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.     

What is the impact of corruption on audit fees?

This study examines the impact of country-level corruption on audit fees. Using a sample of 102,934 companies from 48 countries over the period 1998–2014, the authors find that audit fees are positively associated with higher levels of corruption. They also discovered that corruption adds a significant margin to the premium paid to Big 4 (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young and KPMG) auditors. The study opens up a new line of research and adds significantly to the academic literature on the Big 4 audit premium.

IMPACT

The study has several important implications for academics and policy-makers. These include discussion of the factors driving corruption and the role of auditing. Knowledge of the factors driving corruption should guide policy-makers to adoption of polices that could reduce corruption. The finding that audit fees are positively associated with corruption, as well as with audit quality, points to the potential for auditing as a tool for corruption control beyond its traditional role as an assurance service.     

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.     

The impact of securities regulation on the earnings properties of European cross-listed firms

The objective of this study was to determine if the securities regulation in a foreign country is related to the earnings quality of European firms cross-listed in Europe. The study compared the post-listing earnings quality of 112 European firms cross-listed in 13 European stock exchanges during 1989–2001 to those of a controlled sample of non-cross-listed firms. Earnings quality was assessed by the use of reporting discretion to manage earnings. The regulatory strictness was represented by three indices of securities regulation.Empirical results provide some support to a positive association between earnings quality and the foreign securities regulation, suggesting that the foreign regulatory requirements have little or no effect on the reported earnings of European firms cross-listed in European exchanges.     

Audit effort and fees under concentrated client ownership: Evidence from four international audit firms

Using proprietary audit hour and fee data from the internal records of four Big Six firms in Finland, this study examines the influence of audit client ownership type on audit effort and fees. The primary argument is that there are differential effects of ownership concentration depending on the particular nature of concentrated ownership (i.e., firms in which the majority of shares are manager-owned versus foreign-owned versus state-owned). Consistent with this, the paper documents that audit hours and fees are lower for companies majority-owned by their management and higher for subsidiaries of foreign companies than for other firms. However, no difference between companies owned by the state or municipalities and companies with a more diverse ownership structure can be found. This suggests that governmental ownership is actually closer to a dispersed than a concentrated ownership structure in terms of audit quality.The results show that replacing the variable indicating majority-ownership with the variables capturing the type of a controlling owner increases the explanatory power of the models significantly, which demonstrates the importance of ownership type in the production and pricing of an audit. The findings have important implications for those examining audit markets with client firms owned by different types of controlling shareholders.     

The effects of corporate governance and audit and non-audit fees on IPO Value

This paper examines the effects of non-executive board members, audit committee composition and financial expertise, and fees paid to audit firms on the value of 375 UK initial public offerings (IPOs). Empirical findings show that underpricing decreases in audit fees whereas it increases in non-audit fees. A higher proportion of non-executive directors on the firm’s board and audit committees with a higher proportion of non-executive directors and financial accounting expertise of their members positively moderate the inter-relationships between underpricing and both audit and non-audit fees paid by companies going through an IPO. Further investigations using the adjusted price-to-book value as a proxy for firm value at IPO confirm our main findings that internal governance mechanisms may complement services provided by the auditors in terms of generating higher valuations. Controlling for the simultaneous determination of audit and non-audit fees, our results remain consistent.     

Female audit committee members and their influence on audit fees

We test the relationship between female representation on the audit committee and audit fees for 624 Australian companies in the year 2011. A positive relationship is found, leading to the conclusion that female presence on audit committees influences the quality of the external audit. Further, we find that gender is the significant audit committee characteristic in predicting audit quality and that women on the audit committee strengthen the positive relationship between firm size and audit fees, and between risk and audit fees. Conversely, we find that female representation dampens the positive relationship between complexity and audit fees.     

Effect of regulatory oversight on the association between internal governance characteristics and audit fees

We examine the relationship between internal governance, external audit monitoring and regulatory oversight for a sample comprising industrial companies and financial/utility companies subject to additional industry‐specific regulation. Our results indicate that the association between audit fees and board/audit committee independence and size are weaker for regulated companies. These observations are consistent with the notion that regulatory oversight partially substitutes the external audit as a monitoring mechanism. However, boards/audit committees with more multiple directorships demand a more extensive audit in the presence of regulatory oversight to protect their reputation capital. Our study enhances our understanding of the complex relationships among the major corporate governance elements.     

Disclosure of fair value measurement in goodwill impairment test and audit fees

Recent increases in the occurrence and magnitude of goodwill impairment charges highlight the increasing importance of the role of the auditor in goodwill accounting. This study examines the association between disclosures about the fair value measurement of goodwill and audit fees. We find that goodwill-related disclosures are positively related to audit fees, consistent with the idea that auditors increase their audit efforts to mitigate potential reputational and litigation losses (“audit risk effect”). Additionally, our results indicate that the information asymmetry and investor scrutiny moderate the association between goodwill-related disclosures and audit fees. One possible explanation is that auditors take goodwill-related disclosures as a signal of truthful goodwill accounting and this “signaling effect” partially offsets the “audit risk effect” of goodwill-related disclosures when information asymmetry or investor scrutiny is perceived as high.     

The formation and early development of German audit firms

This paper examines the emergence of audit firms in Germany through an analysis of contemporary sources. Special attention is paid to the range of services offered, their legal forms and ownership structure. In Germany, the demand for external audits developed because the corporate supervisory boards had been unable to fulfil their monitoring task satisfactorily. As a consequence of the major economic crisis of 1929-1931 and the collapse of large corporations caused by the fraudulent actions of managing directors, statutory audits for stock corporations were introduced in 1931. The first German audit and trust company, the Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft, was established much earlier in 1890. Like other trust companies which emerged from 1905 onwards, it was owned by large banks. After the First World War, large commercial groups on the one hand, and the state on the other hand, started to form their own audit firms. Most of the audit and trust companies used the legal form of a corporation. Originally, the main activities of the trust companies were trustee activities and audits. Subsequently, they also offered tax and business advisory services. These features (a broad range of services offered, the corporation as the dominant legal form, and clients who are also owners) help us to understand key characteristics of modern German audit firms such as their limited liability to third parties.     

The impact of customer firm data breaches on the audit fees of their suppliers

This study investigates whether audit risks that accompany data breaches of major customer firms can spillover into the supply chain and affect audit fees of their suppliers. Based on the economic bond that exists between supplier firms and their major customers, we predict that data breach incidents of customer firms will lead to higher audit fees for their respective suppliers. Consistent with customer breaches increasing the audit risk to the supplier, we observe a positive association between breach disclosures made by major customers and audit fees of the supplier firm. This association exists for both internal and external data breaches. We further find that audit fees are increasing with the number of major customers disclosing a breach in a given year. Our results are robust to both a matched sample design and a difference-in-difference approach. Interestingly, we find that while supplier auditors appear to price the risks associated with customer breaches, the breaches do not appear to affect audit quality. The findings of this study are timely and relevant to academics, practitioners, and regulators as supply chains continue to become larger and more complex.     

On the role of foreign directors: Evidence from cross-listed firms

We examine the determinants of appointment of U.S. independent directors (USIDs), and their impact and effectiveness, on the boards of cross-listed foreign firms versus non-cross-listed firms. For non-cross-listed firms, significant determinants of USID presence include factors related to both advising and monitoring roles, whereas for cross-listed firms, appointment of USIDs are related to monitoring factors. We find that USIDs have a significantly positive impact on cross-listed firms’ value, especially for firms from countries that are culturally and institutionally different from U.S. and countries with weak investor protection. The positive value effect is strongest for firms in which USIDs serve on governance committees. We also find that cross-listed firms with UISDs are better at acquiring both domestic and cross-border targets and have higher CEO turnover sensitivity. For non-cross-listed firms, USIDs have negative or no impact on value.     

The empirical relationship between ownership characteristics and audit fees

The present study examines the empirical relationship between ownership characteristics and audit fees. The basic premise is that the level of ownership sophistication and the extent to which ownership is large and substantial impact the effectiveness of stockholder monitoring on corporate affairs including the financial reporting process. Furthermore, high managerial ownership firms may experience a decline in agency problems in financial reporting due to a decrease in managerial propensity to misreport financial results. By employing a cross-sectional least squares regression analysis for a sample of 358 New York Stock Exchange-listed firms audited by the Big Five auditors, we find evidence of a significantly positive relationship between diffused institutional stock ownership (i.e., having less than 5% individual shareholding) and audit fees, and a significantly negative relationship between institutional blockholder ownership (i.e., having 5% or more individual shareholding) and audit fees. Finally, we document that managerial stock ownership is negatively associated with audit fees. We do not, however, find evidence of any relationship between noninstitutional blockholder ownership (with at least 5% individual stock ownership) and audit fees. The study's main results hold in various specification tests including when the effects of board-related and audit committee variables are factored in the analysis. Based on the observed relationship between the ownership variables and audit fees, we suggest that the ownership characteristics of a firm as a part of its governance mechanism constitute an important determinant of audit fees.

The effect of general counsel prominence on the pricing of audit services

We investigate the effect of corporate general counsel (GC) ascension to the senior management team on the pricing of audit services. Prior research suggests that the GC position may have a significant influence in setting the tone at the top by promoting corporate integrity, ethics, and serving as a governance and monitoring mechanism, but also recognizes that prominent GCs may face ethical dilemmas, causing them to disregard professional responsibilities to curry the favor of the CEO and other executives. Using audit fees to proxy for audit engagement risk, we find a negative association between GC ascension to top management and audit fees. We investigate the mechanisms behind this relation and find GC ascension is associated with a reduction in both default risk and financial misstatement risk, which supports auditors’ perceived reduction in client business risk and audit risk, respectively.     

A tale of two time zones: The impact of substitutes on cross-listed stock liquidity

This article examines how the market quality of European cross-listed stocks is affected by the partial-day availability of close substitutes, i.e., shares of the same companies that are traded in their home markets but are not fully fungible with the cross-listed shares. Our findings suggest that narrower spreads and more competitive liquidity provision during overlapping trading hours reflect a significant impact from the availability of more substitutes in addition to the enhanced information environment and liquidity externalities when home markets are open. Our results also provide a richer picture of specialists’ intraday activities and offer new evidence of market integration.     

Effects of SOX 404(b) implementation on audit fees by SEC filer size category

This study provides novel information about the consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) by documenting differential audit fee shocks accompanying implementation of SOX 404(b) internal control tests and reports for clients in three size categories: large accelerated filers (LAFs), small accelerated filers (SAFs), and non-accelerated filers (NAFs). First, we find that although both LAFs and SAFs experience audit fee shocks attributable to 404(b), SAFs on average experience relatively greater fee shocks than LAFs (107.8% versus 84.6%; Table 6). Second, even though NAFs are not subject to 404(b) procedures, we document a 42.7% fee shock for NAFs. Our interpretation is that 404(b) generated an immediate increase in demand for audit services with no corresponding sudden increase in supply of experienced audit personnel, enabling audit firms to charge higher prices for all filers including NAFs. We find that audit fee shocks attributable to 404(b) are positively associated with audit offices’ bargaining power relative to clients, and that the effect of offices’ bargaining power is strongest for SAFs and weakest for NAFs. Although higher audit fees (with client characteristics held constant) are often considered an indicator of better audit quality, we find virtually no evidence that the massive fee increases in 2004 are accompanied by improvements in same-year or next-year audit quality, measured as decreases in discretionary accruals and a lower likelihood of subsequent restatements of audited financial reports.     

政府审计信息披露质量评价体系构建

政府审计信息公开是政务信息公开的一个重要方面,审计署公开审计信息一方面提高审计监督的透明度,另一方面保障公民、法人和其他组织对审计的知情权、参与权和监督权。文章阐述了政府审计信息披露的理论基础和现状,并在此基础上对审计署近几年公布的审计信息公开工作报告进行加工整理,进而对政府审计信息公开工作报告存在的问题做出尝试性的归纳和总结。最后,提出中国政府审计信息披露质量评价指标体系由及时性、完整性、准确性、客观性、重要性及清晰性等六个方面质量特征构成。     

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.     

An examination of the relation between market structure and the profitability of audit engagements

Due to increasing supplier concentration, there is growing concern regarding the lack of competition in the audit market. Theory based on Cournot oligopoly predicts that increasing concentration will facilitate monopolistic behaviour. Conversely, if the market for audit services has more in common with a Bertrand oligopoly, concentration may not lead to higher fees. We evaluate whether increased audit supplier concentration leads to economic rents by investigating audit profitability. Using proprietary data from a (then) Big 6 audit firm, we find that local market structure has a significant and positive association with audit profitability, but not auditor effort for large clients.     

Discussion of ‘Strategic pricing by Big 4 audit firms in private client segments’

This article discusses the paper by Dutillieux et al., (2013). The comments are in four main areas, regarding the importance of the research question, the setting in which the study is located, the theoretical development of the study and some thoughts regarding both supply‐ and demand‐side considerations around auditor change.