IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/13317.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Big 4 Audit Fee Premiums Always Related to Superior Audit Quality? Evidence from India’s Unique Audit Market

Author

Listed:
  • Joshy,Jacob
  • Desai, Naman
  • Agarwalla, Sobhesh Kumar

Abstract

In this study we examine the fee premiums earned by Big 4 auditors (B4As) in India. We then try to determine the primary cause of the fee premiums in an Indian context. The B4As charge fee premiums for two primary reasons. First they are considered to be a potential indemnifier of losses for the stakeholders of the company. Second they provide a better quality of audit which improves the quality of reported earnings. Since the legal regime in India in significantly less stringent and the risk of auditor litigations is relatively low, B4A premiums in India are most likely to be driven by the need for superior audit quality. The results of our analysis indicate that B4As earn significantly higher fees than Non-Big 4 auditors (NB4As) in India. However there is no difference in the quality of audit provided by the B4As and NB4As as evidenced by the quality of reported earnings. Our results also indicate that B4As earn significantly higher abnormal fees. However, unlike the results of prior research, such abnormal fees are not associated with reduction in the quality of audit and reported earnings. After eliminating the two primary causes of B4A fee premiums, we posit that the need for B4As in India is primarily driven by the need to “signal” a superior quality of reported information.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshy,Jacob & Desai, Naman & Agarwalla, Sobhesh Kumar, 2015. "Are Big 4 Audit Fee Premiums Always Related to Superior Audit Quality? Evidence from India’s Unique Audit Market," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-10, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:iim:iimawp:13317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://web.iima.ac.in/assets/snippets/workingpaperpdf/15251702332015-03-10.pdf
    File Function: English Version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pittman, Jeffrey A. & Fortin, Steve, 2004. "Auditor choice and the cost of debt capital for newly public firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 113-136, February.
    2. Sattar A. Mansi & William F. Maxwell & Darius P. Miller, 2004. "Does Auditor Quality and Tenure Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 755-793, September.
    3. Masoud Azizkhani & Gary S. Monroe & Greg Shailer, 2010. "The value of Big 4 audits in Australia," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(4), pages 743-766.
    4. Craswell, Allen T. & Francis, Jere R. & Taylor, Stephen L., 1995. "Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 297-322, December.
    5. Seetharaman, Ananth & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Lynn, Stephen G., 2002. "Litigation risk and audit fees: evidence from UK firms cross-listed on US markets," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 91-115, February.
    6. Xin Chang & André F. Gygax & Elaine Oon & Hong Feng Zhang, 2008. "Audit quality, auditor compensation and initial public offering underpricing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(3), pages 391-416.
    7. Subramanyam, K. R., 1996. "The pricing of discretionary accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1-3), pages 249-281, October.
    8. Monika Causholli & W. Robert Knechel, 2012. "Lending relationships, auditor quality and debt costs," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(6), pages 550-572, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iim:iimawp:13317. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eciimin.html .

    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.