Search results

This study aims to investigate the implications of audit industry specialization on auditor’s retention and growth within an emerging economy. Factors such as whether the firm is a Big 4, a firm with international affiliation, a local firm and the type of industry were studied to analyse the reasons behind audit firm retention and growth.

This research is based on a field study related to audit firms providing services to listed companies in an emerging economy. The sample includes the top 100 publicly held companies’ in the Egyptian stock market during 2006-2011 for which their annual reports are analysed to determine the audit firms’ retention and growth. An assessment of the continuity of the auditors and the increase in the number of audit clients were also measured.

The results confirm that industry specialization has an important effect on the auditor’s retention, especially for industries where capital investment is significant such as buildings, construction, financial services, housing and real estate. Big 4 audit firms retained their clients because of their industry specialization and brand name. Evidence was found that good knowledge of accounting and auditing standards resulted in audit firms with international affiliation competing with the Big 4 for clients’ retention and growth.

This study contributes to the existing literature, as it is among the first to provide empirical evidence on auditor retention, growth and auditor’s dominance in an emerging economy such as Egypt.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the incremental information content of audit opinion while considering opinion determinants, such as auditor and auditee size, or a firm’s financial state.

A market valuation model is employed using US firm data collected over 30 years. The model relates stock returns to earnings and incorporates as additional variables auditors’ opinion types, opinion determinants and their interactions with audit expression.

The findings suggest that audit opinion has a significant market impact. The estimated positive or negative information content of the audit opinion types is associated with certain opinion determinants, such as auditor and auditee size and a firm’s financial state.

Additional firm-year observations regarding certain opinion qualifications could benefit future research.

This study offers useful insights by demonstrating the importance of auditing profession to the users of financial statements. It examines investors’ perception of each audit opinion type and the conditions under which this expression has the most serious effects. The results demonstrate the role of audit opinion and its cause-effect relationship with various economic events, allowing regulators not only to track the efficiency of various audit policy changes but also act preventively and amend the regulatory framework.

This paper empirically supports the significance of the auditing process and audit opinions by examining investor perceptions. It employs a value relevance model, in contrast to market-based research that adopts an event study methodology.

Because there is mixed evidence regarding Big N fee premiums across countries, the purpose of this paper is to re-examine the phenomenon of audit price differentiations in the market for auditing services in Thailand. Although Hay et al. (2006) and Hay (2013) reviewed over 80 audit fee papers from 20 countries over 25 years, 13 of which were based in emerging economies, the understanding of the market for auditing services in Thailand remains limited. Because the Thai auditing market is also classified as a segmented market – i.e., a market that is less competitive for large-client firms and more competitive for small-client firms – this study tests audit price competition in an emerging audit market using Thailand as an example.

The traditional audit fee model is used to estimate audit fee premiums for a sample of over 300 non-financial companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand in 2011.

Although the market for auditing services in Thailand is consistent with that described in Ferguson et al. (2013) – in which Big N audit firms dominate only the large-client segment – the results show that Big N auditors charge higher audit fees and earn higher fee premiums compared with non-Big N auditors in both the small- and large-client segments of the audit market.

The evidence from this study reveals the existence of Big N fee premiums across market segmentations. Audit price differentials between Big N and non-Big N firms in both small- and large-client market segments might concern regulators regarding competition in the audit market with respect to whether the Big N firms are charging uncompetitive audit fees. These findings also imply that audit pricing varies across countries and the Big N price deferential is typically larger in emerging markets than in more developed audit markets and that it might be inadequate to study single-country audit pricing. However, the question whether the Big N fee premium results from Big N product differentiation is not directly investigated in this study.

Because earlier studies focusing on audit fee premiums have been conducted using data from the USA and Australia, the findings add to the limited evidence regarding audit fee premiums in an emerging country such as Thailand.

The historical development and size of China’s audit market provides an opportunity to investigate important questions regarding the functioning of the market for audit services that are difficult, if not impossible, to test in other globally established markets. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of the market entry of the Big Four accounting firms into China on the audit fees charged by its local accounting firms.

In this paper the authors rely primarily on the incumbent pricing literature (Simon, 2005; Geroski, 1995) to assist them in developing the specific hypotheses and empirical tests. This paper is an empirical study, which examines whether local incumbent accounting firms cut prices in response to the Big Four’s entry by using data from annual reports and audit reports for China’s listed companies from the 1994 to 2008 period.

This study shows that local incumbent firms cut prices post-entry. This study also finds that it was local large-sized accounting firms as well as accounting firms located in regions with highly developed- and competitive markets that cut prices in response to the Big Four’s entry.

This study has important implications for the Big Four accounting firms as it provides useful information about pricing strategies that would likely be used by local accounting firms in a new market. Local accounting firms in emerging markets can also gain useful insights about the pricing strategies adopted by the Big Four accounting firms when they enter a market.

Audit market research has little to offer on how local accounting firms respond in their pricing to the entry of Big Four accounting firms into their market, mainly because in western countries such as Canada, England, and the USA, the Big Four accounting firms are the oldest firms operating in those markets. This paper is the first study that examines the effect of the market entry of the Big Four accounting firms into China.

This study aims to examine the effects of the entry of foreign direct investments (FDIs) on the audit markets in developing countries (i.e. Egypt). There is a long-standing debate on the impact of FDIs on developing markets, but little is still known about the effect of FDI on national suppliers, such as audit firms.

This paper reports the results of a study that used qualitative research methods. It involves interviews with senior management teams of the Big 4 audit firms, to find out how these firms deal simultaneously with conflicting global and local influences. The interviews were complemented by the publicly available data on the firms’ websites as well as published reports related to the Egyptian economy and current investment regulations.

Drawing on the institutional theory, the findings suggest that an increased litigious environment, compliance with developed markets’ regulations, auditor regulatory sanctions and improved local accounting and auditing standards are highly significant consequences of foreign investment inflows. The findings indicate that more emphasis has been given to the quality of audit and auditors’ independence when auditing FDIs. Both audit regulators and audit firms in the domestic market pay higher attention to improving the quality of financial reports when FDIs have entered the market. More inspections and reviews for audit firms have been conducted, and local auditing and accounting standards have been revised to be in compliance with international standards.

Our results have important implications for investors, regulatory authorities and governments in relation to the development, implementation and enforcement of international financial reporting and auditing standards.

Policymakers and regulators in Egypt have responded to international pressure by revitalizing their local accounting and auditing standards and adopting international financial reporting and auditing standards. The authors identify strategies that have been adopted by audit firms to face the FDIs’ challenges.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether the major international audit firms reach collusive agreements in Spain, in order to exercise market power and impose higher prices than those of competitors. According to the traditional theory of oligopoly, the ability to achieve these agreements is dependent primarily on the high level of market concentration, so that multiple studies have analysed the relationship between concentration and prices. However, the concentration has serious limitations to infer collusion and therefore the exercise of market power (Dedman and Lennox, 2009).

Based on an alternative current of the theory of industrial organisation, the authors use measures of industrial mobility as a measure of collusion or rivalry of firms in oligopolistic markets.

The results reveal that international audit firms do not reach collusive agreements to limit competition between them.

According to the empirical evidence obtained, the measures taken by the regulatory bodies to avoid market concentration would not be necessary or efficient and they would have significant costs for the audit market (GAO, 2003, 2008; FRC, 2009; European Commission, 2010; Competition Commission, 2013).

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to introduce mobility measures to explain market collusion and the exercise of market power in the audit market.

El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar si las Grandes Firmas Internacionales de auditoría alcanzan acuerdos colusivos en España con la finalidad de ejercer poder de mercado e imponer precios superiores a los de los competidores. Según la teoría tradicional del oligopolio, la capacidad para alcanzar estos acuerdos se hace depender fundamentalmente del alto nivel de concentración del mercado, por lo que múltiples estudios han analizado la relación entre concentración y precios. Sin embargo, la concentración presenta serias limitaciones para inferir la colusión y, por tanto, el ejercicio del poder de mercado (Dedman y Lennox, 2009).

Basándonos en una corriente alternativa de la teoría de la organización industrial, utilizamos medidas de movilidad industrial como medida de la colusión o rivalidad de las empresas en mercados oligopolistas.

Nuestros resultados revelan que las firmas internacionales de auditoría no alcanzan acuerdos colusivos para limitar la competencia entre ellas.

Según la evidencia empírica que obtenemos, las medidas adoptadas por los organismos reguladores con la finalidad de desconcentrar el mercado, las cuales presentan importantes costes para el mercado de auditoría, no resultarían ni necesarias ni eficientes (GAO, 2003, 2008; FRC, 2009; Comisión Europea, 2010; Competition Commission, 2013).

Hasta donde conocemos, éste es el primer estudio que introduce medidas de movilidad del mercado para explicar la colusión y el ejercicio del poder de mercado en el mercado de auditoría.

While recently introduced EU regulation on the statutory audit of public interest entities (PIEs) aims to improve audit competition and quality, its success and impact depends on the definition of a PIE applied across the various EU Member States. In the UK, even though little is known about their auditing choices, these changes will not apply to most private companies despite their importance to the wider economy. The purpose of this paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of the private company audit market and examine the lobbying behaviour of the accounting profession around the definition of a PIE in the UK.

Using a large panel of independent private company audits in the UK and a textual analysis of submitted comment letters to a government consultation on the new regulation, this paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the audit market for private companies by measuring supplier concentration using four different measures of market share, and of the lobbying behaviour of the accounting profession.

There are two main findings. First, the private company audit market is characterised by low auditor switching rates along with a tight oligopoly of the largest independent private company audits maintained by the Big Four audit firms. Second, the lobbying behaviour of accounting and audit firms sought, and succeeded, to limit the scope of the definition of a PIE in the UK, consistent with the theoretical predictions of monopoly capitalism and the theory of professions.

The paper shows that the definition and scope of a PIE needs revisiting both within the UK and across all EU Member States, with a view to including more of these economically important private companies and highlights the policy challenge of increasing competition and choice in a concentrated audit market.

This study aims to study the relationship between audit components and collusion in the audit market.

The statistical population of the study includes 130 listed firms on the Tehran Stock Exchange from 2012-2017. The data tested using multivariate regression.

The findings of the study indicate that there is a positive and significant relationship between Rank A audit firms, competition and audit fees and audit market adaptability. The relationship standard fees and audit market adaptability, however, is negative and significant. Moreover, the results of the study show that there is no significant relationship between opinion shopping, type of audit report, audit market concentration, and agency costs with audit market adaptability.

The current study fills the gap in this area, and the results of the study may give direction to researchers and policy makers.

Purpose – This study examines the relationship between Big Four audit firm country-level market shares and audit fees across a sample of nine emerging economies: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and Taiwan.

Design/methodology/approach – First, auditor market share is calculated as a percentage of client sales based on all publicly traded companies in each of the sample countries during the period 2002–2005. Next, Audit Analytics is used to obtain audit fee data for a set of foreign companies listed on a primary U.S. exchange. A final sample of 483 client-year observations is included in the audit fee regression analysis.

Findings – After controlling for other factors related to audit pricing, Big Four auditors with dominant country-level market shares earn a fee premium of approximately 27% over competitor firms.

Originality/value – These results suggest that individual Big Four firm reputations, as measured by fee premiums, are not homogeneous across countries. Rather, it appears the largest audit firms are associated with quality-differentiated services and thus earn higher fees. Although accounting research tends to classify large international accounting firms into a pool of the “Big Four,” these findings indicate that it is important to consider each firm's market share in specific geographic locations when examining questions related to auditor reputation and pricing.

This chapter examines China’s corporate governance and accounting environment that shapes the adoption of internationally acceptable principles and standards. Specifically, it examines international influences, including supranational organizations; foreign investors and international accounting firms; domestic institutional influences, including the political system, economic system, legal system, and cultural system; and accounting infrastructure. China’s convergence is driven by desired efficiency of the corporate sector and legitimacy of participating in the global market. Influenced heavily by international forces in the context of globalization, corporate governance and accounting practices are increasingly becoming in line with internationally acceptable standards and codes. While convergence assists China in obtaining legitimacy, improving efficiency is likely to be adversely affected given that corporate governance and accounting in China operate in an environment that differs considerably from those of Anglo-American countries. An examination of the corporate governance and accounting environment in China suggests heavy government involvement within underdeveloped institutions. While the Chinese government has made impressive progress in developing the corporate governance and accounting environment for the market economy, China’s unique institutional setting is likely to affect how the imported concepts are interpreted and implemented.