Search results

This study aims to explore the audit quality supplied by the Big 4, large indigenous Chinese (LIC) and five largest second-tier international network (Tier 2) audit firms in China during the second phase of their audit market development.

Ordinary least squares regression is used on an archival sample of firm-year observations. Endogeneity and self-selection bias are addressed by creating a propensity score matched sample and using two-stage regression with the inverse Mills’ ratio.

Strong evidence is found for higher levels of actual audit quality for the Big 4 relative to both LIC and Tier 2 audit firms. Weak evidence is found regarding the audit quality superiority of Tier 2 relative to LIC audit firms. Furthermore, the actual audit quality differential between the Big 4 relative to the LIC and Tier 2 firms widens after adopting International Financial Reporting Standards, which is contrary to the intention of Chinese regulators.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first known empirical study to trisect Big N and non-Big N audit firm proxies into the Big 4, LIC and Tier 2. Currently, only qualitative studies have fully appreciated the unique regulatory roles of these three firm structures in developing China’s audit market, which reflect tensions between reliance on foreign expertise and self-determination. In addition, this study adds to the ongoing global dialogue on Tier 2 as an alternative to the Big 4 and the benefits of international accounting network membership.

The purpose of this study is to examine the association between financial distress and accruals-based earnings management in emerging markets, and the role that auditors play in that association.

This study relies on a sample of 33,455 firm-year observations from 20 emerging markets, covering a large period of analysis of 20 years. A multivariate analysis is performed by considering the level of financial distress as the dependent variable, and the accruals-based earnings management and dummies for the type of auditor as the main independent ones.

The authors predict and find empirical evidence that firms facing greater financial distress engage in income-increasing accruals-based earnings management in emerging markets, and that such engagement is lower in firms audited by Big 4 firms compared to those audited by non-Big 4 auditors. The authors also find significant differences across Big 4 audit firms in their role of constraining income-increasing earnings management strategies in firms with high levels of financial distress.

The study adds to previous literature by investigating the association between financial distress and accruals-based earnings management in a comprehensive sample of 20 emerging markets, by providing important overall cross-country empirical evidence that has not been addressed by previous literature. The authors also bring new knowledge by discussing the role played by the Big 4 audit firms in limiting earnings management practices by firms with high levels of financial distress. Such a limitation serves as an important external corporate governance mechanism to restrain managers’ opportunistic behaviour in firms facing financial distress – especially in emerging economies characterized overall by institutional voids.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of audit quality on the value relevance of earnings and book value. Because joint audit is mandated for all Kuwait Stock Exchange-listed firms, it is hypothesized that the higher the quality of the audit team (as measured by the number of Big 4 audit firms in the joint audit team), the higher the value relevance of earnings and book values for equity valuation.

Consistent with prior research, the value relevance of earnings and book value is measured by the adjusted R² derived from the Ohlson’s 1995 regression model. The number of Big 4 audit firms represented on the firm’s audit team is used as a proxy for audit quality. Three tiers of audit quality exist, namely, two non-Big 4 audit firms, one Big 4 and one non-Big 4 audit firms or two Big 4 audit firms. To address this paper’s objective, the association between audit quality and the value relevance of earnings and book value were examined using four approaches. The final sample consists of 1,836 firm-year observations and covers fiscal years from a 12-year period (2002-2013).

Taken together, the four approaches used collectively provide empirical evidence that audit quality positively and significantly affects the value relevance of accounting measures to market participants. Importantly, the results reveal significant variations in the value relevance of earnings and book value jointly across the three possible auditor combinations.

Although using auditor size as a proxy for audit quality is well established in the auditing literature, a limitation of that proxy is that it measures audit quality dichotomously, which implicitly assumes a homogeneous level of audit quality within each group.

The findings show the importance of high-quality and rigorous external audits in improving the value relevance of accounting information.

This study contributes to the extent literature on audit quality by exploring the role of audit quality in a unique institutional setting that imposes mandatory joint audits. Although prior studies have investigated the effect of joint audit pair choice on earnings management and audit fee premium, this study is the first to investigate the effect of joint audit pair choice on the value relevance of accounting information.

The purpose of this paper is to report findings of audit quality differences amongst audit firms in a developing country. Specifically, the authors examine the assumption of marked audit quality differences amongst large audit firms (Big 4s) and the small and medium practices (SMPs).

First, the authors develop scales for assessing perceived audit quality in the financial services sector based on qualitative data obtained from 106 audit practitioners, 31 credit analysts and 13 board members. The authors use NVivo© to analyse the 13 transcribed interviews and follow “cross-case analysis” to visualize dimensions and scales of audit quality. Then the authors use measurement scales developed and obtain quantitative data from 183 board members and top executives in the financial services sector and test for perceived audit quality differences amongst audit firms using a Mann-Whitney U test.

The findings suggest that audit quality is a multi-dimensional construct comprising of levels of discretionary accruals; compliance of audited accounts to accounting standards, law and regulations; and audit fees. Based on these measures, the authors find that Big 4 audit firms ensure more compliance with accounting standards, law and other regulatory requirements than SMPs. However, taking all the three audit quality dimensions together reveals no significant differences in audit quality levels between Big 4 and SMPs.

In terms of auditor selection and retention, it is important that audit firms are assessed based on their ability to constrain discretionary accruals, to produce audited accounts that comply with requirements of accounting standards, the law and regulations; and to examine the fees they charge in relation to quality of service, than on their size. Also, as the results of this study suggest that Big 4 audit firms might be needed for compliance with accounting standards, law and other regulatory requirements, their audit ties in with the most basic level of auditing requiring probity and legality which, in practice, requires a low level of judgement to be exercised by those performing the audit. It might be useful for Big 4 and other audit firms to embark also on higher level of auditing requiring higher level of judgement. Future research may wish to examine auditing firms’ proclivity to higher level judgment audit.

Previous research reveals no consistent way of measuring audit quality and has been inconclusive on the subject of audit quality differential amongst audit firms. The authors create audit quality scales which can be used in assessing perceived audit quality in a developing country context and provide initial evidence of no significant differences between large audit firms and the SMPs regarding audit quality in Uganda.

Using the most recent observations (2005‐2011) from a sample of UK listed companies, This paper aims to investigate whether Big 4 audit firms exhibit a “fee premium” and, if this is the case, whether the premium is related to the delivery of a better audit service.

Univariate tests, multivariate regressions and two methodologies that control for self‐selection bias are used to answer the proposed research questions. Data are collected from DataStream.

Findings provide consistent evidence about the existence of an “audit fee premium” charged by Big 4 firms while they do not highlight any significant relationship between audit quality and type of auditor with respect to the audit quality proxies investigated.

Evidence from this paper might signal the need for legislative intervention to improve the competitiveness of the audit market on the basis that its concentrated structure is leading to “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients. Findings might also enhance Big 4 client bargaining power. However, as the paper analyses only one country, generalizability of the results might be a limitation.

This study joins two streams of the extant literature that investigate the existence of a “Big 4 audit fee premium” and different levels of audit quality among Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients. Evidence supports the concerns raised by the UK House of Lords in 2010 that the concentrated structure of the audit market could be the driver of “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients as it does not find differences in audit quality between Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients.

The purpose of this paper is to test whether firms audited by the same Big 4 audit firm (Big 4 continuing clients) are more/less likely to report material weaknesses (systemic material weaknesses) in internal controls over a financial reporting than those audited by the same Non‐Big 4 audit firm (Non‐Big 4 continuing clients) over the period 2005‐2008. It also investigates whether the number of material weaknesses and that of systemic material weaknesses varies among the two groups.

Logistic regression and count regression analysis for panel data tests the hypotheses using all firms that had SOX 404 filings and that were audited by the same auditor over the period 2005‐2008 (1,668 firms; 6,672 firm‐year observations).

Findings document that Big 4 continuing clients are less likely to report material weaknesses and systemic material weaknesses than Non‐Big 4 continuing clients, especially during the first two years of investigation. Results also demonstrate that the number of material weaknesses and that of systemic material weaknesses reported by Big 4 continuing clients is significantly lower than that reported by Non‐Big 4 continuing clients, primarily for the years 2005 and 2006.

Findings support the risk avoidance perspective where large audit firms avoid riskier clients due to potential litigation costs and/or due to potential sanctions by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Results also suggest that smaller audit firms did not extensively test the quality of internal controls prior to the year 2004. They highlight that the enactment of SOX 404 and the establishment of the PCAOB heightened audit firms focus on internal controls and raised their sensitivity to audit risk arising from weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting.

Although a number of studies suggest that big audit firms provide higher audit quality in strict legal environments, empirical evidence remains inconclusive. As little is known about the effect of auditor type on audit quality in less strictly legal environments, this study aims to investigate the impact of auditor type on audit quality in the Egyptian market.

Data of Egyptian-listed companies during the period 2011–2018 are used. To examine the impact of auditor type on audit quality, ordinary least square regression and robust standard errors clustered at year and industry level are used. This study uses discretionary accruals as a proxy for audit quality. Several additional analyzes are conducted to assess the robustness of the main results, including alternative measures of audit quality and auditor type.

The results show that audit firms tend to provide higher audit quality when they are affiliated with a foreign audit firm. However, Big 4 auditors do not provide higher audit quality compare to their counterparts. Additionally, the governmental agency, accountability state authority, that monopolize audit function in state-owned companies do not appear to be associated with higher audit quality. Finally, local audit firms have a negative association with audit quality. This may be their strategy to secure future clients that seek low-quality audits.

This study suggests that affiliation with foreign audit firms will help the Egyptian firms to develop their abilities by using advanced technology and techniques and transfer rare expertize to the Egyptian auditors. This study also shows that the strategy adopted by many Egyptian audit firms to affiliate with foreign auditors reflects the desire of these firms to be included in one tier alongside Big 4 audit firms to increase their market share under a claim of providing a higher audit quality.

This study adds to the rare but growing body of literature by investigating how auditor type affects audit quality in the context of less strictly legal environments. The results are important, as investors, standards-setters and regulators have growing concerns over audit quality since the Enron scandal. The findings suggest that audit quality depends on auditor type. These findings have important implications for investors, standards-setters and auditors interested in auditor oversight, audit quality and auditor choice.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of audit quality on firms’ compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing and disclosure. Differences in the compliance among the clients of Big-4 auditors and between the clients of Big-4 and non-Big-4 auditors are examined. This study also examines the effect of audit committee (AC) members’ accounting and finance backgrounds on firms’ compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing and disclosure.

Different univariate tests, multivariate regressions and fixed effect panel regressions have been used to examine the hypotheses. The sample includes 911 firm-year observations for the period of 2006-2009.

A statistically significant difference in compliance levels has been found between the clients of Big-4 and non-Big-4 auditors. The compliance levels of the clients of Big-4 auditors have also been found to be significantly different. The findings also suggest that AC members’ accounting and finance backgrounds are positively associated with firms’ compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing and disclosure.

The single country context and the single standard context limit the generalizability of the findings.

The findings of this study have important implications for researches in accounting, finance and corporate governance that usually consider Big-4 auditors vs non-Big-4 auditors as a proxy for audit quality. The results also reinforce the importance of developing institutional mechanisms such as high-quality auditing or corporate governance (AC members’ expertise) to encourage firms’ compliance with IFRS.

Firms’ compliance with IFRS for goodwill impairment testing is not essentially the same for the clients of all Big-4 auditors in Australia, suggesting that the quality of services provided by Big-4 auditors significantly differ from one another in enforcing their clients to compliance with IFRS. The lax enforcement on the part of auditors and the regulatory inaction in this regard may point to teething difficulties and systematic deficiencies in the move towards the impairment regime and fair value accounting. The findings also bear an important message for the move towards the harmonization of accounting practices.

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.