Do Joint Audits Improve Audit Quality? Evidence from Voluntary Joint Audits

European Accounting Review (Impact Factor: 1.15). 12/2012; 21(4):731-765. DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2012.678599

ABSTRACT This study examines whether the decision to voluntarily (i.e. without a statutory obligation) employ two audit firms to conduct a joint audit is related to audit quality. We use separate samples and empirical designs for public and privately held companies in Sweden, where a sufficient number of companies have a joint audit on a voluntary basis. Our empirical findings suggest that companies opting to employ joint audits have a higher degree of earnings conservatism, lower abnormal accruals, better credit ratings and lower perceived risk of becoming insolvent within the next year than other firms. These findings are robust to the use of a propensity score matching technique to control for the differences in client characteristics between firms that employ joint audits and those that use single Big 4 auditors (i.e. auditor self-selection). We also find evidence that the choice of a joint audit is associated with substantial increases in the fees paid by the client firm, suggesting a higher perceived level of quality. Collectively, our analyses support the view that voluntary joint audits are positively associated with audit quality in a relatively low litigious setting both for public and private firms.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regulators and small audit firms allege that audit firm size does not affect audit quality and therefore should be irrelevant in the selection of an auditor. Contrary to this view, the current paper argues that audit quality is not independent of audit firm size, even when auditors initially possesses identical technological capabilities. In particular, when incumbent auditors earn client-specific quasi-rents, auditors with a greater number of clients have ‘more to lose’ by failing to report a discovered breach in a particular client's records. This collateral aspect increases the audit quality supplied by larger audit firms. The implications for some recent recommendations of the AICPA Special Committee on Small and Medium Sized Firms are developed.
    Journal of Accounting and Economics 12/1981; · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a competitive market, audit prices can vary if the clients believe that the quality of audits varies. Previous research links auditor independence, a key element of audit quality, to auditor size and consequently suggests a positive association between audit quality and auditor size. Moreover, by using the dichotomy approach (Big Five/non-Big Five), numerous studies in many countries have found that the largest audit firms with international reputations earn fee premiums due to their perceived higher quality. Little is known, however, about pricing differences arising from product differentiation among small audit firms. This study examines the relation between auditor size and audit prices by using the data on hourly billing rates and the auditor characteristics from 103 small Finnish audit firms. This study documents, after controlling for the auditor's technical capability, the positive association between auditor size and audit pricing. The results suggest that both size and technical capability have a positive impact on auditor remuneration, implying that product differentiation also takes place among these small audit firms.
    European Accounting Review 02/2004; 13(3):541-560. · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Econometrica 04/2001; 48:817-830. · 3.50 Impact Factor


Available from
May 16, 2014