The impact of audit firms’ characteristics on audit fees following information security breaches

Given the importance of auditors’ assessing business risks and evaluating internal controls, we investigate whether an audit firm’s industry expertise, tenure, and size can help its auditors better understand external and internal threats faced by the client with less effort. Using reported information security breach incidents from 2004 to 2013, we find that, consistent with prior studies, audit fees are higher after the occurrence of an information security breach. However, such an association is negatively moderated when the audit firm has industry-specific expertise, longer experience with the client, and is one of the Big 4 firms. Our results suggest that because of their better knowledge about a specific industry, increased familiarity with the client’s operations, and more resources to understand a client’s vulnerabilities and/or information security policies and procedures, these auditors are more capable of assessing the potentially changing information security risks implied by the occurrence of information security breach incidents. Our results are robust to a variety of sensitivity checks.     

Was audit quality of Laventhol and Horwath poor?

Laventhol and Horwath (L&H), the then seventh largest accounting firm in the US, declared bankruptcy in November 1990. The firm claimed that its bankruptcy was due to the perception of it being a deep pocket rather than inherent deficiencies in its performance. In this study, we examine whether the audit quality of L&H was lower than other auditors. Results do not show that L&H is associated with lower quality audits either in terms of lower likelihood of issuing modified audit opinion, higher levels of discretionary accruals for its clients, or lower predictability of discretionary accruals for future non-discretionary net income for its clients than for clients of other auditors. Results of additional tests also do not suggest that auditors that take up clients of L&H report differently from L&H. This evidence does not support the proposition that L&H’s audit quality was less than audit quality of other audit firms during the period leading up to the bankruptcy.     

Are audit fees discounted in initial year audit engagements?

Many studies report that audit fees are discounted in the year of an auditor change and regulators have long been concerned that such fee discounting could impair audit quality. We find significant bias in the way studies have tested for fee discounting. The bias exists because interim procedures are usually performed by both the predecessor and successor auditors but only the successor's fee needs to be disclosed. Accordingly, the disclosed fee during the auditor change year usually relates to a partial year of auditing services. We find that the evidence for fee discounting disappears after correcting for this measurement bias.     

On the effort-saving effect of audit committee–auditor interlocking

Using unique data on audit hours from China, this paper investigates the effort-saving effect of the audit committee–auditor interlocking (AClk). We find that AClk is negatively associated with audit effort without any deterioration in audit quality. The results suggest that AClk has an effort-saving effect through information sharing between interlocked audit committee members and auditors. However, auditors retain the effort-saving benefits of AClk without sharing them with their client firms. Further analysis shows that the effort-saving effect of AClk is more pronounced for client firms whose auditors have industry expertise, for client firms that share the same individual auditor, or for client firms that share audit committee members with financial expertise.     

What factors influence auditors' use of computer-assisted audit techniques?

To meet the challenges of rapid advances in client technology, audit standards urge auditors to use computer-assisted audit tools and techniques (CAATs). However, recent research suggests that CAAT use is fairly low. This paper uses the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to identify and then examines factors potentially influencing auditors' use or non-use of CAATs. Examining auditor use of CAATs is important because CAATs hold out the promise of improving audit efficiency and effectiveness. Data was obtained from 181 auditors from Big 4, national, regional, and local firms. Results indicate that outcome expectations, the extent of organizational pressures and technical infrastructure support influence the likelihood that auditors will use CAATs.     

Is the objectivity of internal audit compromised when the internal audit function is a management training ground?

We conduct an experiment with 74 internal auditors to examine the effects of using the internal audit function as a training ground for future senior managers. Specifically, we investigate internal auditors' willingness to resist current management's aggressive revenue recognition policies, assuming that internal auditors expect to move into senior management positions in the future. We also examine whether increasing the power of the board of directors can reduce threats to internal auditors' objectivity. This is the first study to empirically examine whether training grounds influence internal auditors objectivity. Results of our study indicate that internal auditors are less objective (i.e. they are more likely to side with management's aggressive revenue recognition policies) when they expect to move into senior management positions, relative to when internal auditing is not used as a training ground. We also find that empowering the audit committee further decreases the objectivity of internal auditors. These results suggest that board power can have unintended consequences on the behaviour of internal auditors and that board empowerment does not guarantee improved governance or improved oversight of financial reporting.     

Effects of audit partners on clients’ business risk disclosure

We empirically investigate audit engagement partners’ involvement in business risk disclosure. Specifically, we examine whether the quality of business risk disclosure is influenced by engagement partner tenure and knowledge. We also examine whether the effects of partner tenure and knowledge are similar for Big 4 audit firms and non-Big 4 firms. Since fiscal year 2003, listed companies in Japan have been required to disclose business risk information. Although the business risk information is not audited, auditors concerned about their audit quality may seek to influence clients’ business risk disclosure practices. Giving advice to management on the narrative business risk disclosure can contribute to improving the perceived value of the auditor’s services which can be a competitive advantage. Using a sample of Japanese listed companies from 2003 to 2010, we find that if the engagement partners’ tenure is shorter, a company discloses more business risk information and the disclosure is more detailed. Furthermore, companies with audit partners who have a larger number of client engagements disclose larger amounts of business risk information in more detail. However, the engagement partner effects are mitigated if they belong to a Big 4 firm.     

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.     

Discussion of ‘Is the objectivity of internal audit compromised when the internal audit function is a management training ground?’

This article provides a critique of the Rose, Rose, and Norman (2013) article. It focuses on four issues: (i) whether institutional details have been appropriately captured; (ii) whether experiments are an appropriate method to answer the authors' research question; (iii) whether the authors' hypotheses should predict an interaction; and (iv) whether the authors have relied on the appropriate theory.     

“Surprise” material weakness disclosures: Effects on audit fees and audit report lags

Prior research shows that many of the companies that disclose material weaknesses in internal control (MWs) do not disclose such weaknesses in earlier quarterly 10-Q filings for the same year—i.e., the year-end MW disclosures are “surprise” disclosures. I first show, using data from 2009 to 2019, that such surprise MWs continue to be the majority of MW disclosures as late as 2019. I find that accelerated filer companies with surprise MWs pay lower fees compared to companies with no-surprise MWs; however, this finding does not hold for non-accelerated filers. I also find that there are no significant differences in the audit report lag of surprise and no-surprise MW disclosers. Thus, the lower audit fee paid by surprise MW disclosure companies may offer a possible explanation for the widespread prevalence of surprise MW disclosures. The results also highlight the importance of the external auditor in public disclosures of MWs. The findings have public policy relevance given the ongoing efforts to expand the set of companies that would be exempt from the auditor attestation of internal controls.     

Is the effect of shared auditors driven by shared audit partners? The case of M&As

Recent research suggests that shared auditors impact firm outcomes by facilitating information flows across clients and increasing financial statement comparability. This study argues that since client specific knowledge resides with audit partners the effects of shared auditors on corporate outcomes is primarily driven by client engagements with shared audit partners. We test this argument using Australian merger and acquisitions, where there is a longstanding requirement for the disclosure of audit partner details. We find: (i) a positive association between shared audit partners and the likelihood of a friendly acquisition, (ii) a negative association between shared audit partners and takeover premiums, and (iii) a positive (negative) association between shared audit partners and acquirer (target) and total cumulative abnormal returns. We also document that the significant effect of shared auditors is restricted to takeovers with shared audit partners.     

The effects of disclosing critical audit matters and auditor tenure on nonprofessional investors’ judgments

In an effort to provide more meaningful information to financial statement users, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) recently adopted sweeping changes to the audit report, requiring the audit firm to disclose whether or not it identified a critical audit matter (CAM) and its tenure with the client. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to explore how nonprofessional investors’ judgments are influenced by (1) the relative effects of a CAM disclosure versus a disclosure that the auditor did not identify a CAM, and (2) the disclosure of the audit firm’s tenure. We find that, relative to disclosing that no CAMs were identified, disclosing a CAM reduces investment intentions. We do not find a significant effect of tenure disclosure on investment intentions, despite evidence that participants attended to and understood the tenure manipulation. Concerning investors’ cognitive processes, we find that perceptions of both risk of material misstatement and management disclosure credibility mediate the effect of CAM disclosure on investment intentions, while perceived audit quality suppresses this effect. Our contributions include furthering the understanding of cognitive mechanisms through which CAM disclosure influences investment intentions, identifying a relatively unique setting in which perceptions of management disclosure credibility and audit quality move in opposite directions, and providing evidence that auditor tenure disclosure does not appear to affect investment intentions. Our findings should be of interest to regulators, auditors, issuers, and investors.     

Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of ‘subject to’ qualified audit opinions

This paper contains evidence of a significant negative stock price reaction to media disclosures of ‘subject to’ qualified audit opinions. Disclosures of qualifications in the financial news media (the Wall Street Journal and the Broad Tape) are rare relative to the frequency of audit qualifications. Other studies do not detect an impact of qualified opinions on stock prices. None of the explanations for the difference in the results between this study and prior studies is consistent with the data. We are unable to draw strong inferences because we cannot identify the selection process that produces the sample of media disclosures.     

Are fully independent audit committees really necessary?

Accounting scandals and concerns about the quality of financial statements have led to many calls for improved audit committee effectiveness. Prior research indicates that audit committee independence is positively related to effective oversight of the financial reporting process. Unfortunately, prior research has not provided an answer as to how much independence on the audit committee is enough. This is an important unanswered question because while Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) currently requires all listed companies to maintain an audit committee that is 100% independent there has been much debate regarding easing the SOX requirements for smaller and foreign companies. In this paper we examine whether the regulatory requirements of a completely independent audit committee are necessary to obtain the monitoring benefits related to audit committee independence that have been documented in prior literature. Our results suggest that the benefits of audit committee independence are consistently achieved only when the audit committee is completely independent. These results provide support for the SOX requirement of 100% independent audit committees.     

Do investors perceive a change in audit quality following the rotation of the engagement partner?

Though Section 203 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) calls for the rotation of the audit partner every five years, we do not know whether investors value audit partner rotation. This is an important issue since many in the auditing profession believe that mandatory rotation of the audit partner is unnecessary and may in fact impair audit quality. We identify a sample of firms that disclosed changes in the engagement partner in the proxy statement and examine whether equity investors perceive a change in audit quality following the partner rotation. We find a significant increase in earnings informativeness following audit partner rotation. We also find that short sellers regard earnings in the post-rotation to be of higher quality than earnings prior to the rotation. Finally, cost of equity capital is lower following partner rotation. Our findings have important implications for the regulators, auditors, and investors.     

The hiring of accounting and finance officers from audit firms: how did the market react?

This study investigates the market’s reaction to companies hiring accounting and finance officers directly from their external audit firms—the auditor-to-client hiring practice referred to as the “revolving door.” The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) eliminated this hiring practice, reflecting concerns that such appointments may impair audit and financial reporting quality. However, it was also argued that companies may have benefited from hiring individuals already familiar with their systems, organization and personnel. To determine the prevalence of this hiring practice and how shareholders viewed these appointments, we examine 3-day cumulative abnormal returns around the announcements of newly appointed accounting and finance officers over the period 1985–2002. We find that the proportion of revolving door hires is relatively low (only 6.1% of all hires in our sample), but that when they did occur the market valued the revolving door appointments more positively than other appointments. Further tests reveal that the positive market reaction to revolving door appointments is driven mainly by smaller companies, and that these appointments are not associated with lower financial reporting quality when assessing subsequent discretionary accruals or the receipt of an Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release (AAER). Overall, the low frequency of occurrence, investors’ positive perceptions, and the lack of association with deteriorated reporting quality indicate that the SOX restriction on revolving door appointments may have been unnecessary and will do little to protect shareholders.

The impact of directors’ and officers’ insurance on audit pricing: Evidence from UK companies

This paper examines the impact of directors’ and officers’ (D&O) insurance on audit pricing in a large sample of UK companies. The existence of D&O insurance is expected to exert a dual impact on auditors’ pricing decisions. The presence of an additional source of funds to satisfy stakeholder claims in the event of audit client failure suggests that audit fees in insured companies should be lower. Alternatively, recent research has identified a positive link between the presence of D&O insurance and a number of characteristics traditionally associated with more expensive audits. The main objective of this study is to ascertain which of these influences pre-dominates. Analysing a sample of 753 UK listed companies in the early 1990s, when companies were obliged to disclose the presence of D&O insurance, this study shows that D&O insurance is associated with higher audit fees. It also confirms that insured companies are larger, more complex and present a greater audit risk (using a range of measures) than uninsured companies. Further analysis suggests that the impact of D&O insurance on audit fees may be influenced by company size, auditor size, and the extent of non-executive presence on the company's board.     

A potential benefit of increasing book–tax conformity: evidence from the reduction in audit fees

Our study explores a possible benefit of conforming book income to taxable income. We expect that increased book–tax conformity can reduce audit fees by simplifying tax accruals and increasing tax authorities’ monitoring, which reduce audit workload and audit risk, respectively. Consistent with our expectations, we find that a higher country level of required book–tax conformity leads to lower audit fees. Moreover, firm-level book–tax differences are positively associated with audit fees. We also find that the negative association between country level of required book–tax conformity and audit fees is mitigated among firms with larger book–tax differences. Our findings are robust to including country-level legal investor protection or other extra-legal institutions. Overall, our results suggest that one benefit of increasing book–tax conformity is the reduction in audit fees.     

Can clients of economically dependent auditors benefit from voluntary audit firm rotation? An experiment with lenders

This study utilizes a nationwide random selection of 111 lenders in a 2?×?2 between-subjects experiment to determine whether the level of an auditor's economic dependence on a client and type of auditor rotation affect lenders’ independence and reliability perceptions and decisions to lend money to a potential borrower. Previous literature shows that financial statement users use client importance as a measure of audit quality when revenue streams are not equal across clients. This can negatively affect perceptions of independence and financial statement reliability. As United States regulators look for ways to improve audit quality under the current partner rotation mandate, this study explores whether an audited entity that voluntarily adopts a policy of firm rotation can mitigate the negative effects of the auditor's dependence on the client. Findings suggest that lenders view clients of economically dependent auditors (CEDA) as less independent from its auditor and perceive its financials as less reliable than clients without a dependent auditor (non-CEDA). Lenders are less likely to grant a loan to CEDA. However, under firm rotation, there is not only an increase in lenders’ perceptions of reliability of CEDA financials, but also no difference in perceptions of reliability of CEDA and non-CEDA financials.