IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/empfin/v27y2014icp130-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of concentration and regulation on audit fees: An application of panel data techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Evans, Lawrance
  • Schwartz, Jeremy

Abstract

The financial audit – which is mandatory for publically traded companies – plays an important role in the transparency and efficiency of global capital markets. Yet, the cost of complying with the laws and regulations requiring financial statement review by external auditors can be substantial. Moreover, the supply-side of the audit market is dominated by a few firms. As a result, policymakers in many countries have an interest in considering the cost of additional regulation as well as ensuring that the concentrated nature of the audit market does not result in anti-competitive pricing. The goal of this paper is to provide new estimates of the extent to which regulation and market concentration have contributed to higher audit fees using a panel data approach. To accomplish this we use U.S. data from 2000 to 2010, a period that includes a large change in market concentration as a result of the collapse of the third largest auditor in 2002. In addition, the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) in 2002 in response to a series of accounting scandals, allows us to exploit an abrupt change in the regulatory environment. We find that the cost of additional regulation has been substantial and persistent. In addition, our results support the notion that the burden is larger for smaller firms. This was the rationale for exempting the smallest firms from the most costly provisions of SOX by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank). However, our results suggest that greater market concentration has only a very small impact on the fees of large clients, suggesting that fears that market power would generate higher fees are largely unwarranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Evans, Lawrance & Schwartz, Jeremy, 2014. "The effect of concentration and regulation on audit fees: An application of panel data techniques," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 130-144.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:empfin:v:27:y:2014:i:c:p:130-144
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jempfin.2013.10.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927539813000741
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jempfin.2013.10.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palmrose, Zv, 1986. "Audit Fees And Auditor Size - Further Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 97-110.
    2. Tim Pearson & Greg Trompeter, 1994. "Competition in the Market for Audit Services: The Effect of Supplier Concentration on Audit Fees," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 115-135, June.
    3. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-126, March.
    4. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    5. Demsetz, Harold, 1973. "Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, April.
    6. Clive Lennox, 1999. "Are large auditors more accurate than small auditors?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 217-227.
    7. Ahmed, Anwer S. & McAnally, Mary Lea & Rasmussen, Stephanie & Weaver, Connie D., 2010. "How costly is the Sarbanes Oxley Act? Evidence on the effects of the Act on corporate profitability," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 352-369, June.
    8. Griffin, Paul A. & Lont, David H. & Sun, Yuan, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Audit Fees: Evidence of Countervailing Relations," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 18-49.
    9. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1979. "Attrition Bias in Experimental and Panel Data: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 455-473, March.
    10. Emilie Feldman, 2006. "A Basic Quantification of the Competitive Implications of the Demise of Arthur Andersen," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 29(3), pages 193-212, November.
    11. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    12. Baltagi, Badi H. & Wu, Ping X., 1999. "Unequally Spaced Panel Data Regressions With Ar(1) Disturbances," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(6), pages 814-823, December.
    13. Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1987. "Competition and the Number of Firms in a Market: Are Duopolies More Competitive than Atomistic Markets?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1041-1061, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Velte, 2022. "Does sustainable corporate governance have an impact on materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting? International evidence," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1655-1670, December.
    2. Jannik Gerwanski & Othar Kordsachia & Patrick Velte, 2019. "Determinants of materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting: Empirical evidence from an international setting," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 750-770, July.
    3. Climent-Serrano, Salvador & Bustos-Contell, Elisabeth & Labatut-Serer, Gregorio & Rey-Martí, Andrea, 2018. "Low-cost trends in audit fees and their impact on service quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 345-350.
    4. Onur Kemal Tosun & Lemma W. Senbet, 2020. "Does internal board monitoring affect debt maturity?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 205-245, January.
    5. Vesna Å tager, 2018. "Strong Competition Among Audit Companies and Power to Achieve Higher Audit Fees: Who is at the Forefront?," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business (continues Analele Stiintifice), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 65(2), pages 119-138, June.
    6. Qiang Guo & Christopher Koch & Aiyong Zhu, 2017. "Joint audit, audit market structure, and consumer surplus," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1595-1627, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Numan, Wieteke & Willekens, Marleen, 2012. "An empirical test of spatial competition in the audit market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 450-465.
    2. Schelleman, C.C.M., 2001. "Determinants of the profitability of audit engagements : an empirical study," Research Memorandum 037, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    3. Laurence Kranich & Andrés Perea & Hans Peters, 2005. "Core Concepts For Dynamic Tu Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 43-61.
    4. Habib, Ahsan, 2011. "Audit firm industry specialization and audit outcomes: Insights from academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 114-129.
    5. Miguel Minutti‐Meza, 2013. "Does Auditor Industry Specialization Improve Audit Quality?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 779-817, September.
    6. Vivien Beattie & Alan Goodacre & Ken Pratt & Joanna Stevenson, 2001. "The determinants of audit fees—evidence from the voluntary sector," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 243-274.
    7. David C. Hay & W. Robert Knechel & Norman Wong, 2006. "Audit Fees: A Meta†analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 141-191, March.
    8. Gillan, Stuart L. & Panasian, Christine A., 2014. "On Litigation Risk and Disclosure Complexity: Evidence from Canadian Firms Cross-Listed in the US," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 426-454.
    9. Karla M. Johnstone & Jean C. Bedard & Michael L. Ettredge, 2004. "The Effect of Competitive Bidding on Engagement Planning and Pricing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 25-53, March.
    10. Iman Harymawan & Aditya Aji Prabhawa & Mohammad Nasih & Fajar Kristanto Gautama Putra, 2021. "Risk Management Committee, Auditor Choice and Audit Fees," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Chu, Ling & Simunic, Dan A. & Ye, Minlei & Zhang, Ping, 2018. "Transaction costs and competition among audit firms in local markets," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 129-147.
    12. Willem F. J. Buijink & Steven J. Maijoor & Roger H. G. Meuwissen, 1998. "Competition in Auditing: Evidence from Entry, Exit, and Market Share Mobility in Germany versus The Netherlands," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 385-404, September.
    13. John Ziyang Zhang & Yangxin Yu, 2016. "Does Board Independence Affect Audit Fees? Evidence from Recent Regulatory Reforms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 793-814, October.
    14. repec:dau:papers:123456789/8473 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Craswell, Allen T. & Francis, Jere R. & Taylor, Stephen L., 1995. "Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 297-322, December.
    16. Jeroen van Raak & Erik Peek & Roger Meuwissen & Caren Schelleman, 2020. "The effect of audit market structure on audit quality and audit pricing in the private‐client market," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3-4), pages 456-488, March.
    17. Timothy B. Bell & Rajib Doogar & Ira Solomon, 2008. "Audit Labor Usage and Fees under Business Risk Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 729-760, September.
    18. Verbruggen, Sandra & Christiaens, Johan & Reheul, Anne-Mie & Van Caneghem, Tom, 2011. "Audit pricing in a reformed nonprofit market," Working Papers 2011/29, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    19. Sophie Audousset-Coulier, 2015. "Audit Fees in a Joint Audit Setting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 347-377, June.
    20. Owusu-Ansah, Stephen & Leventis, Stergios & Caramanis, Constantinos, 2010. "The pricing of statutory audit services in Greece," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 139-152.
    21. D'Addio, Anna Cristina & De Greef, Isabelle & Rosholm, Michael, 2002. "Assessing Unemployment Traps in Belgium Using Panel Data Sample Selection Models," IZA Discussion Papers 669, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Audit fees; Panel data; Market power; Market concentration; Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX); Dodd–Frank;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • L8 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services
    • M4 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:empfin:v:27:y:2014:i:c:p:130-144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jempfin .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.