IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acceur/v18y2021i1p75-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost and Informativeness of Regulatory Reports: Evidence from the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Shuai Yuan

Abstract

The 2006 EU Directive established an EU-wide system for public oversight of the audit profession. In the UK, since 2008 the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published inspection reports for major audit firms, which include overall quality ratings for the individual audit engagements of each audit firm under review. This study examines the FRC’s ratings, and measures their impact on audit fees and audit firm switching. A significant increase in audit fees is found when the audit firm has a higher proportion of engagements with deficient ratings, probably arising from the additional effort and resources needed to meet the FRC’s requirements. This impact is more concentrated among clients with Big 4 audit firms. However, there is no evidence that FRC ratings affect clients’ likelihood of switching audit firms, suggesting that inspection results may not signal audit quality, and thus do not affect clients’ audit firm appointment decisions. The results provide evidence that inspection ratings may increase audit costs, but may not be valuable in distinguishing audit quality, and thus have no effect on audit committees’ audit firm appointment decisions. This finding advances understanding of the effectiveness of the audit inspection regime, and provides auditing regulators with guidance on policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuai Yuan, 2021. "Cost and Informativeness of Regulatory Reports: Evidence from the UK," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 75-101, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:acceur:v:18:y:2021:i:1:p:75-101
    DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yuan, Shuai & Zhang, Wuxue & Zhu, Kaiwen, 2023. "Place attachment, audit pricing and audit quality," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(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:taf:acceur:v:18:y:2021:i:1:p:75-101. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAIE20 .

    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.