Note on audit fee premiums to client size and industry specialization

This research note examines the impact of client size on the estimation of audit fee premiums in the Australian market for audit services. Previous research suggests that higher audit fees are expected for both larger clients and for industry specialization. We find that in the Australian market for audit services, the fee premium attributed to industry specialist audit firms is concentrated in the audit fees paid by the largest clients in each industry. One reason for higher fees paid by larger clients is the demand for additional audit services. We find higher fees for companies cross‐listed on US exchanges. We also find that fee premiums to auditors that are city‐industry leaders are strongly related to client size.     

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.     

Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States

To what degree are audit fees for U.S. firms with publicly traded equity higher than fees for otherwise similar firms with private equity? The answer is potentially important for evaluating regulatory regime design efficiency and for understanding audit demand and production economics. For U.S. firms with publicly traded debt, we hold constant the regulatory regime, including mandated issuer reporting and auditor responsibilities. We vary equity ownership and thus public securities market contextual factors, including any related public firm audit fees from increased audit effort to reduce audit litigation risk and/or pure litigation risk premium (litigation channel effects). In cross‐section, we find that audit fees for public equity firms are 20–22% higher than fees for otherwise similar private equity firms. Time‐series comparisons for firms that change ownership status yield larger percentage fee increases (decreases) for those going public (private). Results are consistent with litigation channel effects giving rise to substantial incremental audit fees for U.S. firms with public equity ownership.     

Non-audit fees, long-term auditor–client relationships and earnings management

We examine whether auditor independence is affected by the amount spent on non‐audit services. Faster growth in non‐audit fees and longer time periods over which non‐audit services are purchased might reduce the auditor's independence from that client. Our results do not provide any support for a relationship between non‐audit fee growth rates or the length of time of the non‐audit fee relationship with the client and discretionary accruals, our measure of earnings management. We do find some evidence that the interaction of the non‐audit fee time‐period measures and client importance is positive and significantly related to discretionary accruals.     

Knowledge spillover from other assurance services

We argue that services which are complimentary and closer aligned to the annual report audit provide greater insight about risk and are more likely to exhibit the existence of economies of scope (knowledge spillover) through a positive association with audit fees. Specifically, we consider the potential for knowledge spillover from the auditing of triennial Long-Term Plans (LTP) to the annual report audit for a large sample of New Zealand municipals over the period 2005–2013. We find the LTP audit fees are positively related to municipal annual report audit fees and other fees (audit of for-profit subsidiaries, non-audit services) are not. This suggests that knowledge spillovers are dependent on the nature of the additional services. We also find evidence of higher fees for private sector auditors for both the annual report and the LTP audit. The LTP (forecast) audit fee is associated with municipal size, complexity, and political competition.     

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.     

Governance regulatory changes,International Financial Reporting Standards adoption,and New Zealand audit and non‐audit fees: empirical evidence

This study examines the association between overseas and New Zealand governance regulatory reforms and New Zealand companies’ audit and non‐audit fees. Our models use temporal and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) indicator variables to relate the timing of the fee changes to the incidence of the overseas and local reforms. We find that audit fees increased in New Zealand over 2002–2006. Such increases associate reliably with the transition to and adoption of NZ IFRS and not with earlier overseas governance reforms. Our study also documents a decrease in non‐audit fees over the same period, but we find no IFRS effect for non‐audit fees.     

Evidence on the Joint Determination of Audit and Non-Audit Fees

In this study we investigate whether the characteristics of clients, auditors, and the auditor‐client relationship simultaneously determine audit and non‐audit fees. As done in prior studies, we maintain that fees proxy for the level of service provided and follow the physical flow of knowledge. Estimating single‐equation models of audit and non‐audit fee models, we confirm prior findings of an association between audit and non‐audit fees. Studies conclude that such evidence is consistent with knowledge spillovers between the two services. However, we document empirically that audit and non‐audit fees are simultaneously determined. Because the data indicate audit and non‐audit fees are jointly determined, we then investigate whether previously documented associations between audit and non‐audit fees are the result of biased estimation induced by using endogenous variables in single‐equation models. In contrast to results from single‐equation estimations, we find no association between audit and non‐audit fees using a simultaneous specification of the fee system, suggesting that single‐equation estimations suffer from simultaneous‐equations bias. In sum, the findings are not consistent with the existence of economies of scope from the joint performance of audit and non‐audit services after controlling for the joint behavior of audit and non‐audit fees. Given the ongoing debate over the level of allowed non‐audit services by auditors, the argument for the joint provision of audit and non‐audit services is less justified than if joint‐supply benefits had been documented.     

Explaining Variability in External Audit Fees

This study examines the effect of several factors on the level of external audit fees using a multiple regression model. Audit fee data were provided by 95 US publicly held companies for the years 1983 to 1985. Variables measuring client industry membership and auditor involvement in the security registration process were proxies for client regulatory aspects. These variables were significant and provide support for the hypothesis that scale economies and/or specialization effects accrue to audit firms in dealing with the regulatory complexities faced by clients. Variables measuring auditee size and complexity, auditee/auditor loss sharing risk, and audit firm size were also significant in explaining variability in external audit fees.     

What matters in audit pricing: industry specialization or overall market leadership?

Ferguson et al. (2003) report that audit industry fee premia primarily reside with joint national and city‐specific industry leadership as opposed to merely firm‐wide (national) industry expertise, suggesting auditor choice among the Big 5 is best conceptualized on joint industry specialization in city‐specific markets and nationally. The present study examines whether the prior results could be confounded by the presence of city‐specific overall market leadership effects. Our findings reaffirm that joint local and national auditor industry expertise is valued by audit clients. Furthermore, overall city‐specific leadership, by itself, also matters in fee determination and results in higher fees, although at a slightly weaker level of statistical significance.     

Large audit firm premium and audit specialisation in the public sector

The outsourcing of public‐sector audits to the private sector is an important issue. This study examines the fee premium in the public sector by comparing audit fees between the government auditor and the Big5. The study (i) statistically adjusts for self‐selection bias, (ii) allows the slope coefficients in the audit fee model to vary between the Big5 and the government audit and (iii) estimates the counterfactual audit fee premium. The Big5 premium is around 23 percent. However, the variation in premium depends on whether the Big5 auditor is an industry or city specialist.     

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.     

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。     

Audit Market Structure and Competition in Australia

The purpose of this review is to synthesise the existing research literature regarding the underlying structure and competitiveness of the Australian audit market. We consider the findings of Australian academic research, which has examined audit fees, non‐audit fees, market concentration, auditor choice, auditor switching and audit firm mergers. We identify the key metrics used to evaluate market structure in the academic literature and then document changes in these metrics in the Australian audit market for listed company audits during the period 2000–2011. Our analysis shows that the audit market is both highly segmented and supplier‐concentrated. We find that audit fees in Australia have increased over this period, which can be attributed to increased regulation and resulting increased audit effort needed to complete audit engagements in times of regulatory change and more recently, the global financial crisis. We provide regulators, standard setters and the profession with an evidenced‐based perspective on the market for the listed company audits, which is an important input into any future proposals to regulate the Australian audit market.     

The cost of audit qualifications: the role of non-audit services

This study argues that the incremental audit production costs associated with issuing a qualified opinion are difficult for public accounting firms to recoup through audit fees alone. It proposes that audit production costs associated with qualifications may be recouped through non-audit service (NAS) fees in addition to audit fees. Further, it proposes that such recoupment follows a differential timing pattern. Audit fees, because of their more constrained nature, are more likely to be elevated as a consequence of qualification presence in the year subsequent to the qualification. On the other hand, NAS fees, by virtue of their very nature and more flexible billing opportunities provided, are likely to be so affected in the year concurrent with the qualification. The research is based on Australian data, as there are few jurisdictions in the world that require disclosure of both audit and non-audit fees. Using a sample of 270 companies, a significant and positive association is found between the presence of an audit qualification and significantly higher fees paid. This relationship holds both in the case of an audit qualification contemporaneous with the fee charged, and of one occurring in the year preceding the disclosed fee(s). The effect on audit fees, however, occurs only on a lagged opinion basis, while the effect on NAS fees occurs only on a concurrent opinion basis.     

Do Big-Four affiliates earn audit fee premiums in emerging markets?

The paper investigates whether Big-Four affiliated (B4A) firms earn audit premiums in an emerging economy context, using Bangladesh as a case. The joint determination of audit and non-audit service fees is also examined using a sample of 122 companies listed in the Dhaka Stock Exchange. Our findings reveal that although the B4A firms do not generally earn a fee premium in Bangladesh, they charge higher audit fees for clients not purchasing non-audit services. This suggests that the B4A firms may actually lower audit fees to attract non-audit services, and cross subsidizes audit fees through non-audit-services fees. The lack of a B4A premium implies that there is lack of quality audit in emerging markets. We also document that audit and non-audit service fees are jointly determined in Bangladesh. Thus, we provide evidence of joint determination of audit and non-audit service fees in an emerging economy context.     

The Provision of Other Services by Auditors: Independence and Pricing Issues

This research has three objectives: to identify the extent and level of other services provided by incumbent auditors in the Australian business environment; to examine pricing issues by investigating the relationship between fees for other services and audit fees; and to address the question of independence by (a) identifying whether the incidence of audit qualification is related to the level of other services purchased and (b) investigating whether there is a relationship between audit tenure and the level of other services provided. Information on audit fees, fees for other services, size, audit qualifications, industry and auditor (Big 8(6)/Non-Big 8(6)) was obtained from publicly available information for the majority of the top 500 Australian companies listed on the Australian stock exchange between 1986–1990. This study provides evidence that an increasing number of clients are purchasing other services from their auditor. A significant positive relationship between fees paid for other services and audit fees was also identified. No relationship was identified between the level of other services and the type of audit report issued or audit tenure, supporting the view that audit independence is not compromised by provision of the other services.     

The effect of audit firm size on audit prices: A study of the Australian Market

The effect of audit firm size on prizes is a complex function of competition in the market for audit services, product differentiation, and scale economics to large firms. In this study, a competitive market is supported in Australia with product differentiation to Bif Eight accounting firms. Specially, Big Eight accounting firms have significantly higher audit prices than non-Big Eight firms. This results holds for ‘large’ and ‘small’ auditees. A test is also made of price cutting in the Australian market. Price cutting is defined as lower initial audit fees than continuing engagement fees for a comparable audit. Test results do not evidence price-cutting behavior by accounting firms. There is in fact weak evidence that initial audit fees are higher than continuing engagement fee levels. Higher initial fees suggest that accounting firms may recover at least some of the audit start-up costs immediately.     

Non-audit services provided to audit clients,independence of mind and independence in appearance: latest evidence from large UK listed companies

This paper investigates whether the provision of non-audit services (NAS) to audit clients impairs auditor independence of mind and independence in appearance. The main contributions of this paper are in terms of its timeliness with respect to regulatory changes, the simultaneous examination of both forms of auditor independence and the methodological innovation whereby it uses a variable derived from the level of abnormal audit fees as a moderating variable in order to capture the direct impact of the NAS fee level on auditor independence as well as how its influence is moderated by the level of unexpected audit fees. Our results indicate that auditor independence of mind is compromised by the size of NAS fees, particularly for clients who pay below the level of expected audit fee. The stock market perceives that auditor independence is compromised by NAS fees but, at the same time, additional tests indicate that there are benefits that accrue from NAS and, in particular, the relation between return and non-discretionary net income is increasing in NAS fees. The balance of evidence suggests that the European Union is correct in undertaking some reform of the auditing market.     

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.