IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jbfnac/v52y2025i2p657-690.html

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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. James Heckman, 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.
    3. Barua, Abhijit & Lennox, Clive & Raghunandan, Aneesh, 2020. "Are audit fees discounted in initial year audit engagements?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2).
    4. DeFond, Mark L. & Lennox, Clive S., 2011. "The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 21-40, June.
    5. Joseph Gerakos & Chad Syverson, 2015. "Competition in the Audit Market: Policy Implications," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 53(4), pages 725-775, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Sanjeev Bhojraj & Partha Sengupta, 2003. "Effect of Corporate Governance on Bond Ratings and Yields: The Role of Institutional Investors and Outside Directors," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 76(3), pages 455-476, July.
    8. Badolato, Patrick G. & Donelson, Dain C. & Ege, Matthew, 2014. "Audit committee financial expertise and earnings management: The role of status," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 208-230.
    9. Bruynseels, L.M.L. & Cardinaels, E., 2014. "The audit committee : Management watchdog or personal friend of the CEO?," Other publications TiSEM 4efbab67-3b44-4eab-9f17-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Charl de Villiers & David Hay & Zhizi (Janice) Zhang, 2014. "Audit fee stickiness," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 29(1), pages 2-26, January.
    11. repec:eme:maj000:maj-08-2013-0915 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Krista Fiolleau & Kris Hoang & Karim Jamal & Shyam Sunder, 2013. "How Do Regulatory Reforms to Enhance Auditor Independence Work in Practice?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 864-890, September.
    13. Zmijewski, Me, 1984. "Methodological Issues Related To The Estimation Of Financial Distress Prediction Models," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22, pages 59-82.
    14. A. Colin Cameron & Douglas L. Miller, 2015. "A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 317-372.
    15. Ettredge, M & Greenberg, R, 1990. "Determinants Of Fee Cutting On Initial Audit Engagements," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 198-210.
    16. Kothari, S.P. & Leone, Andrew J. & Wasley, Charles E., 2005. "Performance matched discretionary accrual measures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 163-197, February.
    17. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Barua, Abhijit & Lennox, Clive & Raghunandan, Aneesh, 2020. "Are audit fees discounted in initial year audit engagements?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2).
    2. Yang, Seunghee & Lee, Woo-Jong & Lim, Youngdeok & Yi, Cheong H., 2021. "Audit firm operating leverage and pricing strategy: Evidence from lowballing in audit industry," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    3. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    4. Pan, Yue & Shroff, Nemit & Zhang, Pengdong, 2023. "The dark side of audit market competition," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1).
    5. 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.
    6. Hallman, Nicholas J. & Kartapanis, Antonis & Schmidt, Jaime J., 2022. "How do auditors respond to competition? Evidence from the bidding process," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).
    7. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    8. Mohamad Mazboudi & Salim Chahine & Yiwei Fang & Mingying Cheng, 2025. "Do high‐centrality CEOs influence audit outcomes?," Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 3-38, February.
    9. Paul N. Michas & Dan Russomanno & Meiling Zhao, 2025. "The opportunity for partner industry knowledge sharing within audit offices and audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 2555-2606, September.
    10. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    11. Xinming Liu & Gerald J. Lobo & Hung‐Chao Yu, 2021. "Is Audit Committee Equity Compensation Related to Audit Fees?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 740-769, March.
    12. Fakhroddin MohammadRezaei & Norman Mohd‐Saleh, 2018. "Audit report lag: the role of auditor type and increased competition in the audit market," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(3), pages 885-920, September.
    13. Colin Ferguson & Matthew Pinnuck & Douglas J. Skinner, 2025. "Why did the Big Four get so large? Evidence from Australia," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 2508-2554, September.
    14. Mark DeFond & Jieying Zhang & Yuping Zhao, 2025. "Do Managers Successfully Shop for Auditors Who Allow Them to Opportunistically Report Positive News? Evidence from Accounting Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(11), pages 9256-9289, November.
    15. Daniel Aobdia & Luminita Enache & Anup Srivastava, 2021. "Changes in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies over time," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 715-754, February.
    16. Stephen V. Brown & W. Robert Knechel, 2016. "Auditor–Client Compatibility and Audit Firm Selection," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 54(3), pages 725-775, June.
    17. Yi-Hsing Liao & Hua Lee & Chao-Jung Chen, 2023. "The informational role of audit partner industry specialization," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 69-109, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Murat Ocak & Emrah Arıoğlu, 2025. "Narcissism, Audit Market Competition and Audit Quality: Evidence from the Chairpersons of Audit Firms," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(4), pages 21582440251, October.
    20. Chen, Xiao & Dai, Narisa Tianjing & Liu, Leo Jiahe, 2025. "Audit implications of major customer diversity," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2).

    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.

    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: 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.