Audit pricing, legal liability regimes, and Big 4 premiums: Theory and cross-country evidence

被引:333
作者
Choi, Jong-Hag [1 ]
Kim, Jeong-Bon [2 ,3 ]
Liu, Xiaohong [4 ]
Simunic, Dan A. [5 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Seoul 151, South Korea
[2] Concordia Univ, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[4] Hong Kong Univ Sci & Technol, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[5] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
关键词
audit fee; Big 4 fee premium; legal liability cost; liability regime shift;
D O I
10.1506/car.25.1.2
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
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 (a) audit fees increase monotonically with the strength or strictness of a country's legal liability regime; (b) given a legal liability regime, Big 4 auditors charge higher audit fees than non-Big 4 auditors; and (c) the Big 4 fee premium is lower in countries with strong legal regimes than in countries with weaker legal regimes. 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 are consistent with the above three predictions and are robust to a variety of sensitivity checks. In addition, our hypotheses are all consistent with the pattern of auditor effort (measured by labor hours) observed in proprietary data sets from four countries whose legal regimes vary. Finally, 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 results indicate that a country's legal environment plays an important role in determining auditor effort, audit fees, and the fee spread between Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors.
引用
收藏
页码:55 / +
页数:46
相关论文
共 44 条
[31]   Legal determinants of external finance [J].
LaPorta, R ;
LopezDeSilanes, F ;
Shleifer, A ;
Vishny, RM .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 1997, 52 (03) :1131-1150
[32]   Earnings management and investor protection: an international comparison [J].
Leuz, C ;
Nanda, D ;
Wysocki, PD .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2003, 69 (03) :505-527
[33]   Profit sharing in an auditing oligopoly [J].
Liu, XH ;
Simunic, DA .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2005, 80 (02) :677-702
[34]   THE PRODUCTION OF AUDIT SERVICES - EVIDENCE FROM A MAJOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM [J].
OKEEFE, TB ;
SIMUNIC, DA ;
STEIN, MT .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 1994, 32 (02) :241-261
[35]   Strategic interaction in auditing: An analysis of auditors' legal liability, internal control system quality, and audit effort [J].
Pae, S ;
Yoo, SW .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2001, 76 (03) :333-356
[36]  
PONG CM, 1994, J BUSINESS FINANCE A, V21, P1071
[37]   Litigation risk and audit fees: evidence from UK firms cross-listed on US markets [J].
Seetharaman, A ;
Gul, FA ;
Lynn, SG .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 2002, 33 (01) :91-115
[38]  
Simon D., 1992, INT J ACCOUNTING, V27, P234
[39]  
SIMUNIC D, 1987, RES MONOGRAPH CANADI, V13
[40]   THE PRICING OF AUDIT SERVICES - THEORY AND EVIDENCE [J].
SIMUNIC, DA .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 1980, 18 (01) :161-190