IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/rqfnac/v52y2019i2d10.1007_s11156-018-0714-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality

Author

Listed:
  • Sharad Asthana

    () (The University of Texas at San Antonio)

  • Inder Khurana

    () (University of Missouri)

  • K. K. Raman

    () (The University of Texas at San Antonio)

Abstract

Abstract Both the GAO (Public accounting firms: mandated study on consolidation and competition. GAO, Washington, 2003; Audits of public companies: continued concentration in audit market for large public companies does not call for immediate action. GAO, Washington, 2008) and the US Treasury (Advisory committee on the auditing profession: final report, 2008. http://www.tres.gov/offices/domestic-finance/acap/docs/final-report.pdf ) have implied that the Big 4 dominated US audit market lacks competition. More recently, the PCAOB has expressed a somewhat different concern, i.e., that because audit committees may be primarily interested in negotiating a lower audit fee (rather than championing higher audit quality) for their clients, fee competition in the US audit market could pressure the incumbent auditor to compromise on audit quality (Doty in Keynote address: the reliability, role and relevance of the audit: a turning point, 2011. www.pcaobus.org ). We utilize the notion of counterfactual fees chargeable by auditors to assess fee competition and investigate competing views on the relation between fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality in US local audit markets. To operationalize fee competition at the client-level in the context of each local audit market, we compute a separate counterfactual audit fee that would be charged by every other Big 4 auditor for that particular engagement and use the minima of the counterfactuals. We validate our audit fee competition metric by showing a positive relation with the incumbent auditor’s switching risk. Collectively, our findings suggest that fee competition is useful as a mechanism for improving audit quality in the highly concentrated US audit market, albeit only in local audit markets where the incumbent auditor has below-median market power and only for higher quality clients. Overall, our findings speak to the interplay between fee competition and auditor incentives and are of potential interest to regulators such as the PCAOB concerned about competition in US audit markets.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:rqfnac:v:52:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11156-018-0714-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11156-018-0714-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11156-018-0714-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Rick Antle & Elizabeth Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2006. "The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 235-266, November.
    3. repec:bla:joares:v:18:y:1980:i:1:p:161-190 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Butler, Marty & Leone, Andrew J. & Willenborg, Michael, 2004. "An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 139-165, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Dichev, Ilia D. & Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R. & Rajgopal, Shiva, 2013. "Earnings quality: Evidence from the field," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 1-33.
    7. Mark L. DeFond & K. Raghunandan & K.R. Subramanyam, 2002. "Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1247-1274, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Zhan Shu, Susan, 2000. "Auditor resignations: clientele effects and legal liability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 173-205, April.
    10. repec:wly:coacre:v:26:y:2009:i:1:p:65-122 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:wly:coacre:v:29:y:2012:i:4:p:1171-1203 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:bla:joares:v:29:y:1991:i:2:p:193-228 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. repec:bla:joares:v:32:y:1994:i:2:p:241-261 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Paul Hribar & D. Craig Nichols, 2007. "The Use of Unsigned Earnings Quality Measures in Tests of Earnings Management," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 1017-1053, December.
    15. Klein, Benjamin & Leffler, Keith B, 1981. "The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(4), pages 615-641, August.
    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. Ball, Ray & Jayaraman, Sudarshan & Shivakumar, Lakshmanan, 2012. "Audited financial reporting and voluntary disclosure as complements: A test of the Confirmation Hypothesis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 136-166.
    18. Linda Myers & Jaime Schmidt & Michael Wilkins, 2014. "An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 155-172, July.
    19. David F. Larcker & Scott A. Richardson, 2004. "Fees Paid to Audit Firms, Accrual Choices, and Corporate Governance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 625-658, June.
    20. repec:wly:coacre:v:23:y:2006:i:3:p:701-746 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Paul Hribar & Daniel W. Collins, 2002. "Errors in Estimating Accruals: Implications for Empirical Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 105-134, March.
    22. Dye, Ronald A., 1991. "Informationally motivated auditor replacement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 347-374, December.
    23. DeFond, Mark L. & Jiambalvo, James, 1994. "Debt covenant violation and manipulation of accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1-2), pages 145-176, January.
    24. 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.
    25. Rick Antle & Elizabeth Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2002. "The Joint Determination of Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees, and Abnormal Accruals," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2502, Yale School of Management, revised 02 May 2006.
    26. repec:wly:coacre:v:28:y:2011:i:1:p:17-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. Kevan Jensen & Jin-Mo Kim & Han Yi, 2015. "The geography of US auditors: information quality and monitoring costs by local versus non-local auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 513-549, April.
    28. 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.
    29. Oster, Sharon M., 1999. "Modern Competitive Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780195119411.
    30. Banker, Rajiv D. & Chang, Hsihui & Cunningham, Reba, 2003. "The public accounting industry production function," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 255-281, June.
    31. Sharad Asthana, 2017. "Diversification by the audit offices in the US and its impact on audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1003-1030, May.
    32. 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.
    33. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    34. Gul, Ferdinand A. & Fung, Simon Yu Kit & Jaggi, Bikki, 2009. "Earnings quality: Some evidence on the role of auditor tenure and auditors' industry expertise," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 265-287, June.
    35. Jeff Boone & Inder K. Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2012. "Audit Market Concentration and Auditor Tolerance for Earnings Management," Working Papers 0014, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Big 4 firms; Audit fee competition; Audit quality; PCAOB;

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:kap:rqfnac:v:52:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11156-018-0714-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Mallaigh Nolan). General contact details of provider: http://springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.