SUMMARY Using structured interviews and surveys of practicing audit partners, this study examines their perceptions with regard to mandatory partner rotation and cooling-off periods, and how recently enacted, more stringent rules, may negatively impact auditors' quality of life to the detriment of audit quality. Results suggest rotation, in general, increases partners' workloads and the likelihood of relocation. Additionally, results suggest that in response to accelerated rotation (and an extended cooling-off period), partners would rather learn a new industry than relocate. Importantly, partners perceive audit quality suffers from retraining, but not from relocating. Thus these results suggest an indirect, negative impact, and unintended consequence, of accelerated rotation/extended cooling-off periods on audit quality. Data Availability: The survey instrument is available upon request. Individual audit partner responses are confidential.
Effective February 05, 2001, publicly traded companies are required to disclose audit and nonaudit fees paid to their external auditors. These fee data have been used to test whether auditor independence is impaired when the external auditor provides nonaudit services to a client, usually by examining whether certain earnings characteristics are related to nonaudit fees in ways that suggest impairment. This paper follows in that tradition by testing whether the earnings response coefficient (ERC), a proxy for earnings quality, is associated with engagement profitability. Residual fees derived from a two-stage regression model that prices audit and nonaudit services simultaneously are used to proxy for engagement profitability. If the market perceives abnormally profitable engagements as a threat to auditor independence, then we would expect the ERC to be lower for firms with positive fee residuals. The paper examines the residual fee-ERC relation for annual earnings announcements immediately before and after first-time fee disclosure. We report results for alternative measures of unexpected earnings (I/B/E/S forecast errors and deviations from a seasonal random walk), different formulations of residual fees (as a dichotomous and continuous variable) and different samples. For total fees and audit fees, there is a positive association between ERCs and the level of residual fees. For nonaudit fees, there is only one combination of unexpected earnings and residual fee formulation where we observe a significantly negative association between ERCs and residual fees. The findings for audit fees are consistent with a market that interprets abnormally high audit fees as a signal of a firm's commitment to high earnings quality. The restrictive conditions under which we find a negative association between nonaudit fees and ERCs provide limited support for the contention that perceived auditor independence is impaired by abnormally high nonaudit fees.
After several high-profile data security breaches (e.g., Target Corporation, Michaels Stores, Inc., The Home Depot), corporate boards are prioritizing the oversight of Information Technology (IT) risk. Firms are also increasingly faced with disclosure decisions regarding IT security breaches. This study proposes that firms can use the creation of a board-level technology committee as part of the firm's information technology governance (ITG) to signal the firm's ability to detect and respond to security breaches. Using reported security breaches during the time period 2005–2014, results indicate that firms with technology committees are more likely to have reported breaches in a given year than are firms without the committee. Further analysis suggests that this positive association is driven by relatively young technology committees and external source breaches. Specifically, as a technology committee becomes more established, its firm is not as likely to be breached. To obtain further evidence on the perceived value of a technology committee, this study uses a returns analysis and finds that the presence of a technology committee mitigates the negative abnormal stock returns arising from external breaches. Findings add to the evolving ITG literature, as well to the signaling theory and disclosure literatures.
The authors study whether managerial ownership and analyst coverage relate to audit fees. To the extent that these corporate governance factors relate to auditor assessment of the firm’s agency costs and hence various risks the auditor must consider in the development of an audit program, they will affect audit effort and hence audit fees. The authors find that managerial equity holdings and analyst coverage are negatively associated with audit fees and that these associations are both statistically and economically significant. On average, a 1% increase in managerial ownership translates into a 0.2% reduction in audit fees. In the low managerial ownership sample (i.e., less than 5% managerial ownership), a 1% increase in the ownership reduces the fees by 1.4%. Similarly, one more analyst following a company reduces audit fees by 9.3%. These results add to the literature on the effects of corporate governance on audit fees.
SUMMARY: In 2013, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) proposed an amendment to Auditing Standard No. 12 (PCAOB 2010) that would require auditors to consider executive compensation in audit planning because of potential fraud risk associated with equity incentives. We use the association between audit fees and CEO and CFO equity incentives to infer whether auditors increase audit scope and perceive greater risk as equity incentives increase. Equity incentives are defined as the sensitivity of the value of executives' equity portfolios to changes in share price (delta incentive) and to changes in return volatility (vega incentive). We find a positive association between audit fees and vega, but not delta. However, when we interact vega with proxies for residual auditor business risk, we find that the fee premiums for risk decrease as vega increases. Our results suggest that auditors do consider executive compensation in audit planning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.