The effect of audit firm size on prizes is a complex function of competition in the market for audit services, product differentiation, and scale economics to large firms. In this study, a competitive market is supported in Australia with product differentiation to Bif Eight accounting firms. Specially, Big Eight accounting firms have significantly higher audit prices than non-Big Eight firms. This results holds for ‘large’ and ‘small’ auditees. A test is also made of price cutting in the Australian market. Price cutting is defined as lower initial audit fees than continuing engagement fees for a comparable audit. Test results do not evidence price-cutting behavior by accounting firms. There is in fact weak evidence that initial audit fees are higher than continuing engagement fee levels. Higher initial fees suggest that accounting firms may recover at least some of the audit start-up costs immediately.

Ruddock, Taylor, and Taylor (2006) use an earnings conservatism framework to investigate the effects of nonaudit services (NAS) on earnings conservatism, and to test whether audit quality was impaired by NAS in Australia during the 1990s. They find no evidence of differential conservatism conditional on the level of NAS fees paid to auditors, and thus conclude that NAS have no adverse effect on audit quality. While this result may not extrapolate to the U.S. setting due to institutional difference between the two countries, the study does add to a growing body of empirical evidence that questions whether there is any logical rationale for restricting the scope of the services that auditors provide to their audit clients. In reviewing the NAS research literature over the past 40 years, one has to conclude that there is no “smoking gun” evidence linking the provision of nonaudit services with audit failures. However, the literature also finds that NAS can adversely affect the appearance of auditor independence, and this may be more than a “mere perception” problem, because there is also evidence that stock prices are significantly lower for companies that pay their auditors large fees for nonaudit services.

[This study tests whether there is a positive association between a firm's agency costs and its demand for a quality-differentiated audit. Audit firm quality is represented in two ways: a continuous size model in which a direct association is posited between auditor size (measured by clients' sales) and audit quality, and a "brand name" model in which the Big Eight group of auditors is defined as higher quality suppliers. The tests are supportive of the brand name model of audit quality: agency cost proxies are significant as a group, after controlling for client size and growth, only in the brand name model. The results are also supportive (albeit weakly in some instances) of the following individual agency-related incentives for higher quality audits: monitoring of incentive performance contracts, diffusion of ownership, owner-debtholder conflict, and the subsequent issue of public securities after the auditor change. However, the explanatory power of the models tested is low, after controlling for client size and growth.]

[The Commission on Auditors' Responsibilities expressed concern for the adverse effect of audit fee price cutting on auditor independence. In the present study, tests were conducted to determine both the presence and magnitude of audit fee price cutting on 1984 audit fees for a sample of 214 firms having changed auditors over the period 1979-1984. A control sample of 226 firms not changing auditors over the same period was used in order to estimate price cutting. Results indicated a significant fee reduction in the initial engagement year that averaged 24 percent of normal fee levels for ongoing engagements, an average fee reduction of 15 percent for each of the next two years, but by the fourth year of the new auditor the fee had increased to normal levels for continuing engagements. The Commission's concern for price cutting's effect on auditor independence is then reconsidered in the context of recent work on the psychology of sunk costs.]

[Simunic [1980] and Palmrose [1986, Appendix A] report contradictory findings about a Big Eight auditor price premium in the "small" auditee segment of the U.S. audit market for publicly-traded companies. The study reported here finds that a Big Eight price premium exists and that the premium exists with respect to both second-tier national firms and local/regional firms. The existence of a price premium implies Big Eight product differentiation, at least in the "small" auditee market segment. A separate test is made of initial audit engagements. Tests indicate that initial engagements are priced significantly lower than continuing engagements, which supports recent reports of price-cutting behavior. However, no inference is made about the effect of price-cutting on audit quality.]

Large clients create an economic dependence that may cause auditors to compromise their independence and report favorably to retain valuable clients. Economic dependence is measured as a client's size relative to the size of the office that contracts for the audit and issues the audit report. We find no evidence economic dependence causes Big Five auditors to report more favorably for larger clients in their offices. However, larger clients also pose greater litigation risk, and we do find that Big 5 auditors report more conservatively for larger clients, suggesting that reputation protection dominates auditor behavior.

Several hypotheses concerning pension funding strategy are tested in a cross-sectional regression model on a sample of 255 firms. Results are consistent with the following explanations: (1) finance incentives (tax benefits and financial slack) for high-level funding, (2) labor incentives for low-level funding, and (3) financial statement incentives relating to political costs for high-level funding and debt contracting costs for low-level funding. Pension funding strategy appears to be complex, involving tradeoffs between funding incentives. The nature of these interactions and tradeoffs remains to be clarified through future research.