The quality and conservatism of the accounting earnings of local governments

Our aim is to provide insight into the usefulness of accounting earnings for measuring the economic performance of local governments across Australia. Specifically, we explore whether (i) accrual accounting provides useful information, and (ii) earnings of local governments are conservative. We find that accrual accounting by local governments provides useful information as measured by the ability to predict one-year-ahead operating cash-flows. We find no conservatism in the financial reports of the average local government. This, we posit, is due to a lower level of demand for high-quality accrual-based financial reports from these entities. Consistent with this argument, both the quality of accruals and the degree of conservatism increase for local governments for which we predict a demand for higher-quality financial reporting.     

How audit effort affects audit quality: An audit process and audit output perspective

Using a unique dataset of audit days in China from 2006 to 2011, this paper examines the relationship between audit effort and audit quality from the perspective of audit process and audit output. The results show that audit effort significantly increases the probability of audit adjustments, which inhibits positive earnings management and improves the quality of audited financial statements. We also find that audit effort does not have a significant effect on the issuance of modified audit opinions overall, but that a modified audit opinion is more likely to be issued in the absence of an audit adjustment. Furthermore, we find that the impact of audit effort on audit quality is attenuated when clients are more complex and when audit firms are larger. Collectively, our evidence suggests that audit effort plays an important role in improving audit quality by influencing audit process and audit output. Our study extends the literature on the impact of audit effort on audit quality in emerging markets, and the conclusions have important implications for the improvement of China’s audit market efficiency.     

Auditor specialization, perceived audit quality, and audit fees in the local government audit market

Prior governmental research implies a positive relation between auditor specialization and audit quality, but the effect of specialization on audit fees is mixed. However, no single governmental study investigates the effect of auditor specialization on both audit quality and audit fees. Also, prior studies focus on either large- or small audit firms and often employ indirect proxies for audit quality. We study the effects of auditor specialization on perceived audit quality and audit fees. Our data represent both Big 5 and smaller audit firms and include three market-based measures of specialization. We survey 241 Florida local government finance directors and find that specialization is positively associated with perceived audit quality but not with audit fees. We also find that Big 5 auditors, often used as a proxy for higher audit quality in prior research, are not uniformly associated with increased perceived audit quality but consistently charge higher audit fees. Our results confirm a relation between measures of audit firm specialization and audit quality and raise questions regarding audit firm size and audit quality in the municipal sector. Our findings suggest that engaging specialized auditors may be good policy for many local governments.     

Voluntary formation of audit committees by large municipal governments

The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 requires that publicly-traded U.S. corporations have an audit committee in their internal control structure. In contrast to publicly-traded commercial firms, municipal governments are not required to form audit committees. Given that regulators believe it is a crucial aspect of internal control, we examine the extent to which city governments feature audit committees in the internal control structure. Based on a survey of financial managers from cities with populations greater than 100,000, we find that approximately 58% of the municipalities have such committees. Results indicate that larger and more financially viable cities are more likely to have audit committees. However, the form of municipal government and the quality of the local government’s financial reporting and audit processes are not significant determinants of the presence of an audit committee.     

The impact of audit committee expertise on audit quality: Evidence from UK audit fees

Governance regulators currently place great emphasis on ensuring the presence of financial expertise on audit committees (Sarbanes-Oxley, 2002; UK Corporate Governance Code 2010–2016). Underlying this is a belief that greater expertise enhances the effectiveness of audit committees and, by extension, the quality of the external audit. This study investigates the impact of audit committee expertise on one measure of audit quality - audit fees paid by FTSE350 companies. Our analysis finds that audit committees possessing greater levels of financial expertise are associated with higher audit fees. When we segregate financial expertise between accounting and non-accounting, we find that the positive impact identified is driven by non-accounting expertise. Furthermore, when we separate FTSE100 and FTSE250 firms we find the impact of financial expertise is confined to FTSE250 firms. Our findings are important as they highlight the usefulness of segregating financial expertise between specialists and non-specialists, something which regulators in the UK and in the USA currently do not do. Our findings also highlight the potential value of audit committee expertise in smaller as opposed to larger listed firms, suggesting that the value of expertise to audit quality depends on the specific financial reporting challenges firms face.     

Employee quality and audit fee: evidence from China

This study investigates the association between employee quality and audit fee. Using data for firm-level employee quality (as proxied by employee education) from Chinese listed firms from 2011 to 2018, we find that firms operated by high-quality employees enjoy lower audit charges. The association between employee quality and audit fee is more pronounced in firms with a culture of high integrity. Our 2SLS estimation helps us establish a causal link between employee quality and audit fee. The final validity tests suggest that high-quality employees contribute to lower audit fee by reducing audit risk and audit effort.     

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.     

Place attachment,audit pricing and audit quality

Place attachment is an affective bond whereby people interact with and describe themselves as belonging to specific places. This study investigates the presence of place attachment in the auditing process. Using a large sample of listed clients in China, the findings reveal that auditors are likely to charge higher fees if their colleges are located in the same cities or provinces as their clients, supporting the familiarity bias hypothesis. This effect is more concentrated among smaller auditors, non-state-owned clients, and clients who switch auditors between years. In addition, a negative relationship is found between audit quality and geographical connections between auditors and clients. Overall, the results indicate the existence of place attachment in the auditing process.     

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 market concentration,audit fees,and audit quality: A cross-country analysis of complex audit clients

Regulators around the world are concerned about the potentially harmful effects of high audit market concentration on audit pricing and quality. However, results in the overall literature have failed to reach consensus on this issue. We contribute to this debate by arguing that the audit market is segmented and that concentration in the Big 4 segment of the market leads to higher audit pricing. Accordingly, our analyses use international data and focus on concentration within the Big 4 group of firms across countries. We find that audit fees are increasing in our concentration measure for clients where the barriers to entry by competing auditors are higher, as proxied by client size, international operations, and IFRS use. Finally, we find evidence that audit quality is decreasing in Big 4 market concentration for these types of engagements. This indicates a wealth transfer from shareholders to audit firms when auditor concentration is high because these complex clients are charged more, but receive audits that are of lower quality.     

The effects of audit firm rotation on perceived auditor independence and audit quality

Our study explores loan officers’ perceptions of auditors’ independence and audit quality under three experimental audit firm rotation scenarios. We use a case experiment with a between-subjects design to determine whether rotation of the audit firm impacts financial statement users’ perceptions of auditor’s independence and quality. Findings based on 212 useable responses indicate that loan officers do perceive an increase in independence when the company follows an audit firm rotation policy. However, the length of auditor tenure within rotation fails to significantly change loan officers’ perceptions of independence. Findings also indicate that neither the presence of a rotation policy nor the length of the auditor tenure within rotation significantly influences the loan officers’ perceptions of audit quality.     

What do we know about audit quality?

This paper reviews empirical research over the past 25 years, mainly from the United States, in order to assess what we currently know about audit quality with respect to publicly listed companies. The evidence indicates that outright audit failure rates are infrequent, far less than 1% annually, and audit fees are quite small, less than 0.1% of aggregate client sales. This suggests there may be an acceptable level of audit quality at a relatively low cost. There is also evidence of voluntary differential audit quality (above the legal minimum) along a number of dimensions such as firm size, industry specialization, office characteristics, and cross-country differences in legal systems and auditor liability exposure. The evidence is very positive although there is some indication that audit quality may have declined in the 1990s, in which case there could be merit in recent reforms such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the US. However, we do not know from research the optimal level of audit quality and therefore whether we currently have ‘too little’ or ‘too much’ auditing? Despite this lacuna we are entering an era of more mandated auditing in response to high-profile corporate governance failures including the Enron–Andersen affair. Finally, while recent reforms have scaled back the scope of non-audit services due to independence concerns, a case can be made that audit quality will always be somewhat suspect if other services are provided that are perceived to potentially compromise the auditor's objectivity and skepticism. For this reason public confidence in audit quality may be increased by proscribing all non-audit services for audit clients. Recommendations are also proposed with respect to legal liability reform and changes in partner compensation arrangements.     

The impact of PCAOB international registration on audit quality and audit fees: Evidence from China

Despite the importance of registration with the PCAOB, there is surprisingly little academic research on the registration process and its impact on audit outcomes (Abernathy et al., 2013). The PCAOB allows registration of audit firms from non-US countries. However, China and a few other countries do not allow the PCAOB to conduct inspections of audit firms. We take advantage of this setting to investigate whether PCAOB-registered audit firms improve audit quality in the absence of inspections and whether they charge an audit fee premium. Our findings indicate that audit quality increases following PCAOB registration and that clients pay higher audit fees for audits by PCAOB-registered firms.     

Code of ethics quality and audit fees

Using a sample of U.S. firms from 2003 to 2018, we examine the effect of an audit client’s code of ethics quality on audit fees. We find that clients with a lower code of ethics quality pay significantly higher audit fees, suggesting that auditors perceive such clients as riskier and charge greater risk premiums. We also find that such clients have higher litigation risk and auditors spend greater effort when auditing such clients. Our study is among the first to demonstrate the role of a client’s code of ethics quality in audit pricing. Overall, our findings are consistent with codes of ethics being useful to auditors in assessing managers’ financial representations and providing value to firms.     

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.     

Institutional investor inattention and audit quality

We hypothesize and provide empirical evidence that higher institutional investor inattention is associated with lower audit quality. We employ an inattention measure that captures the extent to which institutional investors are distracted by attention-grabbing events irrelevant to the focal firm. Results suggest that a higher degree of institutional investor inattention is associated with a lower propensity of a going-concern opinion, a lower probability of the auditor reporting a material internal control weakness, and a higher likelihood of the audit client misstating the financial statements. Further analyses show that these associations vary by auditor litigation risk, their workload pressure, auditor industry expertise, and analyst coverage. Overall, our findings reveal that while institutional investors play an important monitoring role, the distractions they face undermine the quality of monitoring they provide.     

The distraction effect of non-audit services on audit quality

Regulators have expressed concerns that an emphasis on non-audit services (NAS) could distract from the audit function, even for clients with minimal NAS purchases. Motivated by this concern, we examine whether a greater emphasis on providing NAS to audit clients generally (i.e., not to a specific client) can distract from the audit function, thus reducing audit quality. We find evidence of an NAS distraction effect, where a greater emphasis on NAS at the audit office-level results in more client financial statement restatements, even after controlling for client-specific NAS. Further, the association exists among clients that purchase minimal NAS, suggesting that this association relates to distraction effects in addition to independence issues examined in prior research. This study should be of interest to audit firms, audit committees, and regulators because it provides new evidence regarding issues related to a business model that includes both audit and non-audit services.     

Including audit regulation in the accounting curriculum

Audits and auditors are regulated to uphold audit quality, thus regulation is important to the public interest and clearly impacts firms and CPAs. Moreover, the reach of audit regulation has expanded greatly in the last decade with the establishment of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Recent research and calls from the profession point to enhancing the coverage of audit regulation in the accounting curriculum so that students understand the consequences of failing to adhere to professional standards. In this paper, we propose regulatory content for inclusion in the curriculum, we survey and catalog existing auditing textbooks and other educational materials for regulatory content, and we suggest flexible alternatives for incorporating this topic into the curriculum. It is our hope that, with these resources, faculty can more effectively include audit regulation in the classroom and achieve a high level of student comprehension and learning on the topic.     

Subjectivity in fair-value estimates,audit quality,and informativeness of other comprehensive income

This study empirically examines whether difference in audit quality is reflected in the pricing of other comprehensive income (OCI). Specifically, we first investigate whether OCI measures of Big 4 clients are more value-relevant than those of non-Big 4 clients. Considering different degrees of subjective management judgment involved in the OCI reporting process, we then explore whether the differential valuation effect of OCI between Big 4 and non-Big 4 clients is more pronounced for more subjective OCI components (e.g., minimum pension liability and foreign currency-translation adjustment) than a less subjective component (e.g., marketable securities adjustment). We predict that the aggregate OCI of a Big 4 client is more value-relevant than that of a non-Big 4 client. We also hypothesize that the differential valuation effect between Big 4 and non-Big 4 clients can be attributed to the amount of subjective assumption and judgment required in estimating OCI. Consistent with our predictions, we find that aggregate OCI audited by a Big 4 auditor has incremental information content over earnings, compared to OCI audited by a non-Big 4 auditor. More interestingly, our results also show that the differential valuation effect between Big 4 and non-Big 4 clients is stronger for OCI components of a more subjective nature. Our results are robust even after controlling for self-selection bias, the potential effect of the financial crisis, and other related effects.