Search results

This paper aims to examine how different types of corporate political connections (PCs) affect auditor choice decisions (and, therefore, audit quality) and audit opinions following the 2013 Egyptian uprising.

This paper utilizes a unique hand-collected dataset on the type of PCs of Egyptian listed companies from 2014 to 2019. Several analyses are employed to test the hypotheses, including logit regression, probit regression and generalized linear mixed models (GLMM). A number of additional analyses are conducted to ensure the robustness of the results, including the instrumental variables (IVs) probit models and propensity score matching (PSM).

The results show that firms' choice of auditor and audit opinion is heavily influenced by firms' PCs. Companies with PCs through boards of directors and major shareholders hire Big 4 audit firms to enhance corporate legitimacy; however, government-linked companies usually retain non-Big 4 audit firms to avoid increased transparency and to conceal improper activities, including tunneling and rent-seeking. Further, the results indicate that companies with PCs through boards of directors or major shareholders are more likely to receive favorable audit opinions, whereas government-owned businesses are less likely to receive such opinions.

This study provides additional evidence to policymakers that binding regulations and guidelines are necessary to oversee politically connected firms (PCFs) and to enhance governance and investor protection.

This study provides the first empirical evidence on how corporate PCs influence the choice of auditors and the opinions of audit firms in Egypt. This paper also sheds light on the impact of different types of corporate PCs on the choice of auditors and audit opinions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of ethnicity on auditor choice for Malaysian listed companies.

This study evaluates the effects of various independent variables on auditor choice behaviour, particularly ethnicity of auditor and ethnicity of management, using a logistic regression analysis approach for 300 companies listed on the Bursa Malaysia (formerly known as Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange‐KLSE) over an 18 year period.

Auditor choice is shown to be significantly influenced by client firm's characteristics, notably changes in management, complexity, and financial risk, lending support to the findings of previous survey studies. Ethnicity was found to be a significant factor influencing auditor choice only for auditor switches between non‐Big 4 and Big 4 firms.

A number of important variables such as corporate governance characteristics, audit fees, client size, and growth that might enhance an understanding of auditor choice behaviour in Malaysia were not incorporated in the regression models, and might be considered in future studies.

The results presented in the paper have important implications for both the auditing profession and regulators in Malaysia.

This paper aims to examine various factors affecting the pricing of audit services and the selection of auditors in the Indian audit market. This paper also aims to investigate the impact of financial distress conditions on the audit pricing and auditor choice decisions of a firm, particularly in the context of a developing economy.

The sample comprises 22,644 firm-years for 1,366 Indian firms from 1990 to 2015. The authors adopt ordinary least squares regression technique to model audit fee, and logistic regression technique to model auditor choice as a function of various factors relating to firm attributes and auditor characteristics.

This paper finds that auditors tend to charge an audit fee premium when they are affiliated to a Big 4 auditor, have industry specialization or jointly provide auditing and non-auditing services. Additionally, firms with larger boards, higher proportion of independent board of directors and CEO–Chairman separation are more likely to choose a Big 4-affiliated auditor. The results also suggest that financially distressed firms tend to pay significantly lower audit fees and are more likely to choose non-Big 4 auditors.

This paper is among the few studies which investigate how financial distress impacts the audit pricing and auditor choice decisions of a firm in the context of emerging economies. The findings of this paper raises serious concerns about the credibility of the audited financial statements and corporate governance mechanisms of firms undergoing financial distress. The empirical results of this paper have strong implications for practitioners, regulators and investors.

From an agency perspective, the authors investigate whether family ownership and control configurations are systematically associated with a firm's choice of auditor and audit fees. Agency theory is an economic theory that purposes the existence of a contract between two parties, principals and agents. Auditor choice and audit fees by family firms provide interesting insights given the unique nature of the agency problems faced by such firms.

The authors employ Big-4 auditors (PWC, KPMG, E&Y and Deloitte) as a proxy for high quality auditor (Big N) for the auditor choice model. For the audit fee model, the dependent variable is the natural logarithm of audit fees (LnAF). The authors use two measures for family firm as explanatory variables: (1) a dummy variable (FAM_Control), which equals one if the firm is classified as a family firm and (2) FAM_Ownership, which is an indicator variable with a value of one if a firm has family members who hold CEO position, occupy board seats, or hold at least 10% of the firm's equity. Data of Chinese listed firms from 2011 to 2021 are used. The authors adopt the Heckman (1979) two-stage model to mitigate the potential endogeneity issue involved in the selection of Big-N auditors.

The findings suggest that compared with non-family firms, Chinese family firms have a less tendency to employ Big-4 auditors due to less severe agency problems between owners and managers. Additionally, Chinese family firms sustain higher audit fees than non-family firms. Similar to the prior literature, however, Chinese family firms audited by Big-4 auditors incur lower audit fees than family firms audited by non-Big-4 auditors in this study. In contrast to young-family firms, old-family firms are less likely to pick top-tier auditors and sustain lower audit fees. Consistent and robust results are found from endogeneity tests and sensitivity analyses.

The empirical evidence provides a unique insight, for accounting practitioners, policymakers, family owners and other capital market participants concerning the diverse effects of various family ownership and control features on selecting high-quality auditors and audit fees. This study advances the understanding, showing that a lower demand for audit quality occurs in Chinese family firms as they encounter less severe Type I agency problems. However, the more severe Type II agency problems in Chinese family firms sustain higher audit fees due to higher audit risk and greater audit effort.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which ethnic association (i.e. Chinese and Bumiputra ownerships) and national issues (i.e. the presence of foreign corporations) influence the audit services market in Malaysia. Specifically, the paper aims to examine the effects of ethnicity and foreign ownership on choice of auditor.

Two logit models are used; the first is to test on ethnic auditor (Chinese/non‐Chinese) choice while the second is related to the choice of quality‐differentiated auditor. The data is obtained from annual reports of the population of the Bursa Malaysia listed companies for both the Main Board and the Second Board for the periods 1993‐1995.

The logit regressions confirm our prediction of ethnic networking and preferential treatment on the auditor selection process.

The first limitation lies on the auditor choice model where the model is developed from a demand perspective, assuming that the auditors are willing to supply services to any client even though it is very unlikely in the real world. The model also assumes that the audit engagement process for foreign‐controlled companies is purely transacted in the Malaysian market. However, foreign multinational corporations might determine the selection of the auditor at the headquarter offices and the Malaysian subsidiaries might simply be directed to engage a given auditor. Another limitation relates to the results of the logit regressions as the study has documented an ethnic association between auditor and auditee rather than establishing a causal relationship.

An important implication of these findings relates to auditor independence. The Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) has made rules prescribing the code of professional conduct and ethics of public accountants known as the MIA By‐Laws (on Professional Conduct and Ethics) but it seems to neglect the diversity of local culture in addressing independence. Whilst the auditor is divorced from financial and familial interests, the ethnic sentiments might impair auditor independence especially in an audit conflict situation.

The paper provides important insights into the existence of Chinese business practices in Malaysia and auditor selection process in this country.

This study aims to examine the effects of agency cost on auditor choice. This paper also deals with the moderating role of the board’s financial expertise (Bfe) and the status of the internal control (Intecon) system on the relationship between agency cost and auditor selection.

This study’s sample consists of 1,040 firm-year observations of Iranian nonfinancial companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2019. The information required for this research is mainly extracted from Comprehensive Database of All Listed Companies (in Iran Stock Exchange). Data from 130 companies were obtained during the research period. This study used logistic regression to test the hypotheses.

The findings indicate that companies with higher agency costs choose the auditor from lower classes. As the proportion of financial expert members on the board increases, the intensity of this relationship will be reduced. Companies with higher agency costs choose the auditor from the lower classes, but the higher the ratio of financial expert board members, the more these companies will choose high-quality auditors. However, findings showed that the status of the Intecon system has no moderating effect on the relationship between agency costs and auditor selection.

The results of this study can expand the existing literature on the relationship between auditor selection and agency costs and the factors affecting this relationship, especially the Bfe and Intecon. This research has significant suggestions for regulators, stakeholders, shareholders and analysts in emerging economies that may encounter similar contextual implications.

This paper investigates the role of board independence in determining the relationship between firm ownership and auditor choice.

The research uses a logistic regression to test the direct and indirect effects of ownership structure on the decision to hire a high-quality (Big 4) audit firm. The sample consists of 207 non-financial firms listed on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries stock markets between 2009 and 2016.

Empirical findings show that family ownership is associated with a negative and significant coefficient suggesting that an increase in family ownership decreases the likelihood that the firm will employ a Big 4 auditor. This finding suggests that family owners are reluctant to impose external monitoring. Furthermore, we find a positive relationship between institutional ownership and auditor choice supporting the conjecture that institutional investors are more likely to choose a Big 4 auditor. The results also reveal that the effects of family and institutional ownership on auditor choice are partially mediated by independent directors.

This study has important implications for GCC economies whose policymakers and regulators may need to address the conflict between controlling and non-controlling shareholders. It provides guidance for firms in the construction and implementation of their own corporate governance policies. Furthermore, the study findings may be useful to investors, assisting them in making better informed decisions and aids other interested parties in gaining a better understanding of the role played by ownership structure in the quality of auditors. Finally, the paper highlights the importance of the composition of the board of directors in increasing the likelihood of hiring a high-quality audit firm.

The main contribution of the present paper is to examine the board composition as a potential mediating variable between ownership structure and auditor choice. Moreover, it highlights the issue of improving governance mechanisms.

Sustainability assurance services are carried out in a competitive market where a wide range of assurance providers operate without the need for any specific professional qualifications, competencies or skills. Assurance providers have heterogeneous professional backgrounds and experiences that lead to substantial diversity in sustainability assurance quality levels. This paper aims to provide an understanding of sustainability assurance quality. From a legitimacy perspective, the authors focus on the choice of assurance providers by exploring why a company voluntarily chooses an incumbent financial auditor to jointly provide audit and sustainability assurance services. The authors argue that to avoid the legitimacy threats undermining stakeholders’ confidence in the sustainability information disclosed, companies should only choose their incumbent financial auditors to provide sustainability assurance services when these auditors possess the professional attributes associated with sustainability assurance quality.

This study develops regression models for an international sample for 2007–2016, where the authors analyze why a company voluntarily chooses an incumbent auditor to jointly provide audit and sustainability assurance services from a legitimacy theory perspective.

Evidence confirms that the choice of incumbent auditors as assurance providers is more likely when these providers are more specialized in the industry. The authors also find that independence does not play a significant role in this decision. Therefore, an assurance provider’s industry specialization can be understood as an attribute that is associated with sustainability assurance quality and one which limits the legitimacy threats caused by a lack of sufficient sustainability knowledge.

Given that companies have complete freedom when choosing their assurance providers, the selection of a high-quality incumbent auditor is an indirect measure of social commitment and a mechanism to improve public trust. The results confirm that it is fundamental for firms to understand the situations when choosing an incumbent financial auditor to provide sustainability assurance services is the best way to ensure firm legitimacy while obtaining higher sustainability assurance quality due to the spillover effect. This paper provides useful evidence for firms and managers who can become aware that the legitimacy threat associated with the auditing profession’s questionable competence to conduct efficient sustainability assurance engagements can be reduced if they hire an incumbent financial auditor with greater industry specialization. For assurance providers, the results are especially useful, as they should know that companies will be more likely to choose their incumbent financial auditor when that auditor possesses certain professional attributes, like industry specialization. The ability to assimilate and exploit the knowledge gained through auditing activities can be improved even more by specialization, which enhances sustainability assurance quality.

From a social perspective, stakeholders perceive industry specialization as an indicator of the professional skills necessary to increase both the real and perceived quality of sustainability assurance services, thereby limiting the legitimacy threat arising from a lack of sustainability knowledge. The evidence also provides valuable results for regulatory bodies, as it shows that firms are not able to address the legitimacy gap caused by stakeholders’ perceptions that incumbent financial auditors can easily be controlled by companies. Thus, doubts arise as to whether this joint provision undermines auditor independence. Precisely, these doubts about assurance provider independence can erode public confidence in assurance and devalue the quality of the service. The results of this paper highlight the need to strengthen regulation on sustainability reporting and assurance. The advances and relevance of sustainable development in recent years and in future agendas require a firm commitment to sustainability reporting and assurance of quality, reliability, integrity and confidence.

First, this study contributes to recent empirical studies that focus on the role of sustainability assurance services in the legitimation process of corporate sustainability reporting. However, while that research analyzes how the legitimacy theory explains the voluntary adoption of sustainability assurance, this paper adds to the literature by presenting evidence about why certain incumbent auditors are appointed to carry out sustainability assurance services. Second, this paper contributes to the sustainability assurance quality literature. Third, unlike previous studies that have regressed various client-specific and institutional factors that influence firms’ decisions to choose assurance providers, this study contributes to the research by providing knowledge about a set of professional features that may explain the decision model of assurance providers selection from a legitimacy perspective.

This study aims to explore the relationship between audit partner and firm industry specialization and board of director independence on the decision by Taiwanese firms to use International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) flexibility concerning reporting interest income and expense and dividends received in different sections of the statement of cash flows. This flexibility existed in Taiwan for the first time in 2013, the year that Taiwan switched from its own generally accepted accounting principle to IFRS.

Using 2013 data for a sample of 1,227 firms, 354 of whom changed their reporting classification, this study examined the interaction effect of board independence and partner-level and firm-level auditor industry specialization on the cash flow reporting decision using logistic regression.

The results show there is a substitute relationship between board independence and partner-level industry specialization on the change in cash flow reporting classification, but a complementary relationship between board independence and firm-level auditor specialization. Further, both partner-level and firm-level auditor industry specializations have a complementary (but negative) relationship with board independence as to whether the firm is likely to report interest expense paid in the operating or financing activities sections.

An important implication is that knowing the levels of audit firm and partner specialization and how independent the board is, is useful for researchers and regulators in investigating auditor-client relationships and understanding the influences of variables investigated here on the outcome(s) of accounting policy and regulatory changes.

This study improved the field’s understanding of the impacts of audit partner and firm specialization, board independence and relevant interactions on cash flow reporting choices.

The study examines the changes in audit market concentration, auditor choice and audit quality in Russia following International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption. Scholars have called for further examination of the effects of IFRS adoption on auditors, with an emphasis on the importance of analyzing emerging markets that are characterized by enforcement challenges and lack of proper infrastructure. It focuses on a unique feature of Russian companies – dual audits under Russian Accounting Standards (RAS) and IFRS – and investigates changes in audit concentration and audit quality for the two audit markets.

The authors rely on the audited financial statements of Russian public companies and perform pre-/post-IFRS adoption estimation using a logit regression to ascertain whether public firms change auditors from local firms with limited IFRS expertise to those with global reputation, namely Big 4 audit firms. Further, they examine whether the change in audit market concentration post-2012 affects audit quality as proxied by companies' propensity to receive a modified audit opinion and discretionary accruals. Auditor attributes were hand-collected from audited financial statements and matched with financial variables from Datastream.

The IFRS audit market was dominated by the Big 4 audit firms prior to 2012, and there is strong evidence that audit market share (concentration) increases for IFRS reports but not for RAS reports. In addition, companies are more likely to choose a Big 4 audit firm for an RAS audit, conditional upon a Big 4 firm conducting the IFRS audit. The authors do not find evidence of decrease in the probability of audit firms issuing a modified audit opinion under either RAS or IFRS, indicating that, in the Russian setting, increased auditor concentration post-IFRS adoption does not lead to enhanced risk or decline in audit quality. Moreover, they find that discretionary accruals decline post-2012. Overall, the findings indicate that the concern of global regulators regarding audit market concentration is not justified.

The Russian reporting environment is unique and generally characterized by significant agency problems, and the study’s estimation sample is not large, compared to prior studies conducted predominantly in Western jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the authors shed light on the audit concentration phenomenon within emerging markets, for which empirical evidence is scarce. Future research could explore the impact of other capital market events and exogenous shocks, not limited to IFRS adoption, on the characteristics of Russia's audit market.

The IFRS reporting regime is commonly associated with enhanced reporting quality and improved information transparency among public companies. Yet, impairment of audit quality as a result of IFRS-driven increase in audit market share of Big 4 can potentially negate these capital market effects. This study shows that the concerns of global regulators are not valid and that audit quality does not change with increased share of Big 4 post-IFRS adoption.

Dual audits, whereby companies must prepare two sets of financial statements per the IFRS mandate, are not unique to Russia, and the evidence of IFRS reporting on the structural changes in the audit market and implications for audit quality under a dual regime is scarce. Accordingly, the study's findings are important and timely and are expected to aid regulators of countries that have announced or are contemplating the adoption of IFRS for public reporting purposes.