Search results

Despite the extensive research on the determinants of audit pricing in both public and private settings, there is a lack of research about the differences in audit fees between voluntary audits and mandatory audits. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap.

First, a theoretical framework is developed to justify differences in audit pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits. Next, using a sample of Spanish private small and medium enterprises (SMEs) running from 2009 to 2014, the authors empirically test whether the fees charged for voluntary audits differ from those charged for mandatory ones. The authors also examine whether the premium observed among large auditors is persistent in the SME setting, and whether this premium differs depending on whether the audits are voluntary or mandatory.

Although a preliminary analysis does not report significant differences in pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits, additional analyses using samples restricted by company size show that voluntary audits are charged with a premium. The authors observe a premium related to large auditors, and find no significant differences in the audit pricing of Big 4 auditors depending on the mandatory/voluntary nature of the audit, but the premium associated with Middle-Tier auditors disappears in the voluntary setting.

This paper contributes to the previous literature by introducing the examination of differences in audit pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits. As far as the authors know, this is the first study to examine the differences in audit pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits. It also elaborates on studies on audit pricing in SMEs.

A pesar de la extensa investigación sobre los determinantes de los honorarios de auditoría tanto en el entorno de las empresas cotizadas como de las no cotizadas, existe poca investigación sobre las diferencias en los honorarios entre las auditorías voluntarias y las obligatorias. El presente estudio aborda esta carencia.

En primer lugar, se desarrolla un marco teórico que trata de justificar diferencias en el precio de la auditoría entre auditorías voluntarias y obligatorias. Después, usando una muestra de pymes españolas no cotizadas para el período 2009–2014, testamos empíricamente si los honorarios cargados en las auditorías voluntarias difieren de los cargados en las auditorías obligatorias. Examinamos también si la prima observada entre los grandes auditores en el entorno de las pymes es persistente, y si esta prima difiere en función de si la auditoría es voluntaria u obligatoria.

Aunque el análisis preliminar no reporta diferencias significativas en el precio de la auditoría entre auditorías voluntarias y obligatorias, análisis adicionales usando muestras restringidas por el tamaño de las compañías muestran que las auditorías voluntarias soportan una prima con respecto a las obligatorias. Observamos también una prima relacionada con los auditores grandes y medianos, y no encontramos diferencias significativas en el precio de la auditoría para las Big 4 en función de la naturaleza obligatoria/voluntaria de la auditoría, mientras que la prima asociada con los auditores medianos desaparece en el entorno voluntario.

El estudio contribuye a la literatura previa al introducir el análisis de las diferencias en el precio de la auditoría entre auditorías voluntarias y obligatorias. Hasta donde sabemos, éste es el primer estudio que examina las diferencias de precio entre ambos entornos. El estudio también extiende la literatura previa sobre los honorarios de auditoría en las pymes.

The purpose of this paper is to examine external auditors' perceptions of the impact of audit committee financial expertise and industry expertise on the mediating role played by the committee in resolving auditor‐client disagreements.

The study is a 2×2 between subjects experimental design, using 61 Malaysian auditors as participants. The authors manipulate audit committee financial expertise and industry expertise at high and low levels.

It is found that external auditors perceive that audit committees play a greater mediating role and use mediating techniques to a greater extent when committee members' financial and industry expertise is high compared to when expertise is lower.

This is the first paper to examine the importance of audit committee expertise on the mediating role of the audit committee. The major contribution of the paper is the finding that auditors believe the audit committee's role as a mediator is strengthened not only by the committee members' accounting and auditing expertise but also by their industry expertise. The paper's findings have implications for practitioners and regulators who are concerned with the role of the audit committee in enhancing the integrity of the financial reporting and audit process.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of a client's potentially conflicting needs for privacy and industry expertise on auditor concentration.

The method examines the distribution of auditor concentration assuming that auditor choice occurs randomly. It then examines the observed distribution within the random assignment to consider whether the privacy or expertise motive dominates.

The main finding is that at the client industry level, clients in a dominant firm industry structure prefer privacy; whereas clients in a competitive market structure prefer expertise.

An implication of this paper is that an increase in the number of large auditors may change auditor concentration in client industries that prefer privacy, an auditor different from its competitor.

Policy makers should note that auditor concentration is not only a function of the number of auditors, but also of the client industry structure.

The results provide a new measure for industry specialists and provide additional insight regarding auditor choice when privacy is relevant.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential impact of two affiliation factors, as encapsulated by the chief financial officer's (CFO) prior organizational (alumnus vs non‐alumnus) and professional background (audit vs non‐audit ex‐partner), on auditor independence in post‐Enron and post‐HIH era.

The study is a 2×2 factorial between subjects experimental design with 52 audit partners and managers as participants. The two manipulated independent variables are client CFO prior firm affiliation (alumni vs non‐alumni) and professional background (audit partner vs non‐audit partner providing taxation, accounting and other non‐audit services).

The results of the study do not appear to signal loss of independence and professional skepticism in auditors' judgment when dealing with an alumni or ex‐auditor CFO. On average, auditors' endorsement of the client's preferred aggressive accounting treatment is low and the audit adjustment is material and significantly greater than the client's proposed adjustment.

The 2001 corporate collapses of Enron in the USA and HIH in Australia have reshaped the auditing profession. HIH, the most publicized corporate fraud in Australia resulting in estimated losses of $5 billion, was partly blamed on Arthur Andersen yielding to management's aggressive accounting policies and failure to display independence as a result of close relationships between the former partners and the audit team. As distinct from a number of prior studies conducted pre‐Enron and pre‐HIH, the results of this study, conducted with experienced audit professionals in Australia, do not support a loss of independence and professional skepticism by auditors in the current post‐Enron and post‐HIH environment and are consistent with the findings of the only other recent experimental study by Kerler III and Killough examining the closeness of the auditor‐client relationship. The results are also consistent with results of recent archival studies which find a decline in earnings management behavior, either because of reduced management incentives or reduced auditor willingness to consent. The evidence of this study lends supports to the latter explanation.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between auditor industry differentiation (specialization) and the underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs). The intention is to determine whether IPO firms – particularly those in the small firm segment of the market where information asymmetry is likely to be greatest – can benefit from significantly better IPO pricing by engaging the services of differentiated auditors.

The paper examines a broad sample of initial public offerings made between 1991 and 2000. It also conducts univariate and multivariate tests to assess the relationship between IPO underpricing and auditor industry specialization.

The paper finds that IPOs audited by Big 6 firms experience significantly less underpricing than IPOs audited by non‐Big 6 firms, particularly among small clients. It also finds an additional (and significantly larger) reduction in underpricing when the client engages an auditor that has established itself as the clear leader in its industry.

The results in this paper may not be generalizable to different countries. They do, however, appear to be robust in the USA throughout the ten‐year sample period.

The paper shows that it may not be feasible for all clients in the small‐firm segment of the market to engage specialist auditors. However, if they can, the results suggest that they could benefit from better IPO pricing.

The paper combines the auditor specialization literature with the IPO underpricing literature and also documents a significant economic benefit to smaller IPO firms.

The purpose of this paper is to present an exploratory study of employee voice and silence in international auditing firms. The authors examine two key questions: what is the propensity of employees in training to speak up on workplace problems and how would management react to employees in training speaking up on workplace problems?

The authors compare and contrast the views of employees on training contracts with management including partners. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with eight managers/partners and 20 employees working in six large auditing firms in Ireland.

The authors find that employees on training contracts have a high propensity to remain silent on workplace problems. Quiescent and acquiescent forms of silence were evident. Management expressed willingness to act on employee voice on workplace problems concerning business improvements and employee performance but were very resistant to voice in regard to a change in working conditions or a managers’ performance. Employees and management couched employee voice in terms of technical knowledge exchange rather than being associated with employee dissatisfaction or having a say in decision making.

The authors highlight how new professional employees are socialised into understanding that employee voice is not a democratic right and the paper provides insight on the important role of partners as owner/managers in perpetuating employee silence. Previous research on owner/managers has tended to focus on small businesses while the auditing firms in this study have large numbers of employees.

This paper examines the perceptions of senior auditors in large firms in Sydney, Kuala Lumpur and Auckland concerning the nature and assessment of the inherent risk in risk based auditing. The geographic dispersion of participants from internationally linked firms does not appear to result in any cultural and geographic effects. Assessment of inherent risk appears predominantly qualitative and is not necessarily linked to the comprehensive aggregation of risks typically presented in audit risk models. There is some blurring of control risk factors with inherent risk and one‐third of participants assess inherent and control risk jointly. Risk factors appear to be grouped in importance in a manner that suggests different attitudes to management, system‐oriented, environmental and oversight risks. The identification of four possible factors (internal risk, external risk, system risk and oversight threats) may provide a basis for further investigation of how auditors assess inherent risk. There is an apparent division between “internally” and “externally” sourced risk.

The Maqāṣid (objective) hierarchy is a triple-tiered conceptualisation of individual and social needs that is grounded in the five objectives of Sharīʿah (Islamic Law). Managerialism is the ideological representation of human interaction based on managerial doctrines and practices. This paper aims to explore the tension between the Maqāṣid hierarchy and managerialism by evaluating the Sharīʿah requirements in the Islamic Financial Services Act (IFSA) 2013 of Malaysia from the Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah perspective.

This qualitative study uses an inductive approach to review the sources of Sharīʿah and classical literature of Islamic jurists to present Sharīʿah rulings on managerialism and Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah.

The Maqāṣid hierarchy promotes a vision of human life that is the opposite of managerialism. In the case of IFSA 2013, the Maqāṣid hierarchy, which is supposed to be the bedrock for Islamic finance, is replaced by a managerial hierarchy closer to Maslow’s hierarchy than it is to Imam Shatibi’s concept of human life. A process of fitting the Maqāṣid hierarchy into a narrow managerial mould occurs in IFSA 2013, meaning that many of the unique aspects of the Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah are lost.

This study will assist Sharīʿah scholars, policymakers and Islamic financial institutions to develop the financial system and to implement the Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah to improve macro policy and shaping Islamic institutions.

This is a pioneer study that develops a bridge between the Islamic Maqāṣid and conventional managerial hierarchies, which will encourage academics and practitioners to enrich the literature by conducting more in-depth studies on this topic.