IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jbfnac/v52y2025i2p657-690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do audit firms discount initial full‐year audit engagements with multiple potential successor auditors?

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas C. Omer
  • Ming (Mike) Yuan

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas C. Omer & Ming (Mike) Yuan, 2025. "Do audit firms discount initial full‐year audit engagements with multiple potential successor auditors?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 657-690, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jbfnac:v:52:y:2025:i:2:p:657-690
    DOI: 10.1111/jbfa.12823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12823
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jbfa.12823?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:bla:jbfnac:v:52:y:2025:i:2:p:657-690. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0306-686X .

    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.