The effect of audit firm attributes on audit delay in the presence of financial reporting complexity

Purpose This study aims to examine the effects of audit firm attributes on audit delay associated with financial reporting complexity (FRC). Design/methodology/approach The authors use regression models with a sample of public firms with distinct monetary eXtensible Business Reporting Language tags to test the research hypotheses. Findings The authors find that two audit firm attributes (audit firm tenure and non-audit services performance) moderate the effect of FRC on audit delay. Practical implications The study provides insights to regulators, practitioners and investors into how firms may reduce audit delay from FRC by keeping their long-tenured auditors and allowing their auditors to gain more knowledge about the firms by providing non-audit services. The results, therefore, have implications for mandatory audit firm rotation. Originality/value To the best of the knowledge, this study conducts the first comprehensive analysis of this topic, exploring the impact of three audit firm attributes on audit delay caused by FRC. It attempts to illustrate the impact of external audit firms on reducing the adverse consequences of FRC.

Will mandatory audit firm rotation reduce audit market concentration in South Africa?

Purpose: Deconcentrating the audit market was one of the stated objectives of the proposed mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR) ruling in South Africa. With MAFR being a contentious topic, this study aimed to explore the possible effect of MAFR on audit market concentration in South Africa in anticipation of the implementation thereof in 2023.Design/methodology/approach: A sample of 415 South African listed companies was studied for the period 2010–2018. Data were mainly captured from annual reports. Descriptive statistics and significance testing were performed on calculated concentration ratios and identified audit firm rotations.Findings/results: South African audit market concentration mirrored empirical evidence from most developed countries – with Big 4 audit firms dominating the audit market, whilst a monopoly within the Big 4 audit firm grouping was also evident. Based on observed audit firm concentration and audit firm rotation behaviour, it was anticipated that MAFR might further increase audit market concentration. A concerning result was the sheer scale of audit firm rotations to be carried out in anticipation of MAFR in 2023.Practical implications: This study identified the impairment of audit quality and increased costs as possible unintended consequences of MAFR in South Africa.Originality/value: This study contributed to the limited body of knowledge on the possible effect of MAFR in South Africa. This study proposed alternatives to MAFR and recommended areas for future research to support evidence-based decisions on remedies to address audit quality and audit market concentration in South Africa.

Mandatory audit firm rotation: A student perspective An assessment of the perceived impact on auditor independence

Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation (MAFR), set to be implemented in South African from 1 April 2023, is poised by its propellers the world over as an essential reform in the efforts to improve auditor independence. Available literature suggests that there is no consensus regarding the impact of the implementation of MAFR. The divergent views on MAFR were demonstrated in recent time, with the European Union (EU) choosing to adopt it, while regulators in the United States decided to reject it. This paper examines the perspective of university auditing students on MAFR by examining the perceived impact it could have on auditor independence. The study finds that the majority (from 413 participants) of students surveyed are of the view that MAFR would yield positive outcomes on independence. The majority, however, agree on the MAFR Independence Benefit but warn about the possible negative consequences. MAFR will strengthen the independence of auditors.

Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation for Listed Companies: The Effects in the Netherlands

The Audit Regulation was adopted in 2014 to address many of the perceived failings in the market for statutory audits. It introduced mandatory audit firm rotation for public-interest entities, including listed companies, as of 17 June 2020/2023. Mandatory audit firm rotation was also considered by the Dutch legislator in 2012. Therefore, many Dutch listed companies had already switched audit firm in anticipation of the national requirement. In this article, we investigate the effects of mandatory audit firm rotation in the Netherlands by examining the financial reports of Dutch listed firms over the financial years 2012–2016 and by conducting a survey among stakeholders. We conclude that there is broad support for mandatory audit firm rotation in the Netherlands. Although mandatory audit firm rotation was seen as controversial at the time of adoption, it is now considered desirable by various stakeholders, including auditors themselves. However, mandatory audit firm rotation appears to have had some adverse effects. Most notably, our study shows a higher probability of errors in first year audits. The discount in audit fees provided by audit firms to lucrative larger public-interest entities for first year audits—the trophy client effect—may exacerbate the negative effect on audit quality. The Audit Regulation’s goals to improve the market for statutory audits have not been met so far.

Mandatory audit firm rotation: a critical composition of practitioner views from an emerging economy

Purpose This study aims to address an acknowledged gap in the literature for the analysis of experienced practitioner views on the effects and implications of mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR). Design/methodology/approach Using an exploratory and sequential design, data was collected from South African regulatory policy documents, organisational comment letters and semi-structured interviews of practitioners. These findings informed a field survey, administered to auditors, investors, chief financial officers (CFOs) and audit committee members of Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) listed companies. Findings Practitioners expressed considerable pushback against the potential efficacy of MAFR to improve audit quality due to various “switching costs”, notably the loss of client-specific knowledge and expertise upon rotation. In addition, the cost and disruption to both the client and audit firm are considered significant and unnecessary, compared to audit partner rotation. The audit industry may suffer reduced profitability and increased strain on partners, leading to a decline in the appeal of the profession as a career of choice. This is likely to have negative implications for audit industry diversity objectives. Furthermore, the industry may become more supplier-concentrated amongst the Big 4 firms. Practical implications The findings have policy implications for regulators deciding whether to adopt the regulation, as well as guiding the design of policies and procedures to mitigate the negative effects of adoption. Originality/value The participants are experienced with diverse roles concerning the use, preparation and audit of financial statements of large exchange-listed multinational companies, as well as engagement in the auditor appointment process. The extant literature presents mixed results on the link between MAFR and audit quality, with most studies relying on archival and experimental designs. These have a limited ability to identify and critique the potential’s witching costs and unintended consequences of the regulation. Experienced participants responsible for decision-making within the audit, audit oversight and auditor appointment process, are best suited to provide perspective on these effects, contrasted against the audit regulator’s position.

A theoretical approach to auditor independence and audit quality

Auditor independence and the quality of audit report is of growing concern to regulators, institutional investors and stakeholders as a series of accounting scandals have undermined the professionalism of auditors. The findings from this study produced an insight of how auditor’s independence improve audit quality and that abnormal audit fees is as a result of additional effort for auditor to carry out rigorous audit engagement as a result of wider audit scope; that mandatory audit firm rotation will enhance auditor independence, and that audit committee with nonexecutive independence will promote audit quality. The study also finds that in terms of auditor size, smaller audit firms that belong to professional bodies will provide higher audit quality. The main conclusion of this research is that where an auditor is fully independent in carrying out audit engagement with strong resistance to fees pressure will enhance audit quality. This research provides insight into the impact of IFRS adoption on audit fees.