No abstract

This paper examines audit fees paid by all 126 non-financial companies listed on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange in 2002.The Danish institutional setting is theoretically interesting because listed companies are required to use two independent auditors, and the liberal regulation of auditor independence facilitates an examination of the association between consultancy fees and audit fees. Our results indicate that de facto joint audits, where both auditors have significant stakes in the audit, reduce audit fees compared with audits where one auditor is dominant, albeit only for larger companies. We attribute these results to competition between the auditors. Our results clearly confirm previous findings of a positive association between other fees and audit fees. On balance, we find the core audit fee determinants model to be well specified for the Danish data, although small companies seem to differ somewhat from large companies. Finally, we find no additional Big Four effect from the appointment of a second Big Four auditor. However, our results indicate that the use of PWC is associated with lower audit fees in large companies and higher audit fees in small companies.

Purpose – The authors aim to exploit a natural experiment in which voluntary replace mandatory joint audits for Danish listed companies and analyse audit fee implications of using one or two audit firms. Design/methodology/approach – Regression analysis is used. The authors apply both a core audit fee determinants model and an audit fee change model and include interaction terms. Findings – The authors find short-term fee reductions in companies switching to single audits, but only where the former joint audit contained a dominant auditor. The authors argue that in this situation bargaining power is more with the auditors than in an equally shared joint audit, and that the auditors' incentives to offer an initial fee discount are bigger. Research limitations/implications – The number of observations is constrained by the small Danish capital market. Future research could take a more qualitative research approach, to examine whether the use of a single audit firm rather than two has an effect on audit quality. The area calls for further theory development covering audit fee and audit quality in joint audit settings. Practical implications – Companies should consider their relationship with their auditors before deciding to switch to single auditors. Fee discounts do not seem to reflect long-lasting efficiency gains on the part of the audit firm. Originality/value – Denmark is the first country to leave a mandatory joint audit system, so this is the first time that it is possible to study fee effects related to this.

No abstract

In the first theoretical paper on joint audits, Deng et al. predict that the audit fees for joint audits will be lower than those from single audits. However, the prediction depends on the combination of audit firms involved in the joint audit and on their technology efficiency as well as on the liability involved. This paper is the first to empirically test the predictions. Our findings from Denmark do not indicate any general difference in audit fees when two audit firms -regardless of combination and technology efficiency -conduct the statutory audit compared to a single Big audit firm. The results indicate the existence of fixed coordination costs in joint audits. We do, however, find higher audit fees in Big-Small joint audits when the Small audit firm has a share of less than 25 per cent. This may reflect free-riding concerns.