The Effects of Audit Market Concentration and Auditor Reputation on Audit Quality: Evidence from Government Auditors

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johnathon Cziffra ◽  
Steve Fortin ◽  
Zvi Singer
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Quality Evidence ◽  
Auditor Reputation

Audit Market Concentration, Audit Fees, and Audit Quality: Evidence from China

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Chiao Huang ◽  
Hsihui Chang ◽  
Jeng-Ren Chiou
Keyword(s):  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Earnings Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Legal Environment ◽  
Positive Relation ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Lower Likelihood

SUMMARY We investigate the effects of audit market concentration on audit fees and audit quality in China, where competition is intense and the legal environment is relatively weak compared with developed countries. Analyzing 12,334 firm-year observations for the period 2001 to 2011, we find a significant positive relation between concentration and audit fees. Path analysis shows that concentration improves client earnings quality and reduces the need for auditors to issue modified audit opinions through increased audit fees. Additional analysis indicates that the increased audit fees and client earnings quality resulting from increased concentration are associated with a lower likelihood of executives and auditors being sanctioned by regulators for audit failures. Together, our results suggest that concentration improves audit quality indirectly through increased audit fees and this positive indirect effect offsets the negative direct effect of concentration on audit quality. By separating the direct and the indirect effect of concentration on audit quality, our study would explain why previous studies that do not have a separation document mixed evidence. Our findings inform regulators that actions taken to eliminate the indirect effect of concentration, for example restricting the upper bound of audit fees, could produce unintended outcomes such as decreased audit quality.

scholarly journals Joint audit, audit market concentration, and audit quality: Perceptions of stakeholders in the UAE

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-45
Author(s):  
Yasser Barghathi ◽  
Esinath Ndiweni ◽  
Alhashmi Aboubaker Lasyoud
Keyword(s):  
Emerging Economies ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Practical Implication ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Quality Perceptions ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The Cost

The present study is intended to scholarly explore auditors’ perceptions regarding joint audits; whether it can improve audit quality. To reach this goal, participants were enrolled from Big 4, non-Big 4, and other stockholders. In addition, the present study examines the perception of the same stakeholders in terms of how audit concentration affects the audit market in the UAE. Being a qualitative study, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect required data; 4 face to face and 8 through using Google forms. The finding of the study revealed mixed perception regarding joint audits; it may improve audit quality at the cost of high fees and free-rider problems. Findings of the study has practical implication for policymakers of emerging economies around the globe, such as policymakers who can make joint audits as compulsory. Another significance of the present work is that it has allowed for the perception of stakeholders, who are at the center of the controversial subject of joint audits and audit market concentration. The study suggests that there is a need for removing language barriers; it will benefit some firms in the form of directly communicating with auditors either in English or in Urdu.

Audit Market Structure and Audit Pricing

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Daniel Eshleman ◽  
Bradley P. Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Market Concentration ◽  
First Year ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
The U.S

SYNOPSIS Extant literature finds mixed evidence on the association between audit market concentration and audit fees. We re-examine this issue using a large sample of U.S. audit clients covering 90 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) spanning 2000–2013. We find that audit market concentration is associated with significantly higher audit fees, consistent with the concerns of regulators and managers. We also find that increases in audit market concentration are associated with fewer initial engagement fee discounts (i.e., reduced lowballing), particularly for non-Big 4 clients. We reconcile our findings with those of prior research and find that our divergent findings are attributable to controls for MSA fixed effects. In supplemental analyses, we find that audit market concentration is associated with higher audit quality. We also find that concentration is associated with higher audit quality for first-year engagements, but only if the auditor does not lowball on the engagement. Our results are relevant to the ongoing debate regarding the consequences of increased concentration within the U.S. audit market (GAO 2003, 2008). JEL Classifications: M41; M42; L13.

scholarly journals Abnormal Audit Fees and Audit Quality: Evidence from the Korean Audit Market

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-60
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Behrend ◽  
Sarfraz Khan ◽  
Young Woo Ko ◽  
Sung-Jin Park
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Earnings Forecasts ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Confounding Effect ◽  
Public Firms ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Analyst Earnings ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Quality Evidence

ABSTRACT Do abnormally high or low audit fees reflect audit quality? In this paper, we re-examine this issue after controlling for the confounding effect of audit hours by using a sample of public firms in the Korean audit market, which publicly discloses both audit fees and audit hour information. While we do not find a significant association between abnormally high audit fees and audit quality, we find that abnormally low audit fees are associated with larger discretionary accruals and a higher likelihood of meeting or beating analyst earnings forecasts. Further, we find that the relationship between abnormally low audit fees and audit quality indicators persists regardless of the level of audit hours. To the extent that audit hours represent audit effort, these findings suggest that greater audit effort alone may not lead to higher audit quality as fee pressure from abnormally low fees may discourage the provision of high-quality audit services. JEL Classifications: M42; M48.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document