IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v30y2018i2p73-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transparency and the audit industry? Not in the U.S. Evidence on audit production costs, profitability and partner compensation from the U.K

Author

Listed:
  • Frecka, Thomas J.
  • Griffin, Jeremy B.
  • Stevens, Jennifer Sustersic

Abstract

In the U.S., the investing public can readily access a great deal of information about publicly-traded companies. However, the large private accounting firms that audit those companies—and that are just as economically significant—provide very little information. This paper provides insight into the audit markets by taking a novel, descriptive approach to explore the cost of performing audits, an under-examined area in the literature due to lack of data. The analyses explore audit production costs, profitability, and partner compensation at the audit-firm level, using publicly available data from the U.K. The findings suggest interesting potential differences in audit production functions between the Big Four firms, an important factor when considering the competitiveness of the audit market. Taking this analysis and applying it to the U.S. setting, an estimate of the average profitability per domestic Big Four partner is approximately $1.2 million for the year 2013. This paper intends to stimulate discussion about how public accounting firms are regulated in the U.S.

Suggested Citation

  • Frecka, Thomas J. & Griffin, Jeremy B. & Stevens, Jennifer Sustersic, 2018. "Transparency and the audit industry? Not in the U.S. Evidence on audit production costs, profitability and partner compensation from the U.K," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 73-81.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:30:y:2018:i:2:p:73-81
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2018.09.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045718300298
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2018.09.005?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. Timothy B. Bell & Wayne R. Landsman & Douglas A. Shackelford, 2001. "Auditors' Perceived Business Risk and Audit Fees: Analysis and Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 35-43, June.
    2. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    3. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2012. "The consequences of protecting audit partners’ personal assets from the threat of liability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 154-173.
    4. Okeefe, Tb & Simunic, Da & Stein, Mt, 1994. "The Production Of Audit Services - Evidence From A Major Public Accounting Firm," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 241-261.
    5. Brad Badertscher & Bjorn Jorgensen & Sharon Katz & William Kinney, 2014. "Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 303-339, May.
    6. 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.
    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. Mijić, Kristina & Rađo, Dijana, 2021. "Profitability Analysis of Audit Firms – Evidence from the Republic of Serbia," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2021), Hybrid Conference, Zagreb, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Hybrid Conference, Zagreb, Croatia, 9-10 September 2021, pages 267-276, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.

    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. Sharad Asthana & Inder Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2019. "Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 403-438, February.
    2. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    3. Rajib Doogar & Padmakumar Sivadasan & Ira Solomon, 2010. "The Regulation of Public Company Auditing: Evidence from the Transition to AS5," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 795-814, September.
    4. Ahsan Habib & Mostafa Monzur Hasan & Ahmed Al-Hadi, 2018. "Money laundering and audit fees," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 427-459, June.
    5. Mercedes Mareque & Angel Barajas & Francisco Lopez-Corrales, 2018. "The Impact of Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Financial Fair Play Regulation on Audit Fees: Evidence from Spanish Football," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, 2019. "The Effect of Financial Constraints on Audit Fees," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 59-87.
    7. Dafydd Mali & Hyoung‐joo Lim, 2021. "Do Relatively More Efficient Firms Demand Additional Audit Effort (Hours)?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(2), pages 108-127, June.
    8. Hope, Ole-Kristian & Hu, Danqi & Zhao, Wuyang, 2017. "Third-party consequences of short-selling threats: The case of auditor behavior," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 479-498.
    9. Jingyu Yang & Hai Wu & Yangxin Yu, 2021. "Distracted institutional investors and audit risk," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 3855-3881, September.
    10. Duellman, Scott & Hurwitz, Helen & Sun, Yan, 2015. "Managerial overconfidence and audit fees," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 148-165.
    11. Sharad Asthana & Rachana Kalelkar, 2011. "The Market For Audit Services And S&P 500 Index Clients," Working Papers 0022, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    12. Ghosh, Aloke(Al) & Tang, Charles Y., 2015. "Assessing financial reporting quality of family firms: The auditors׳ perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 95-116.
    13. Chen, Yangyang & Ge, Rui & Zolotoy, Leon, 2017. "Do corporate pension plans affect audit pricing?," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 322-337.
    14. Timothy B. Bell & Monika Causholli & W. Robert Knechel, 2015. "Audit Firm Tenure, Non‐Audit Services, and Internal Assessments of Audit Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 461-509, June.
    15. Lasse Niemi & W. Robert Knechel & Hannu Ojala & Jill Collis, 2018. "Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-54, January.
    16. Tharindra Ranasinghe & Lin Yi & Ling Zhou, 2023. "Do auditors charge a client business risk premium? Evidence from audit fees and derivative hedging in the U.S. oil and gas industry," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 1107-1139, June.
    17. Chy, Mahfuz & De Franco, Gus & Su, Barbara, 2021. "The effect of auditor litigation risk on clients' access to bank debt: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    18. Rustam, Sehrish & Rashid, Kashif & Zaman, Khalid, 2013. "The relationship between audit committees, compensation incentives and corporate audit fees in Pakistan," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 697-716.
    19. 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.
    20. Scott Whisenant & Srinivasan Sankaraguruswamy & K. Raghunandan, 2003. "Evidence on the Joint Determination of Audit and Non‐Audit Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 721-744, September.

    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:reacre:v:30:y:2018:i:2:p:73-81. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

    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.