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.     

UK Auditor Concentration: A Descriptive Note

This note describes supplier concentration in the UK market for audit services. It extends previous research, which has focused on listed markets, by examining auditor concentration ratios across all corporate (quoted, unquoted plc and private) sub-markets. Individual and combined Big Six supplier concentration (CR6) ratios are calculated with reference to the number of clients audited, corporate size and disclosed audit fees. Compared with previous studies, the analysis is based on a larger number (171,799) of corporate audits, and indicates that, inter alia, corporate size (across different sub-markets) is a key determinant of supplier concentration. However, variations are reported in relation to individual auditors, auditee size and corporate sub-sectors. Other key findings are that the CR6 ratio in the quoted market has continued to rise in recent years, from 72.3% in 1991 (Beattie and Fearnley, 1994) to 78.4% in 1994/95, and that the Big Six currently audit a substantial proportion (58.2%) of companies in the UK middle market, which they appear to be targeting, as the large auditee sub-sector becomes saturated, to increase market share.     

The pricing of initial audit engagements by big 4 and leading mid-tier auditors

The recent investigation of the UK audit market by the Competition Commission testifies to perennial regulatory concerns regarding increasing supplier concentration, big 4 dominance of large company audits and the capacity of mid-tier auditors to compete. Against this backdrop, this paper presents new evidence on whether there is competitive pricing for initial audit engagements by big 4 auditors relative to their next four largest mid-tier (mid 4) counterparts for the UK quoted and private corporate sectors. Based on data from FAME for 2007 and 2010, the evidence indicates that larger quoted companies switching between the big 4 benefit from substantial discounts, with smaller discounts attracted by clients switching to the mid 4. Coupled with evidence that fees for both audit and non-audit services recover in subsequent periods, and consistent with the theoretical framework, the paper concludes that big 4 discounting is a competitive outcome aimed at securing future economic rents. New evidence demonstrates that smaller clients switching to big 4 or mid 4 auditors do not benefit from low-balling.     

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.     

The Removal of a Specialist Oversight Body for Local Public Audit: Insights from the Health Service in England

The abolition of the Audit Commission in England and Wales removes the ‘protector of the public purse’. The oversight body and its audit practice are largely replaced by the private sector regime and audit firms. We analyse the audit market for health service foundation trusts, an area of local public audit that operates without oversight from the Commission. We find evidence of premiums paid to some Big4 firms and that the presence of specialist public service auditors results in fee discounts. The firms limit their liability and assurance of audit quality is reduced under new audit regimes and governance structures.     

Further evidence on the determinants of audit pricing in universities

This study investigates the determinants of audit fees for UK universities, involving an analysis of 451 university-year observations over the period 2007–2010. The study contributes to a fledgling strand of research examining audit pricing in the public sector. In seeking to identify an appropriate model to explain audit fees we interview a number of university auditors and use their insights in conjunction with prior findings from both private and public sector studies of audit pricing. Our findings show that audit fees in UK universities are positively influenced by size, the number of subsidiary companies, the amount of endowments, the level of debtors, being located in England and the use of a London-based auditor. We also find that more research-intensive universities (using a range of measures) and universities with greater operating surpluses pay lower audit fees.     

Does International Accounting Network Membership Affect Audit Fees and Audit Quality? Evidence From China

Regulators suggest that small audit firms join international accounting networks to reduce their resource constraints in serving large clients and providing high-quality service. Bills, Cunningham, and Myers (2016) investigate the issue in the United States and find that both audit fees and quality are higher for members of international accounting networks (i.e., member audit firms). We investigate the effects of network membership on audit fees and quality in China, a relatively weaker institutional environment than the United States. Using data of Chinese listed companies audited by non-Big N audit firms from 2001 to 2010, we find that member audit firms charge 3.9% higher fees than nonmember audit firms, much lower than the 30% fee premiums charged by U.S. member audit firms. We do not find consistent evidence that audit quality is higher for member audit firms. Overall, our results demonstrate that China's weak institutional environment may overwhelm the quality control brought by international accounting networks and that it may weaken or even offset the benefits of audit firms' participation in these networks, resulting in smaller or even no effects of membership on audit fees and quality.     

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.     

Factors influencing corporate governance disclosures: evidence from Alternative Investment Market (AIM) companies in the UK

This study examines the relationship between company and ownership characteristics and the disclosure level of compliance with Quoted Companies Alliance (QCA) recommendations on corporate governance in Alternative Investment Market (AIM) companies. We report clear evidence that compliance increases with company size, board size, the proportion of independent non-executive directors, the presence of turnover revenue, and being formerly listed on the Main Market. However, we find that shell and highly geared AIM companies disclose relatively lower levels of corporate governance than recommended under QCA guidelines. Our findings suggest that market regulators should review the potential impact of the quality of corporate governance in these companies on the future vibrancy of AIM. We find no evidence that ownership structure or the type of Nominated Advisor is related to disclosure of compliance with QCA guidelines. Overall, in a lightly regulated environment such as the AIM market, it seems that companies will ultimately pursue a cost–benefit strategy in voluntarily complying with good corporate governance practice.     

银行治理、股权结构与审计收费——基于A股上市公司的经验证据

本文利用我国上市公司2004—2009年的数据,从债权人治理的新视角,实证研究了贷款银行的治理作用对会计师事务所审计收费产生的影响。研究发现,贷款银行的治理作用会导致审计收费降低,但这种治理作用的发挥依赖于市场机制。在国有企业中,银行治理的作用并不明显;而在民营企业中,银行治理能通过约束控股股东的机会主义行为,导致审计收费水平下降。与不存在控股股东与中小股东代理问题的民营企业相比,在存在这类代理问题的民营企业中,银行的治理作用更加显著。     

Audit Pricing of Shared Leadership

This study explores audit implications of shared leadership in client firms. Analyzing data from 2002 to 2013 of Korean listed companies, we find that auditors spend fewer audit hours and charge lower audit fees for clients with multiple CEOs. Additional tests reveal that the lower audit fees for co-CEO clients are likely attributable to reduced audit effort rather than to reduced hourly rates. We also document that firms with co-CEOs exhibit better-reporting quality than do firms with a solitary CEO. In sum, this article presents evidence that mutual monitoring via co-CEO appointments assures high-quality financial reporting of audit clients, and thus leads to reduced audit fees.     

Workforce environment and audit fees: International evidence

Using a dataset from 30 countries over the period from 2002 to 2017, we examine the effects of auditing clients’ workforce environment on audit fees as well as the role that national labor market flexibility plays in this relationship. We find evidence that audit fees are significantly lower for firms with a good workforce environment, suggesting that auditors perceive such clients as less risky; as a result, auditors expend less effort and/or charge a lower risk premium. Furthermore, we find this effect to be stronger for firms in countries with a more flexible labor market. Our mediation test results indicate that the relationship between the audit client workforce environment and audit fees is mediated by media coverage of workforce controversies. Our study contributes to the international audit fee literature by identifying employee welfare as a distinct audit pricing factor, above and beyond the effects of overall corporate social responsibility practices.     

Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees and Auditor Going-Concern Reporting Decisions in the United Kingdom

The accounting profession has come under increased scrutiny over recent years about the growing number of non-audit fees received from audit clients and the possible negative impact of such fees on auditor independence. The argument advanced is that providing substantial amounts of non-audit services to clients may make it more likely that auditors concede to the wishes of the client management when difficult judgments are made. Such concerns are particularly salient in the case of reporting decisions related to going-concern uncertainties for financially stressed clients.
 This study empirically examines audit reports provided to financially stressed companies in the United Kingdom and the magnitude of audit and non-audit service fees paid to the company's auditors. We find that the magnitude of both audit fees and non-audit fees are significantly associated with the issuance of a going-concern modified audit opinion. In particular, financially stressed companies with high audit fees are more likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion, whereas companies with high non-audit fees are less likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion. Additional analyses indicate that the results are generally robust across alternative model and variable specifications. Overall, evidence supports the contention that high non-audit fees have a detrimental effect on going-concern reporting judgments for financially stressed U.K. companies.     

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.     

Corporate ownership concentration and audit fees: The case of an emerging economy

The paper investigates the effects of corporate ownership concentration on audit fees in emerging economies, using Bangladesh as a case. Prior studies have indicated that audit fees in Bangladesh are significantly low. Also, the Bangladeshi private sector is dominated by high ownership concentration. Agency theory predicts that in an efficient market, managers in a highly concentrated ownership situation will have sufficient incentives to have more rigorous audits performed. However, managers in emerging economies, where the markets are not as strong, may not have similar incentives. We test whether audit fees in Bangladesh are related to corporate ownership concentration. Our results indicate that audit fees have a significant negative relationship with sponsor and institutional ownership concentrations. This indicates that in Bangladesh, companies actually pay lower audit fees when these are dominated by sponsor and institutional shareholders. For the public shareholders, we find a negative, but statistically insignificant relationship. The results seem to suggest that corporate ownership pattern may be a major factor in explaining the low audit fees in Bangladesh.     

审计费用的事前确定、异常审计费用与审计质量

实务中,我国部分上市公司年报审计费用采取事前确定方式,也就是在审计工作开展之前的董事会上确定。事前确定审计费用的动机何在,会产生什么样的审计后果?已有国内外文献尚缺乏这方面的研究。本文以2008～2017年全部A股上市公司为样本,通过实证考察审计费用事前确定方式对异常审计费用以及审计质量的影响发现:基于低价揽客或折价维持客户的经济动因,事前确定的审计费用显著偏低。进一步研究表明,在事前确定审计费用方式下,客户的审计质量更低。本文研究丰富和拓展了审计费用及审计质量决定因素的相关文献,同时也为监管机构规范审计费用确定方式提供了经验证据。     

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.     

Auditor Fees, Market Microstructure, and Firm Transparency

Abstract:  Auditors, as corporate insiders, have access to private information regarding the firm's financial and business opacity that is unavailable to outside investors. We test whether auditors price their knowledge of firm opacity in their audit fees by examining two competing hypotheses. The first states that higher audit fees may reflect the greater risk that the auditor faces in auditing an opaque firm. Under this hypothesis, market based measures of opacity will be positively correlated with higher fees. The second hypothesis states that firms buy reputational capital from their auditor by paying high fees in an attempt to improve the market's perception of the firm's transparency. In this case, higher audit fees are negatively correlated with market based measures of opacity. Our results are consistent with the first hypothesis, that auditors price opacity risk into their fees.     

超额商誉、高管激励与审计收费

基于2011-2018年沪深A股上市公司样本,实证检验超额商誉对审计收费的影响以及高管激励的调节效应.研究表明:超额商誉提高了审计收费,且在民营企业更显著;而高管不同激励方式对超额商誉与审计收费的调节具有异质性:股权激励具有抑制作用,而薪酬激励具有增强效应;从作用机制来看,超额商誉通过增加经营风险和审计投入,进而提高审计收费.     

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。