Relative audit fees and client loyalty in the audit market

Accounting Research Journal - Tập 24 Số 1 - Trang 79-93 - 2011
MagdyFarag1, RafikElias2
1California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA
2California State University, Los Angeles, California, USA

Tóm tắt

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the stability or loyalty in the auditor‐client relationship. It explores the association between audit fees and auditor loyalty. Specifically, it investigates whether clients paying less audit fees relative to other companies in their industries are more likely to be loyal to their auditors.Design/methodology/approachLogistic and ordinal regression analyses are used to compare loyal clients to clients that switched audit firms after controlling for factors that are expected to be associated with client loyalty.FindingsResults show that relative audit fees have a significant effect on the degree of loyalty of clients to their audit firms. Additional analysis shows that the loyalty of clients that pay higher audit fees relative to similar clients in their industry are highly affected by increases in audit fees. However, the loyalty of clients who pay lower audit fees compared to similar clients in their industry is not affected by further increases in relative audit fees.Research limitations/implicationsThe study does not differentiate between auditor dismissal and auditor resignation in the classification of clients that switched auditors. It also does not classify auditor switches into auditor‐initiated switches and client‐initiated switches.Practical implicationsIt is cost effective for clients to stay with the same audit firm. Audit firms should be careful when adjusting their audit fees from one period to another, as there is a higher probability of losing a client, when increasing the audit fees, especially if this client is already paying higher audit fees relative to similar clients.Originality/valueThe findings of this study increase the understanding of how relative audit fees affect client loyalty in the audit market.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

AICPA (1983), “Audit risk and materiality in conducting an audit”, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.

Carcello, J. and Neal, T. (2003), “Audit committee characteristics and auditor dismissals following ‘new’ going‐concern reports”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 95‐117.

DeAngelo, L.E. (1981), “Auditor size and audit quality”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 183‐99.

Defond, M.L. and Francis, J.R. (2005), “Audit research after Sarbanes‐Oxley”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 24, pp. 5‐30.

Ebrahim, A. (2010), “Audit fee premium and auditor change: the effect of Sarbanes‐Oxley Act”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 102‐21.

Ettredge, M. and Greenberg, R. (1990), “Determinants of fee cutting on initial audit engagements”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 198‐210.

Ettredge, M., Li, C. and Scholz, S. (2007), “Audit fees and auditor dismissals in the Sarbanes‐Oxley era”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 371‐86.

Geiger, M. and Raghunandan, K. (2002), “Auditor tenure and audit reporting”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 67‐78.

Grothe, M. and Weirich, T.R. (2007), “Analyzing auditor changes: lack of disclosure hinders accountability to investors”, The CPA Journal, Vol. 77 No. 12, pp. 14‐23.

Hackenbrack, K.E. and Hogan, C.E. (2005), “Client retention and engagement‐level pricing”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7‐20.

Huang, H.W., Raghunandan, K. and Rama, D. (2009), “Audit fees for initial audit engagement before and after SOX”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 171‐90.

Johnstone, K.M. and Bedard, J.C. (2004), “Audit firm portfolio management decisions”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 659‐90.

Jones, F.L. and Raghunandan, K. (1998), “Client risk and recent changes in the market for audit services”, Journal of Accounting Policy, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 169‐81.

Kallunki, J., Sahlström, P. and Zerni, M. (2007), “Propensity to switch auditors and strictness of legal liability environment: the role of audit mispricing”, International Journal of Auditing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 165‐85.

Kinney, W.R. Jr and Libby, R. (2002), “Discussion of the relation between auditors' fees for nonaudit services and earnings management”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 77, pp. 107‐14.

Larcker, D.F. and Richardson, S.A. (2004), “Fees paid to audit firms, accrual choices and corporate governance”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 625‐58.

Lee, H.Y., Mande, V. and Ortman, R. (2004), “The effect of audit committee and board of director independence on auditor resignation”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 131‐46.

Owens‐Jackson, L.A., Robinson, D.R. and Shelton, S.W. (2008), “Auditor resignation and dismissals: their effect on the profession”, The CPA Journal, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 28‐31.

Rama, D.V. and Read, W.J. (2006), “Resignations by the Big 4 and the market for audit services”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 97‐109.

Simon, D.T. and Francis, J.R. (1988), “The effects of auditor change on audit fees: tests of price cutting and price recovery”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 255‐69.

Simunic, D. (1980), “The pricing of audit services: theory and evidence”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 161‐90.

US House of Representatives (2002), “The Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002”, Public Law 107‐204 [H. R. 3763], Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Walker, P.L. and Casterella, J.R. (2000), “The role of auditee profitability in pricing new audit engagements”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 157‐67.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Accounting Research Journal

Tập 24 Số 1

79-93

Thông tin tác giả