Do audit firms discount initial full‐year audit engagements with multiple potential successor auditors?

IF 2.2 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Thomas C. Omer, Ming (Mike) Yuan
{"title":"Do audit firms discount initial full‐year audit engagements with multiple potential successor auditors?","authors":"Thomas C. Omer, Ming (Mike) Yuan","doi":"10.1111/jbfa.12823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Auditing theory predicts fee discounting when multiple potential successor auditors bid for the client. However, the empirical evidence on this issue varies as more recent research attributes prior evidence of fee discounting to measurement errors related to audit fees’ partial‐year reporting. We argue that the mixed results of previous literature are partially attributable to a failure to identify competitive auditor changes. We use U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosures of audit firm changes to identify cases with multiple potential successor auditors, which suggests more competition for the client. We compare each disclosing firm's audit fees between the first year following the auditor change year and all other years of the same disclosing firm. We find that successor audit firms discount audit fees in the first full year following the auditor change, compared to all other years, within the same disclosing firm. The fee discounting continues until at least the second full year of the engagement. Results also suggest Big N successor firms discount fees to win new engagements from smaller successor audit firms. Audit fee discounting occurs when companies dismiss their audit firm rather than when audit firms resign. Finally, we find no evidence of impaired audit quality for the 2 years following the auditor change.","PeriodicalId":48106,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12823","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Auditing theory predicts fee discounting when multiple potential successor auditors bid for the client. However, the empirical evidence on this issue varies as more recent research attributes prior evidence of fee discounting to measurement errors related to audit fees’ partial‐year reporting. We argue that the mixed results of previous literature are partially attributable to a failure to identify competitive auditor changes. We use U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosures of audit firm changes to identify cases with multiple potential successor auditors, which suggests more competition for the client. We compare each disclosing firm's audit fees between the first year following the auditor change year and all other years of the same disclosing firm. We find that successor audit firms discount audit fees in the first full year following the auditor change, compared to all other years, within the same disclosing firm. The fee discounting continues until at least the second full year of the engagement. Results also suggest Big N successor firms discount fees to win new engagements from smaller successor audit firms. Audit fee discounting occurs when companies dismiss their audit firm rather than when audit firms resign. Finally, we find no evidence of impaired audit quality for the 2 years following the auditor change.
对于有多个潜在继任审计师的初次全年审计业务,审计公司是否会打折扣?
审计理论预测,当多个潜在继任审计师竞聘客户时,费用会打折扣。然而,有关这一问题的经验证据却不尽相同,最近的研究将先前的费用折扣证据归因于与审计费用的部分年度报告相关的计量误差。我们认为,以往文献结果不一的部分原因在于未能识别竞争性审计师变更。我们利用美国证券交易委员会(SEC)披露的审计师事务所变更信息来识别有多个潜在继任审计师的案例,这表明对客户的竞争更加激烈。我们比较了每家披露公司在审计师变更年后第一年和同一披露公司所有其他年份的审计费用。我们发现,继任审计公司在审计师变更后的第一年,与同一披露公司的所有其他年份相比,审计费用会打折扣。费用折扣至少会持续到聘用的第二年。结果还表明,"N 大 "继任公司会打折扣收费,以从规模较小的继任审计公司那里赢得新的业务。审计费打折发生在公司解聘其审计事务所时,而不是审计事务所辞职时。最后,我们没有发现审计师变更后两年内审计质量受损的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.20%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Journal of Business Finance and Accounting exists to publish high quality research papers in accounting, corporate finance, corporate governance and their interfaces. The interfaces are relevant in many areas such as financial reporting and communication, valuation, financial performance measurement and managerial reward and control structures. A feature of JBFA is that it recognises that informational problems are pervasive in financial markets and business organisations, and that accounting plays an important role in resolving such problems. JBFA welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions. Nonetheless, theoretical papers should yield novel testable implications, and empirical papers should be theoretically well-motivated. The Editors view accounting and finance as being closely related to economics and, as a consequence, papers submitted will often have theoretical motivations that are grounded in economics. JBFA, however, also seeks papers that complement economics-based theorising with theoretical developments originating in other social science disciplines or traditions. While many papers in JBFA use econometric or related empirical methods, the Editors also welcome contributions that use other empirical research methods. Although the scope of JBFA is broad, it is not a suitable outlet for highly abstract mathematical papers, or empirical papers with inadequate theoretical motivation. Also, papers that study asset pricing, or the operations of financial markets, should have direct implications for one or more of preparers, regulators, users of financial statements, and corporate financial decision makers, or at least should have implications for the development of future research relevant to such users.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信