Search results

This paper aims to examine how a firm’s exposure to economic policy uncertainty affects the auditors’ perceptions of financial reporting risk. Firms that are more sensitive to policy uncertainty are predicted to engage in more earnings management because these firms are more likely to experience greater uncertainty in future operations. Audit fees will reflect this reporting risk. On the other hand, auditors might feel more fee pressure from policy-sensitive firms because firms are more inclined to reduce spending in the face of uncertainty and subsequently charge lower fees.

The author tests my hypothesis using U.S. data on audit fees and client characteristics of public companies between the years 2001 and 2021. The author estimates a standard audit fee model based on the audit fee literature (Hay et al., 2006) while also including the two policy sensitivity measures. This study uses panel data methods that allow time-series analyses, providing a powerful setting to test dynamic audit fee adjustment to improve the understanding of the audit market.

The results suggest that audit fee is higher for policy-sensitive firms than for policy-neutral firms. These results are robust to various proxies of policy sensitivity and various specifications designed to mitigate the endogeneity concerns. The study provides assurance that on average, auditor pricing reflects client risk adequately, mitigating the concern that auditors give in to fee pressure and compromise audit quality as a result.

While the findings from this study should be of value to regulators and academics seeking to understand audit activities amid escalating macroeconomic uncertainty, when interpreting these results, several limitations must be considered. The study does not examine how external auditors evaluate risks tied to policy uncertainty. A comprehensive understanding of how and why external auditors respond to heightened policy uncertainty faced by firms could be better achieved through interviews with external auditors and audit committee members. In addition, while this study posits that auditors adjust their approach in response to changes in policy uncertainty, largely due to potential shifts in the risks of material misstatement, there might be additional factors at play that warrant higher audit fees post a change in policy uncertainty. For instance, specific policy changes may give rise to new risks or modify existing ones, thereby precipitating increased scrutiny of records and procedures as company directors’ demand. These aspects offer potential avenues for future research.

This study underscores the significant role of policy sensitivity in determining audit fees and audit quality. Policy-sensitive firms present unique complexities and potential risks that require additional effort and vigilance from auditors. Auditors must develop a specialized understanding of sectors prone to policy fluctuations to navigate these unique challenges effectively. In addition, the role of professional standards boards and regulators in establishing guidelines for auditing policy-sensitive firms cannot be understated. Such guidelines could lead to more consistent audit practices and improved audit quality. Finally, by recognizing and effectively responding to the policy sensitivity of client firms, audit firms can mitigate their own risks, strengthen public trust and enhance the reliability of financial reports.

First, this study adds to an emerging stream of auditing literature that focuses on how audit fees interact with a firm’s external environment by providing evidence of an unexplored implication, a firm-specific policy sensitivity. Second, my main construct, policy sensitivity, provides two distinct advantages over other variables used in prior studies that explore the relationship between audit fees and external firm environments. Third, this study answers the calls for research by De Villiers et al. (2013, p. 3), who identified the cost behavior of audit fees, especially over time, as an area not well understood.

This study aims to examine the relationship between climate change disclosure performance (CCDP) and audit pricing. The moderating effect of corporate governance characteristics on that relationship is also investigated.

Using a sample of top 300 Australian Securities Exchange listed non-financial firms over the period 2008–2019, this study investigates the association between CCDP and audit fees. The findings are robust to a difference-in-difference test thereby alleviating potential endogeneity concerns.

CCDP is found to be significantly positively related to external auditor fees.

The findings show some important implications for firm management, regulators, investors and auditors. This study presents empirical evidence that climate change, as a factor of external risk, influences audit fees.

Firms with governance structures characterized by larger more independent boards, larger audit committees and audit committees with a higher level of independence significantly moderate the relationship between CCDP and audit fees.

Investors’ demand for firm transparency and disclosure of information regarding the risks of climate change, effects and opportunities has increased significantly over the past decade, as these factors could have a significant effect on valuation and investment decisions.

Importantly, stakeholders need to be aware of the costs of climate change, the quantification of climate change impacts and how firms address climate change in their business risk management processes. This study quantifies the impact of CCDP on auditor risk assessments via audit fees.

This study aims to examine how female directors on corporate boards and audit committees, and auditor affiliations (Big 4 versus Egyptian firms affiliated with foreign auditors), influence audit fees. This examination is driven by the global call for increased female representation in leadership roles and its potential implications for audit quality and financial transparency.

A sample of non-financial companies listed on the Egyptian Stock Exchange is used for the period 2011–2020. The authors used multivariate regression models, the Heckman two-stage and tokenism to support the analysis.

The results are threefold. First, this analysis reveals that female directors, whether on corporate boards or audit committees, are more likely to choose higher-quality audits in the form of high audit fees. Second, both Big 4 firms and Egyptian audit firms affiliated with foreign auditors are positively associated with audit fees and earn significant audit fee premiums. Third, a minor difference in audit fee premiums could be attributed to the existence of female directors.

Future research may expand the analysis performed in this study by investigating the characteristics related to female directors (e.g. education, experience and age) on audit fees.

This study suggests insights for regulatory bodies, corporate decision-makers, auditors and corporate governance researchers. For instance, this study reveals that the Big 4 are not homogenous and provide different audit quality levels along with significant audit fee premiums.

This study extends and contributes to the growing literature on female representation in corporate leadership. First, this study adds to the limited research in Egypt by examining the effect of female board representation on audit quality. Second, this study adds to the extant literature on the gender of financial experts by demonstrating that female financial expert is more likely to demand high-quality audits. Finally, the results have significant implications for policymakers. For instance, this study reveals that the Big 4 are not homogenous and provide different audit quality levels along with significant audit fee premiums.

Climate change has led to a rise in the frequency, intensity and scope of droughts, posing significant implications for businesses. This study examines the impact of local community drought levels on audit pricing. Additionally, it explores the moderating effects of high-tech industries, auditor busyness and the level of local community concern regarding the drought crisis.

This study employs a mixed-methods approach to rigorously test the research hypotheses. The quantitative phase of the study utilizes a sample of 1,278 firm-year observations from Iran’s capital market. For the analysis of the quantitative data, ordinary least squares regression with clustered robust standard errors is used. Additionally, this research supplements its quantitative findings with qualitative evidence obtained through semi-structured interviews with 19 Iranian audit partners.

The results suggest that firms operating in provinces facing severe droughts experience notably higher audit fees. Furthermore, the positive relationship between drought and audit fees is weakened when auditors are busy, local community concern regarding the drought crisis is high or the firm operates within high-tech industries. These findings are supported by a range of robustness checks and qualitative evidence gathered from the field.

This research contributes to the growing literature on climate change by examining the influence of local community drought levels on audit pricing within an Iranian context. Additionally, our study sheds light on how high-tech industries, auditor workload and the level of local community concern regarding the drought crisis moderate the relationship between drought and audit fees. Importantly, our study pioneers in providing mixed-methods evidence of the association between drought severity and audit fees.

In modern societies, consumer well-being is dependent on choices regarding complex services, such as investments, health care, insurance and lending. However, evaluating costs of such services is often difficult for consumers due to a combination of limited cognitive resources and complexity of the service. The purpose of this study is to empirically examine to what extent three specific consequences of complexity influence consumer tendencies to make mistakes when evaluating the costs (or price) of complex services.

Three studies were conducted (survey: n = 153, experiment: n = 332 and conjoint analysis: n = 225), all focusing on how consumers evaluate costs in the complex mutual fund setting.

The authors find that consumers struggle with estimating and using cost information in decision-making in the complex services setting. Consumers of complex services frequently underestimate the costs over the long-term, may see costs as a signal of service quality and are susceptible to influence from presentation formats when evaluating costs.

The study investigates mutual funds, which is one example of a complex service. In order to get a full picture of how consumers deal with costs in complex setting, future research needs to expand this focus to other types of complex services.

The results have implications for both marketers of complex services and policymakers. For marketers, this paper highlights that competing with a low-cost strategy may be difficult in the complex services setting as consumers may lack the ability to actually evaluate what they pay over the long term. For policymakers, increased simplification of prices may be an attractive option. However, it is important that this simplification is done in a way that increases the possibility to compare prices.

As complexity influences several aspects of decision-making, an understanding of how consumers evaluate costs in complex settings is dependent on taking a multidimensional research approach. This paper makes a novel contribution to the literature on pricing by showing that consumers struggle with multiple aspects when evaluating costs in complex contexts. Understanding these effects is important to policy, as well as to research on the cognitive value of simplicity that is currently gaining traction in marketing research.

The purpose of this paper is to describe data assembled on all registered US investment companies on advisory fees using the NSAR filings and to analyze the impact of the structure of the advisory contracts on the fees paid to mutual funds advisors. This analysis is particularly relevant now that mutual funds have to explain the rationale for the choice of the advisory fees in their public filings.

The paper summarizes data on advisory fees in the NSAR filings and uses regression analysis to examine the determinants of advisory fees.

The paper summarizes salient features of the mutual fund advisory fee contracts using the NSAR database. The analysis shows that breakpoint fee schedules designed to generate savings, do not automatically translate into lower expenses for the investors.

When determining the renewal of an advisory contract, the board of trustees of a mutual fund will then need to assess myriad factors related to the costs and profits of the fund, including the nature of the fee schedule. Regression models provide objective measures of assessing the reasonableness of advisory fees.

This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the evaluation of mutual funds advisory fees and highlights the usefulness of the NSAR filings. The debate is especially relevant given the additional SEC disclosure requirements.

User fees are charges levied against individual consumers of publicly produced services and commodities and publicly granted privileges on a cost‐per‐unit basis. In the broadest definition, user fees include charges for specialized database searches performed by public libraries, for electricity produced by a city‐owned utility, and for liquor licenses. In each of these cases, an individual can avoid the charge by consuming zero amount of the service, commodity, or privilege. By comparison, an individual cannot avoid the general taxes assessed for support of the library or other government services even if his or her direct consumption of a given service is zero.

Target cost contracts are growing in popularity but concerns remain about the interplay between fee, target, sharing ratios and the final price. This paper offers a fundamental analysis of the principles under‐pinning target contracts. It shows that there is scope for manipulation of tenders and that suboptimal methods of tender evaluation are in use. The paper analyses both fixed fee and percentage fee contracts. Methods of tender evaluation are proposed that will both reduce the scope for manipulation by tenderers and increase the likelihood of the contract being awarded to the tenderer whose final price will be the lowest. The analysis reveals a strong case for setting the contractor's share of cost overrun or underrun at a value that is not less than 50%. Finally, the paper proposes two simplifications that would reduce the number of variables in target cost contracts of the future. One is for the employer to set the fee and the other requires only that a target be tendered but with the fee built into it.

This article considers the use of charging differential fees for the same tuition services as a means to widen the financial accessibility of non‐government schools to children of less affluent parents in Australia. After discussing theoretical aspects, the author considers how the theoretical concepts could be operationalized, then how a sliding scale fee schedule could be implemented without, and with, external financial assistance.

To explain the SEC's focus on the appropriate use of fee-based accounts and disciplinary efforts to identify and prevent “reverse churning.”

Describes the quantitative analytics used in the SEC's Risk Analysis Examinations (RAEs) to identify reverse churning and other problematic behaviors, explains why the inappropriate use of fee-based or “wrap fee” accounts and “double charging” can be unfair to investment clients, summarizes prior NASD and FINRA guidance and enforcement regarding fee-based account supervision, and recommends account monitoring actions that firms should take to ferret out reverse churning.

The SEC's continuing interest in reverse churning and double-charging, and its use of new examination and investigation tools, together suggest that the future will see more investigations and enforcement actions against firms who place clients in a fee-based or “wrap-fee” account without having adequate supervisory procedures to determine and monitor whether such accounts are appropriate for those clients.

Monitoring accounts to ferret out reverse churning has proven difficult for firms in the past, since spotting inactivity might be more challenging than detecting excessive trades (known as “churning”). However, it seems that the SEC and its staff are enhancing their ability to identify and address these violations.

Practical advice from experienced financial services lawyers.