Audit plan

About: Audit plan is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4676 publications have been published within this topic receiving 116018 citations.

The pricing of audit services - theory and evidence

Abstract: The question of the existence of competition among auditors has been the subject of considerable discussion in recent years. More specifically, the "Big Eight" firms as a group have been accused of monopolizing the market for audits {Staff Study of the Subcommittee on Reports, Accounting and Management of the Senate Committee on Government Operations [1977]). However, evidence on the issue is scanty and typically anecdotal (e.g., Bernstein [1978]). The evidence of the Staff Study itself is limited to concentration statistics, with the allegations relying on what has come to be called the "concentration doctrine" (Demsetz [1973]). According to this doctrine, supplier concentration is a reliable indicator of supplier behavior and performance. In this paper, I provide evidence from a test of the hypothesis that price competition prevails throughout the market for the audits of publicly held companies, irrespective of the share of a market segment which is serviced by the Big Eight firms. The evidence is based on an examination of a sample cross-section of audit fees.

A Review of Archival Auditing Research

Abstract: We define higher audit quality as greater assurance of high financial reporting quality. Researchers use many proxies for audit quality, with little guidance on choosing among them. We provide a framework for systematically evaluating their unique strengths and weaknesses. Because it is inextricably intertwined with financial reporting quality, audit quality also depends on firms’ innate characteristics and financial reporting systems. Our review of the models commonly used to disentangle these constructs suggests the need for better conceptual guidance. Finally, we urge more research on the role of auditor and client competency in driving audit quality.

What do we know about audit quality

Abstract: This paper reviews empirical research over the past 25 years, mainly from the United States, in order to assess what we currently know about audit quality with respect to publicly listed companies. The evidence indicates that outright audit failure rates are infrequent, far less than 1% annually, and audit fees are quite small, less than 0.1% of aggregate client sales. This suggests there may be an acceptable level of audit quality at a relatively low cost. There is also evidence of voluntary differential audit quality (above the legal minimum) along a number of dimensions such as firm size, industry specialization, office characteristics, and cross-country differences in legal systems and auditor liability exposure. The evidence is very positive although there is some indication that audit quality may have declined in the 1990s, in which case there could be merit in recent reforms such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the US. However, we do not know from research the optimal level of audit quality and therefore whether we currently have ‘too little’ or ‘too much’ auditing? Despite this lacuna we are entering an era of more mandated auditing in response to high-profile corporate governance failures including the Enron–Andersen affair. Finally, while recent reforms have scaled back the scope of non-audit services due to independence concerns, a case can be made that audit quality will always be somewhat suspect if other services are provided that are perceived to potentially compromise the auditor's objectivity and skepticism. For this reason public confidence in audit quality may be increased by proscribing all non-audit services for audit clients. Recommendations are also proposed with respect to legal liability reform and changes in partner compensation arrangements.