Search results

This study examines audit fee premiums from brand name, industry specialization, and industry leadership after the merger of two Big 6 audit firms, creating the Big 5 in 1998 in the Malaysian audit market. A sample of 679 companies listed at the main and second boards of Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE) are investigated for audit fee premiums. Industry specialization is determined on the basis of 20 per cent share of audit market calculated by the number of audited companies in the industry. Audit fee premiums are calculated based on the Simunic (1980) model of audit fees. Results show: that Big 5 audit firms obtain 65.4 per cent audit market share for all KLSE listed companies; that Big 5 audit firms earn higher audit fees than non‐Big 5; and that industry specialization does not generate audit fee premiums. The study finds evidence for audit fee premiums derived from industry market leadership. Results also reflect the competitiveness among Big 5 audit firms in the audit market especially following the merger of Big 6 audit firms.

This paper studies the audit fee structure in Hong Kong. By analysing data concerning a number of variables representing auditee size, auditee risk, complexity of audit, auditor identity, and the timing of audit, we develop a model of the determinants of audit fees which is applicable to the unique environment in Hong Kong. Using a more recent time period of 1992 and 1993, this study strongly confirms that most of the previous research findings are also applicable to the Hong Kong audit service market. We provide additional evidence relating to variables such as the Big Six (previously Big Eight) effects, auditee risk and auditee complexity which have been found to have inconclusive associations with the level of audit fees in previous research. Specifically, auditee size appears to have been the main determinant of audit fees, and the size measure is two‐dimensional, both asset and turnover respectively add explanatory power to that provided by each other. Complexity of audit adds significantly to the cost of audit. There is also evidence of Big Six effects and low‐balling. In addition, some evidence is found for the effects of auditee risk on audit fees. Finally, a longer audit delay, which reflects the possibility of inefficient audit time spent, entails higher audit fees. Future research should consider the importance of other issues such as non‐audit services and the extent of market concentration.

This article provides an overview of the PROLIB and EDULIB projects, which involved the development and delivery of distance‐learning courses in the Slovak language to library and information professionals in the Slovak Republic. Each course comprised a week of “face‐to‐face” lecture sessions, practicals, and group discussions, followed by three months of guided work through printed self‐study workbooks and computer‐mediated Internet communication. The courses were held in training centres at university libraries in two towns in Central and Eastern Slovakia (Zvolen and Kosice).

This paper aims to empirically examine the determinants affecting audit fees in the Egyptian context concerning different organizational forms and governance mechanisms.

This study adopts financial and non-financial data from 62 Egyptian firms listed on the Egyptian Stock Exchange from 2015 to 2020. The proposed audit fees model is developed by adopting panel data analysis to examine the effect of auditee, auditor and engagement attributes on audit fees. The validity of the proposed equation for determining audit fees on an annual basis was established by applying the fixed effect model results for the year 2020.

The results revealed that the most significant determinants that affect audit fees are liquidity, audit committee independence, audit report lag and the status of the audit firm. Audit fees of 95.7% are determined by these factors. The validation test proved that the proposed model was more accurate and closer to the estimated data at nearly 90.2%.

The results of this paper would send early signals to audit firms, stakeholders and regulators regarding the determinants of audit fees, and provide an objective standard for fee-setting to be used by stock market regulators and professional bodies, in determining a minimum amount of audit fees that ensure a reasonable level of audit quality.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, for the first time, this paper empirically examines the determinants of audit fees in an emerging market like Egypt and presents evidence for a period of six years.

The main objective of this study is to investigate factors influencing the amount of external audit fees in Kuwait. Of particular interest is the examination of the potential effect of the client size, client complexity, client risk, and the size of the audit firm on external audit fees.

An audit fee model is used to examine the effect of audit client size, client complexity, client risk, and the size of the audit firm on the amount of audit fees for a sample of audit engagements performed in the Kuwaiti audit market.

The study's results indicate that the amount of external audit fees is significantly influenced by the audit client size, liquidity ratio, and profitability ratio. The results, however, do not provide evidence of a significant relation between audit fees and the number of audit locations, or the size of the audit firm.

This study is original since it is the first to empirically investigate factors influencing the pricing of audit services in Kuwait.

This research uses data from 2,470 not-for-profit-organizations (NFPOs) to examine the impact of organization size, risk, and complexity on monitoring costs in the NFP sector. OLS regression analysis indicate that monitoring costs are higher for (a) larger NFPOs, (b) NFPOs subject to the Single Audit Act, 8 NFPOs having larger amounts of assets tied up in receivables and inventories, (d) NFPOs spending a larger percentage of their expenses on program support services, and (e) NFPOs providing higher compensation to their officers and directors. In addition, some NFPOs such as schools and hospitals are associated with higher monitoring costs.

An account is given of the implications for management of the introduction of the VTLS automation system in Tomsk State University Library in Siberia, as part of a library modernisation project funded under the EU TEMPUS‐TACIS programme. The case study describes the changes brought about by the project, which included the creation of one of the first strategic development plans produced by a Russian university library and a considerable change in the attitudes of Tomsk State University Library staff. Examples are given of the effects of one of the first implementations of a full Western automation system covering all functional modules on the structure of the library.

We investigate the effect of the PCAOB’s Part II report on annually inspected firms’ audit fees and audit quality. The PCAOB replaced the peer review auditor program with an independent inspection of audit firms. Upon completion of each inspection, the PCAOB issued inspection reports that include a public portion (Part I) of identified audit deficiencies, and (in most cases) a nonpublic portion (Part II) of identified quality control weaknesses. The Part II report is only made public when the PCAOB deems that remediation was insuffcient after at least 12 months have passed. Starting around the time of the 2007 Deloitte censure (Boone et al., 2015), the PCAOB shifted from a soft synergistic approach to an antagonistic approach, such that Part II reports were imminent, despite delays that ultimately led to their release one to four years later than expected. Our study spans the period from 2007 to 2015, and examines the effect on audit fees and audit quality at the earliest date that the Part II report could have been released – 12 months after the Part I report was issued. We find that following the 12 month period, that annually inspected audit firms eventually lost reputation by lower audit fees, while they concurrently made remedial efforts to increase the quality of their client’s financial reporting quality (abnormal accruals magnitude and restatements). However, three years after the Part II report was actually released, audit fees increased.

Addresses concerns regarding perceptions and measurement of risk and the resultant confusion relating to understanding of the market for audit services. Examines the theoretical justification for a plural approach to dealing with “risk” in audit fee models. Reviews the relevant literature and undertakes a factor analysis of 229 Western Australian firms in search of evidence of plurality. Argues for recognition of the idea that risk in the audit context is composed of two separate but related concepts: audit risk and business risk.

The relationship between the size of state audit budgets, audit responsibilities, professional characteristics of staff, risk, and tax and expenditure limitations is explored. Bivariate relationships are examined and then a model is estimated which controls for size, complexity, financial risk factors, and political risk factors. This provides a framework for considering the incremental influence of specialized audit inputs. Both "brand names" and size have been used in past research to proxy for quality dimensions intended to differentiate the audit product provided by different suppliers. This research extends such work by considering characteristics of the auditing services as reflected by specific inputs and by using cost data rather than audit fee data. The states are observed to differ in their responses to financial and political factors by spending resources on peer review, continuing professional education, certifications of professional staff, and expertise in both the computer science area and in law. A positive association of cost and auditor differentiation, implicit in past audit fee literature is corroborated.