{"title":"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?","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":"{\"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}","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}
Do audit firms discount initial full‐year audit engagements with multiple potential successor auditors?
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.
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.