as economic policy uncertainty changes, i.e., the magnitude of decline in audit fees when economic policy uncertainty increases exceeds the magnitude of rise when economic policy uncertainty decreases, Big 4 auditors regulate their audit pricing in a symmetric manner. Further analyses reveal that: (1) the asymmetric pricing of non‐Big 4 auditors mainly exists in countries where Big 4 auditors have dominant market share, (2) Big 4 auditors provide higher‐quality audits when economic policy uncertainty increases and (3) many firms in better financial condition turn to Big 4 auditors during uncertain years. Our findings suggest that the symmetric audit pricing helps Big 4 auditors maintain a favorable position in the audit market.     

The effect of large audit firm mergers on audit pricing in the UK

This paper examines the effects on UK audit market concentration and pricing of mergers between the large audit firms and the demise of Andersen. Based on data over the period 1985–2002, it appears that mergers contributed to a rise in concentration ratios to levels that suggest concern about the potential for monopoly pricing. The high concentration ratios have not improved the level of price competition in the UK audit market. Our pooled models suggest that concentration ratios are associated with higher audit fees. The evidence suggests that the effects of mergers between big firms on brand name fee premium and on price competition vary depending on the particular circumstances. The brand name premium is strongest for the largest quartile of companies prior to the mergers. After the Big Six mergers, the premium increases for average‐sized companies but falls for the smallest and largest companies. Following the PricewaterhouseCoopers merger, the premium increases for below median‐sized clients but decreases for above‐median sized clients. For the Deloitte‐Andersen transaction, the premium falls for the smallest and largest companies but increases for those in the second quartile. Our results provide evidence that auditees are likely to pay higher fees if their auditor merges with a larger counterpart. We attribute merger‐related fee hikes to product differentiation, rather than anti‐competitive pricing.     

Cointegration Analysis of Audit Pricing Model: A Panel Unit Root Test Approach

In this study, we provide evidence on the stationarity of real audit fees and the major explanatory variables frequently used in the audit pricing models from a pooled data set, using panel unit root tests developed by Im et al. (1997). The panel unit root test supports the hypothesis of non‐stationarity of audit fees and their major determinants. We demonstrate that variables in the audit pricing model that were previously found to have impact on audit fees may turn out to be useless when more powerful tests like panel tests are applied to these variables. Our evidence implies that failing to employ appropriate procedure to test cointegration and to specify the appropriate model for audit fees and their determinants would generate results that may have exaggerated the effects of some variables on audit fees.     

The Pricing of Audit Services: Further Evidence from the Canadian Market

Since the seminal work of Simunic (1980), many studies have investigated audit pricing, competition in the audit industry, product differentiation and audit cost functions. This study expands on the work done to date by examining Canadian audit fees across time, audit firm and industry. The observations of audit fee data span the period of time during which the provincial codes of professional ethics with respect to fee tenders and advertising in general were relaxing in Canada. The results reported in this study support the existence of differentiated audit services in the Canadian audit market, and are consistent with DeAngelo's (1981) size interpretation of audit quality. Although no significant differences in the pricing of audit services across time are detected, the data provide evidence of significant pricing differences across (pre-merger) Big Eight audit firms in the small auditee market, suggesting that treating these audit firms as a homogeneous group in future research may not be appropriate. These inter-firm pricing differences do not appear to be due to the potential confounding effects of the auditee's industry. In contrast to previous studies, a significant positive association between internal and external audit costs is observed, suggesting a complementary, rather than a substitute, relationship.     

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.     

Size effects and audit pricing: Evidence from Germany

Previous research into audit pricing has focused on the US and Australasian markets. This study aims to elaborate on the role played by various size effects on audit pricing using data from the German market.As previous research has shown, audit firms that provide additional non-audit services are able to charge higher fees for auditing. By contrast, our results show that only Big 4 auditors can earn an audit fee premium by providing non-audit services.Our findings also show that the Big 4 premium shown by previous German research is strongly affected by the premium for overall market leadership. Furthermore, we find that the influence of risk variables such as leverage or past losses is significant only for small auditees, while for large auditees size is the determining factor.Finally, this study proposes that using the logarithm of the number of employees is a better proxy for company size than is the more commonly used logarithm of total assets because it is more constant over time and does not bear the risk of interdependencies with other financial statement-based variables. Therefore, its further use in audit pricing research is strongly recommended.     

The Contribution of Internal Audit as a Determinant of External Audit Fees and Factors Influencing This Contribution

Despite extensive research on the determinants of external audit fees, there is little empirical evidence on the effect of internal audit contribution on the external audit fee. Using a cross-sectional regression model based on prior audit fee research, this study provides evidence that internal audit contribution is a significant determinant of the external audit fee. Further, a second model that provides evidence on the determinants of internal audit contribution is developed and tested. This second model indicates that internal audit contribution is influenced by internal audit quality and, conditional on the level of inherent risk, the availability of internal audit and the extent of coordination between internal and external auditors. These results are based on a unique data-set comprised of publicly available data matched with survey responses from internal and external auditors affiliated with 70 non-financial services Fortune 1000 firms. The sample includes all of the former "Big 6" international accounting firms and clients from twenty-nine different industries.     

Audit fee determinants and auditor premiums: evidence from the micro-firm sub-market

Despite the growing literature on the market for audit services, to date no study has examined the determinants of audit fees for the smallest auditees in the market. This study therefore provides some new theory and evidence on the determinants of the audit fees of micro-firms operating in the UK manufacturing sector. A key finding of the study is that in the highly competitive market under consideration, independent small auditees willingly paid a premium to be audited by a mid-tier or a (then) Big Six auditor, with the latter commanding the higher premium. It is concluded that these findings are consistent with Big Six (and, to a lesser extent, mid-tier) auditors commanding a brand premium stemming from the (perceived) higher quality audit conducted by large auditors, for which small firms are willing to pay a premium in order to benefit from associated ‘reputational’ and ‘signalling’ effects. The common finding that the explanatory power of audit fee models declines as a function of firm size is also examined. The empirical analysis confirms this effect, but evidence is offered that, rather than resulting from model misspecification, it is likely that audit prices of the smallest auditees are relatively insensitive to variations in corporate size, which may result from lower incremental economies of scale and minimum pricing.     

An empirical analysis of audit fee price competition after the Korean 1999 Omnibus Cartel Repeal Act

This study examines the audit service market in Korea after the 1999 Omnibus Cartel Repeal Act to determine if increased competition has led to audit fee discounting. Until 19 December 2001, when the Korean government enacted The Financial Supervisory Regulations, researchers could not address questions related to price competition in the Korean audit market due to data limitations. The new regulations allow researchers to examine audit effort for the first time because both audit hours and audit fees are now recommended disclosures. We use audit fee data of Korean companies for the 6-year period 1999–2004, and find evidence that total audit fees paid have been increasing but audit fees per hour have been decreasing. We also find that Big 5 auditing firms’ fees per hour are significantly lower than non-Big 5 auditing firms and are decreasing across time. These price pressures should be of concern to regulators and investors because prior research has demonstrated that price competition leads to discounting, which can result in unrealistically low audit fees and poor audit quality. Finally, as in previous research, we also find discounting of initial audit engagements in the Korean market.     

Is the audit services market competitive following Arthur Andersen's collapse?

This study investigates whether audit markets remain competitive in the wake of Arthur Andersen's demise and merger with Ernst & Young to create the Big Four. We conduct the study estimating audit fee models using Australian audit market data from both 2000 and 2003 to determine whether there is any evidence of cartel pricing either before, or subsequent to, the merger. In both years, we find evidence of a Big N price premium when estimating an audit fee model across all clients, and when we estimate the model separately across large and small client market segments. This evidence is consistent with product differentiation by Big N auditors and competitive markets.     

Audit fee lowballing: Determinants,recovery, and future audit quality

Prior research on the link between lowballing (LB) of audit fees and audit quality is inconclusive. Using more recent data and an innovative design, we define LB engagements as those where the audit fee discount is at least 30 percent. We consider three research questions to understand the possible link between LB and audit quality. First, we investigate whether the two variables that are often associated with auditor independence in the literature—non-audit fees and client importance—are related to LB. Second, we test whether lowballing auditors recoup initial audit fee discounts in the future period. Lastly, we investigate the relation between recovery of audit fees and future audit quality. We find that non-audit fees in the first year of engagement are negatively related to the propensity to LB. LB is significantly positively related to client importance for client firms switching from a non-Big N to another non-Big N auditor while the relation is insignificant for client firms switching from a Big N to another Big N auditor. The results of non-audit fees and client importance indicate that economic dependence does not motivate audit firms to lowball. Further, lowballing auditors tend to recoup their initial fee discounts in subsequent periods via increases in audit fees. Using multiple measures of audit quality, we do not find a significant relation between recovery of audit fees and future audit quality. Overall, contrary to regulators’ concerns, our results suggest that LB does not impair audit quality.     

Is there a relation between audit fee cuts during the global financial crisis and banks’ financial reporting quality?

As a result of the global financial crisis (GFC), several audit clients were able to negotiate lower audit fees for the years 2008 and 2009. However, the PCAOB has expressed concern that lower audit fees might lead to lower audit effort and lower audit quality and financial reporting quality. This study examines the relation between audit fee cuts and banks’ financial reporting quality. Specifically, we focus on earnings management via loan loss provisions (LLP), the relation between current period LLP and future loan charge-offs, i.e., LLP validity, and the timely recognition of loan losses. For banks audited by Big 4 auditors, we find that income-increasing abnormal LLP are decreasing in audit fee cuts and LLP validity is increasing in audit fee cuts. For banks audited by non-Big 4 auditors, LLP validity is higher for banks that received a fee cut of more than 25% relative to other banks audited by non-Big 4 auditors. We do not observe an association between timely loan loss recognition and cuts in audit fees except for banks audited by non-Big 4 auditors and exempt from internal control audits where a fee cut of more than 25% is associated with less timely loan loss recognition. Overall, the findings suggest that Big 4 auditors constrained earnings management via LLP in banks that received cuts in audit fees. Our findings have important implications for regulators, investors, and others.     

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.     

企业集团统一审计能降低审计收费吗

审计收费是审计研究的重要问题。已有审计研究文献通常关注的是对单个公司的审计收费,本文则关注在同一实际控制人控制下的企业集团中,多家上市公司选择同一家会计师事务所审计,即集团统一审计对审计收费的影响。研究发现,集团统一审计不但不能降低审计收费,反而会增加审计收费;选择大所进行统一审计可以降低审计费用,而小所执行统一审计则可能存在牺牲独立性以获得更多审计收费的情形。此外,事务所尤其是小规模事务所,在招揽集团客户时存在激烈的低价竞争。     

Adjustment costs of institutional tax changes from the audit pricing perspective: Empirical evidence from the VAT reform

Institutional changes inevitably impose adjustment costs on firms while also generating benefits. However, empirical evidence regarding the adjustment costs of institutional changes is limited, with much of the focus centered on benefits. Using data on China’s A-share listed companies from 2010 to 2018 and the nation’s staggered adoption of the “business tax to value-added tax reform” (hereafter, “VAT reform”) as a natural experiment, we examine the impact of this reform on a particular corporate cost: audit fees. We find audit fees to be 8.11% higher for VAT reform firms than for non-VAT reform firms. This difference does not exist before or after the reform year. That is, it is only observed in the year of VAT reform implementation. This indicates the existence of an adjustment cost specifically related to the VAT reform. Furthermore, we observe larger fee increases among firms audited by Big 4 international audit firms, firms that require more audit work, firms that are more complex, and firms with weak internal controls. From the audit pricing perspective, we provide evidence of the economic consequences of tax reform. The corporate adjustment costs that arise from institutional changes deserve more attention from decision-makers.     

Fair Value Exposure,Changes in Fair Value and Audit Fees: Evidence from the Australian Real Estate Industry

This paper investigates the relationship between audit fees and both fair value exposure and changes in fair value of investment properties. The study is motivated by the limited and inconclusive evidence on the effect on audit fees of full fair value reporting for illiquid assets. Using hand‐collected data from the Australian real estate industry, we find a negative (positive) association between audit fees and fair value exposure (changes in fair value of investment properties). Our findings also indicate that the use of unobservable inputs in fair value estimates for investment properties does not significantly increase audit risk and audit fees. Further, we find that audit fees are higher for firms with fair values of investment – properties estimated by external and mixed valuers – compared to firms with fair values estimated by directors alone. This study enriches the audit fee literature by documenting auditors’ pricing decisions in an area that involves significant estimation and valuation risks.     

Responses by Australian auditors to the global financial crisis

We examine the impact of the global financial crisis (GFC) on auditor behaviour in Australia. Using a sample of listed companies, we examine whether the GFC impacted the propensity of auditors to issue going concern modifications and increased audit effort as reflected in audit fees and audit reporting lag. Controlling for client characteristics, we find an increase in the propensity to issue going concern opinions during the period 2008–2009 compared with the period 2005–2007 and that Big N auditors responded to the GFC earlier than non‐Big N auditors. In relation to audit effort, we find evidence of increased audit fees during the period 2008–2009 compared with the period 2005–2007. There is, however, no evidence of increased audit reporting lags during the GFC.     

Public Disclosure of Audit Fees and Bargaining Power between the Client and Auditor: Evidence from China

Before the public disclosure of audit fees was mandated, it was unlikely for an audit client to have accurate information about how much other companies were charged by their auditors. Public fee disclosure decreases the cost of auditees' access to audit fee information for the auditor's portfolio of clients and is thus likely to increase the relative bargaining power of auditees over auditors when they negotiate audit fees. Using both proprietary and public audit fee data before and after public fee disclosure was mandated in China, we provide evidence consistent with the preceding conjecture. We find that public fee disclosure reinforces the magnitude of audit fee decreases for overcharged clients and weakens auditors' ability to raise audit fees for undercharged clients. These findings suggest the existence of unintended consequences of public fee disclosure regulation, the original rationale of which was a concern about audit pricing practices that could undermine auditor independence.