Size effects and audit pricing: Evidence from Germany

Fleischer, Rouven; Goettsche, Max

doi:10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2012.07.005

Cited by 36 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the years, several international studies have shown the presence of a Big 4 (or formerly Big 8 or Big 6) audit fee premium (Willekens et al ; Numan and Willekens ). Fleischer and Goettsche () also confirm a premium in the provision of non‐auditing services by Big 4 firms in Germany. The audit fee premium results from the perception of a better quality of services provided by Big 4 firms (DeAngelo ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Productivity Analysis of UK Auditing Firms

Barros

Couto

Samagaio

2014

Australian Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyses the productivity change in the United Kingdom (UK) of auditing firms over the period [2005][2006][2007][2008][2009][2010][2011][2012], using a Malmquist index with a technological bias. Productivity is the rate at which goods or services are produced relative to the input. A common measure of productivity is the ratio of output per unit of labour used in the production. Productivity change is the change in the total output relative to the change in the total input and it is composed of technical efficiency change (managerial practices and scale effects) and technological change (innovation and investment in new technologies). Until 2005, the auditing profession in the UK employed a regime of self-regulation; after a brief hiatus, the country adopted the new European Statutory Audit Directive in April 2008, changing the regulatory framework. This study analyses the productivity change among UK auditing companies both before and after the regulation change. Our results indicate that the productivity change among UK auditing companies is mixed and not dictated by regulation. Furthermore, the traditional growth accounting method, which assumes Hicks-neutral technological change, is not appropriate for an analysis of the productivity change in auditing firms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Productivity Analysis of UK Auditing Firms

Barros

Couto

Samagaio

2014

Australian Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, audit subjects have total assets but not all of audit subject have sales. Moreover, Fleischer & Goettsche (2012) found inconsistence sign of assets parameters although it exhibited statistically significant results. Furthermore, the previous studies on audit size as an independent variables used dummy variables for audit firm sizes (Fleischer & Goettsche,2012;Cahan & Sun, 2015) and for total assets of audit subject (Carey & Simnett, 2006).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Comprix & Huang (2015) used total assets to measure audit size. According to Fleischer & Goettsche (2012), audit size can be represented more commonly by total assets and total sales but the audit system is different. In this study, audit subjects have total assets but not all of audit subject have sales.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies had proven that audit sizes have an effect on the audit quality (DeAngelo, 1981;Fleischer & Goettsche., 2012;Cahan & Sun, 2015;Comprix et al, 2015). Many previous studies also had been proven that the auditor tenure had an effect on the audit quality (Carey & Simnett, 2006;Rahmina & Agus, 2014;Ball et al, 2015).…”

Section: Variables That Affect Audit Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The quality of an audit depends on its size according to several studies. Fleischer & Goettsche (2012) concluded that the audit price in a large size audit object was affected by only audit size, but the price of an audit in small size audit object was affected not only by audit size but also by audit risk such as leverage. This study uses audit size from audit subject side, because the proxy of audit size is the total number of employees.…”

Section: Audit Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effect of Audit Follow-Up and Sizes on the Audit Quality

Mahpiansyah

2017

JTAKEN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini mengukur pengaruh ukuran audit dan tindak lanjut hasil audit terhadap kualitas audit di Indonesia. Pemerintah Indonesia memiliki dua institusi audit: eksternal dan internal audit. Tindak lanjut audit adalah perkembangan pelaksanaan rekomendasi audit dari audit eksternal untuk memperbaiki laporan keuangan auditee. Penelitian ini menganalisa data 33 provinsi dari tahun 2009 sampai dengan tahun 2013 dari Ikhtisar Laporan Hasil Pemeriksaan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (ILHP BPK) dan Daerah Dalam Angka Badan Pusat Statistik (DDA BPS) menggunakan OLS dan TSLS. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa jumlah tindak lanjut hasil pemeriksaan dan ukuran audit berpengaruh signifikan terhadap temuan audit walaupun ukuran audit yang didasarkan pada jumlah internal auditor, jumlah unit subyek audit dan jumlah pegawai provinsi hanya berpengaruh signifikan terhadap jumlah temuan audit. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa jumlah tindak lanjut audit secara keseluruhan mempengaruhi temuan audit tanpa terganggu dengan nominal tindak lanjut audit. Belum ada penelitian sebelumnya yang mengukur pengaruh dari tindak lanjut audit terhadap kualitas audit. Penelitian ini menambahkan pertanyaan penting mengenai hubungan antara ukuran audit dan efektivitas tindak lanjut audit pada kualitas audit di institusi pemerintah khususnya pemerintah daerah.Kata kunci:Audit internal, audit eksternal, kualitas audit, tindak lanjut audit, ukuran audit.ABSTRACTThis study examined the effect of audit size and the audit follow up on the audit quality in Indonesia. Indonesian government has two audit institutions: external and internal audit. The audit follow up is the progress of implementing audit recommendation from the external audit to correct the audit subject’s financial report. This study analyzed data of 33 provinces from 2009 to 2013 from Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan’s Audit Report Summary (ILHP BPK) and Local in Figures from Badan Pusat Statistik (DDA BPS) using Ordinary Least Square and Two Stage Least Square. This study found that the number of audit follow up and audit size are statistically significant to influence the audit findings although the internal audit sizes based on the auditor’s number, the number of subject unit and the number of provincial employees are statistically significant only to the number of audit findings. It implies that the number of audit follow up affects the audit findings as a whole without being disturbed by the nominal amount of audit follow up. There are no previous studies which measure the effect of audit follow up on audit quality. This study added the important question on the relationship between audit sizes and the effectiveness of audit follow up on audit quality in government institutions especially in local governments.Keywords:Internal audit, eksternal audit, audit quality, audit follow up, audit size

show abstract

What is it going to cost? Empirical evidence from a systematic literature review of audit fee determinants

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The audit market is subject to ongoing regulation to ensure or improve the quality of audit services. For this reason, international research on the audit market is highly popular. As part of this discussion, pricing is considered one of the most relevant aspects of audits. However, a remarkable heterogeneity of the control variables used in empirical studies can be observed. Prior meta-analyses on audit fees already summarized and categorized them for audit fee studies covering financial periods until fiscal year 2007. We contribute to the international literature with an up-to date and systematic review approach on audit fee studies published in international relevant scientific journals (JQ3 A + , A, B). In addition to prior reviews and meta-analyses, we finally suggest a standard model for the most important fee drivers that can be used for future audit fee studies. Our unique approach is based on an EBSCO keyword search with a sample of 385 papers published in international relevant scientific journals (JQ3 A + , A, B) and is using a scoring model to assess significance of audit fee control variables. On the one hand, we enrich the literature by a new state of the art paper on pricing within audit firms. On the other hand, we contribute to the international literature on audit markets from a theoretical point of view by deriving a new testable model of audit fee determinants. Therefore, our empirical results provide several fundamental insights that can be used for further empirical and theoretical research on the pricing of audit services. Thus, the results are meaningful not only for researchers within the field of auditing but also for experts in management, pricing or European legislature.

show abstract

Size effects and audit pricing: Evidence from Germany

Cited by 36 publications

References 23 publications

Productivity Analysis of UK Auditing Firms

Productivity Analysis of UK Auditing Firms

The Effect of Audit Follow-Up and Sizes on the Audit Quality

What is it going to cost? Empirical evidence from a systematic literature review of audit fee determinants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About