Market structure and audit fees: A local analysis

被引:34
|
作者
Bandyopadhyay, SP [1 ]
Kao, JL
机构
[1] Univ Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2M7, Canada
关键词
audit fees; auditor market concentration; client influence; dual local perspective;
D O I
10.1506/4A05-11UF-1MQA-57JE
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
This study conducts a local analysis of the relation between market structure and audit fees. The research question of interest to us is how audit fees are determined by each practicing local office, after taking into account the auditor's own position in a local market and the influence exerted by his or her clients. Appealing to the economic theories of monopoly and monopsony power, we hypothesize a positive audit fee-concentration relation, and a negative audit fee-client influence relation. Results indicate that auditor market concentration is positively associated with the non-Big 6 audit fees but is unrelated to the Big 6 audit fees. Evidence is mixed concerning the client influence hypothesis. When this construct is proxied by the number of rival auditors operating within a geographic area centered on the municipality, the prediction of negative audit fee-client influence relation is strongly supported for both groups of auditors. Results are much weaker using measures developed based on the relative importance of a municipal client to its auditor's audit portfolio. The issues addressed in this study are important at a time when the Canadian municipal sector is undergoing major changes because of municipal amalgamation, altering the underlying market structure for audit services and the bargaining position of a municipality vis-a-vis its auditor. More broadly speaking, our analysis implies that when assessing an auditor's report for signs of client pressure, the professional oversight bodies and regulatory authorities need to consider the relative, rather than the absolute, bargaining position of the client in question.
引用
收藏
页码:529 / 561
页数:33
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Analysis of the Relationship Between Audit Market Structure and Audit Fees Charged to Brazilian Companies
    Schnidger, Cristian
    Costa, Cristiano Machado
    Pereira, Vanusa Batista
    [J]. CONTABILIDADE GESTAO E GOVERNANCA, 2020, 23 (02): : 235 - 255
  • [2] Non-Audit Fees, Market Leaders and Concentration in the German Audit Market: A Descriptive Analysis
    Bigus, Jochen
    Zimmermann, Ruth-Caroline
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDITING, 2008, 12 (03) : 159 - 179
  • [3] Relative audit fees and client loyalty in the audit market
    Farag, Magdy
    Elias, Rafik
    [J]. ACCOUNTING RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2011, 24 (01) : 79 - +
  • [4] Product Market Competition and Audit Fees
    Wang, Yuequan
    Chui, Andy C. W.
    [J]. AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY, 2015, 34 (04): : 139 - 156
  • [5] Audit market concentration, audit fees, and audit quality: A cross-country analysis of complex audit clients
    Gunn, Joshua L.
    Kawada, Brett S.
    Michas, Paul N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2019, 38 (06)
  • [6] Local creative culture and audit fees
    Costa, Mabel D.
    Habib, Ahsan
    [J]. BRITISH ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2023, 55 (02):
  • [7] Abnormal Audit Fees and Audit Quality: Evidence from the Korean Audit Market
    Behrend, Matthew J.
    Khan, Sarfraz
    Ko, Young Woo
    Park, Sung-Jin
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 2020, 19 (03) : 37 - 60
  • [8] Audit Market Concentration, Audit Fees, and Audit Quality: Evidence from China
    Huang, Ting-Chiao
    Chang, Hsihui
    Chiou, Jeng-Ren
    [J]. AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY, 2016, 35 (02): : 121 - 145
  • [9] Audit market concentration, legal regime, and audit fees: An international investigation
    Lee, Eugenia Y. Y.
    Choi, Jong-Hag
    Kim, Eunhee
    Sunwoo, Hee-Yeon
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDITING, 2024, 28 (01) : 206 - 225
  • [10] Abnormal audit fees and audit quality: initial evidence from the German audit market
    Krauß P.
    Pronobis P.
    Zülch H.
    [J]. Journal of Business Economics, 2015, 85 (1) : 45 - 84