Terrence B. O'Keefe, Dan A. Simunic, Michael T. Stein, The Production of Audit Services: Evidence from a Major Public Accounting Firm, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 241-261

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Dan A. Simunic, Gary C. Biddle; The Big Four: The Curious Past and Perilous Future of the Global Accounting Monopoly. The Accounting Review 1 January 2019; 94 (1): 353–356. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10638 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Accounting Review Search Advanced Search

In this paper, we examine the relative efficiency of audit production by one of the then Big 6 public accounting firms for a sample of 247 geographically dispersed audits of U.S. companies performed in 1989. To test the relative efficiency of audit production, we use both stochastic frontier estimation (SFE) and data envelopment analysis (DEA). A feature of our research is that we also test whether any apparent inefficiencies in production, identified using SFE and DEA, are correlated with audit pricing. That is, do apparent inefficiencies cause the public accounting firm to reduce its unit price (billing rate) per hour of labor utilized on an engagement? With respect to results, we do not find any evidence of relative (within‐sample) inefficiencies in the use of partner, manager, senior, or staff labor hours using SFE. This suggests that the SFE model may not be sufficiently powerful to detect inefficiencies, even with our reasonably large sample size. However, we do find apparent inefficiencies using the DEA model. Audits range from about 74 percent to 100 percent relative efficiency in production, while the average audit is produced at about an 88 percent efficiency level, relative to the most efficient audits in the sample. Moreover, the inefficiencies identified using DEA are correlated with the firm's realization rate. That is, average billing rates per hour fall as the amount of inefficiency increases. Our results suggest that there are moderate inefficiencies in the production of many of the subject public accounting firm's audits, and that such inefficiencies are economically costly to the firm.

This paper derives the impacts of legal system characteristics and auditing standards on auditor behavior (audit quality), and analyzes the determination of optimal auditing standards under different legal regimes. Legal regimes are characterized by differences in the uncertainty concerning the outcome of legal proceedings (termed vagueness of legal systems) and differences in the average size of damage awards. Auditing standards as determined by standard setters can vary in both toughness and vagueness. Our analysis provides implications for the adoption of International Standards on Auditing ( ISA ). Countries, such as the United States, where auditor legal liability is significantly more onerous than the global norm are not likely to adopt ISA , since these standards may not induce auditors to provide the optimal level of audit quality. Conversely, the adoption of ISA by countries, such as China, where the legal system makes the recovery of damages from auditors quite difficult, is not by itself likely to result in a high level of audit quality. Furthermore, our model suggests that auditor rotation can help improve audit quality, but only in certain circumstances.

We develop a measure to capture an audit firm's competitive position in a local audit market based on the transaction costs of changing audit firms included in DeAngelo's (1981) multi-period audit pricing model. Our competition measure reflects the size difference between the largest audit firm in a market specified by client industry at the city level and the other audit firms operating in that market. We find that audit fees of a client decrease as this size difference increases. This result suggests that smaller audit firms charge lower audit fees because of their competitive disadvantage to the local largest firm.

ABSTRACT Conventional wisdom holds that joint audits would improve audit quality by enhancing audit evidence precision because “Two heads are better than one.” Our paper challenges this wisdom. We show that joint audits by one big firm and one small firm may impair audit quality, because, in that situation, joint audits induce a free‐riding problem between audit firms and reduce audit evidence precision. We further derive a set of empirically testable predictions comparing audit evidence precision and audit fees under joint and single audits. This paper, the first theoretical study of joint audits, contributes to a better understanding of the economic consequences of joint audits on audit quality.

We analyze whether and how the perceived federal‐level legal liability linked to federal judge ideology is associated with the likelihood of firms receiving going‐concern modified audit opinions and analyze the differential effects on Big 4 and non–Big 4 auditors. We find that Big 4 and non–Big 4 auditors converge in their going‐concern reporting decisions in circuits with more liberal judges. This convergence is caused by the greater effect of judge ideology on non–Big 4 auditors. Furthermore, we empirically examine the association between federal judge ideology and actual lawsuits against auditors and find that judge ideology has a greater impact on lawsuit likelihood for non–Big 4 auditors for the restating companies. When auditors are sued, both the payout likelihood and amount are greater in circuits with more liberal judges, with the effect being more pronounced for non–Big 4 auditors. This study provides evidence on how the perceived exposure to a gross negligence legal standard shapes auditors' going‐concern reporting incentives for the two tiers of auditors in the market. It also adds to the literature on auditor litigation.

In this paper, we first develop a model in which national legal environments play a crucial role in determining auditor effort and audit fees. Our model predicts that: (1) audit fees increase monotonically with the strength or strictness of a country’s legal liability regime; (2) given a legal liability regime, Big 4 auditors charge higher audit fees than non-Big 4 auditors; and (3) the Big 4 fee premium decreases as a country’s legal regime shifts from a weak to a strong regime. We then test the model’s predictions using a large sample of audit clients from 15 countries with different legal regimes where audit fee data are publicly available. The results of our cross-country regressions strongly support the above three predictions, and are robust to a variety of sensitivity checks. Furthermore, we find that the effects of a legal regime on audit pricing and the Big 4 premium are more salient for the small client segment than for the large client segment. Overall, our regression results indicate that a country’s legal environment plays an important role in determining both audit fees and the fee spread between Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors.

ABSTRACT: We study the effects of cross-listings on audit fees. We first develop a model in which legal environments play a crucial role in determining the auditor's legal liability. Our model and analysis predict that auditors charge higher fees for firms that are cross-listed in countries with stronger legal regimes than they do for non-cross-listed firms and that the cross-listing audit fee premium increases with the difference in the strength of legal regimes between the cross-listed foreign country and the home country. We then empirically test these predictions. The results of our cross-country regressions strongly support our predictions. In addition, we find no significant cross-listing fee premium for firms that are cross-listed in countries whose legal regimes are. no stronger than those of their home countries. This suggests that cross-listing audit fee premiums are associated with increased legal liability and not with increased audit complexity per se. Our findings help explain why cross-listing premiums occur and what determines their magnitude.