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.

Download full-text


Available from: Mikko Zerni, Jul 02, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In its Green Paper on audit policy (October 2010), the European Commission suggested that joint audits might be a way of improving the audit market in Europe. However, some parties consider that joint audits are not an efficient solution because they would significantly increase audit fees paid by companies. We compare audit fees paid in 2007, 2008 and 2009 by listed companies in France, where joint audits are mandatory, with those paid by Italian and British companies. We find significantly higher audit fees in France after controlling for well documented auditor, client and engagement attributes and in particular for auditor switching and non-audit fees, which vary across countries. Theory suggests that audit fees in countries with high investor protection, like the UK, should be greater than those in countries with low investor protection like France and Italy. In our matched samples, audit fees are about 40% higher in France compared to either the UK or Italy. Further, higher audit fees are not paid for higher audit quality, we do not find differential levels of earnings management (a proxy for audit quality).
    European Accounting Review 01/2013; DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2039001 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The publication of the European Commission Green Paper, ‘Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis’ in October 2010, has stirred up a lively debate on the role of joint audits. This literature review identifies and evaluates, for the benefit of future research and regulators, existing evidence about joint audits. We find limited empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to increased audit quality, but some empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to additional costs. Overall, this paper indicates that joint audit should be seen as a mechanism that is embedded in a broader institutional context and not be considered in isolation from other factors that might impact the audit market. The results indicate that various country-level characteristics are simultaneously at play. While joint audits can potentially enhance the audit market competition by allowing smaller audit firms to maintain larger market shares, the related impact on audit quality has not yet been clearly demonstrated and thus provides a promising avenue for future research.
    Accounting in Europe 11/2013; 10(2):175-199. DOI:10.1080/17449480.2013.834725
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the preventive measures to situations akin to world financial crises increasingly forwarded is effective internal audit function (IAF) (e.g., Imhoff, 2003; Mohamad & Muhamad Sori, 2011). Internal audit, a component of corporate governance, continues to evolve due to changes in business strategies and requirements placed on it by legislators. The roles of internal auditors and audit committees (ACs), the key personnel in IAFs, are changing to a more value-added approach as business strategies move towards corporate sustainability and organisational excellence. Suggestions forwarded to improve the performance or determining the quality of IAF include effective involvement of ACs in internal audit activities, the employment of competent internal auditors and determining the impact of internal audit on corporate governance (e.g., Mohamad & Muhamad Sori, 2011, Sarens, 2009, Turley & Zaman, 2007). Research on the quality of internal audit has focussed mainly on the relationships of internal audit with internal control and ACs (e.g., Fadzil, Haron, & Jantan, 2005; Mat Zain & Subramaniam, 2007; Turley & Zaman, 2007). However, none has linked the impact of internal audit performance to corporate governance. This study provides an agency of value view, explaining the effectiveness of IAF and its impact on corporate governance. Using a convergent mixed methods approach, the main findings from survey data collected from corporate members of the Institute of Internal Auditors Malaysia are compared and integrated with perspectives from chief audit executives of selected public listed companies interviewed. The factors investigated are the structure of the IAF, activities of best practices in internal auditing, ACs’ involvement as stated by the Malaysian public listing guidelines (Bursa Malaysia, 2000, 2009b) and the World Bank’s corporate governance framework (World Bank, 1991). An exploration on the extent of collaborations and combined assurances in internal audit is also carried out. The primary analysis on the probability of an effective IAF and profiling of the internal audit activities, level of AC involvement and areas of corporate governance is made using the Rasch model. Non-parametric tests are also used to determine the statistical significance of the relationships of the components investigated. In-depth interview data are analysed using template analysis. The findings support the establishment of an in-house IAF with a definitive team size and professional expertise for an effective IAF. Other IAF components are member experience, combined audit activities and collaborations of audit activities. Although these other components are not significantly related to the effectiveness of IAF, the in-depth interviews provided more explanations on their importance in internal audit. An important structure of the IAF is the AC’s oversight role. The findings also indicate that the level of ACs’ involvement in the reviews of each stage of the internal audit process contributes to the overall effectiveness of IAF. Due to issues in staffing and the changing business environment, collaborations particularly in risk management, information technology audits and quality audits, are increasingly being used as a strategy in internal audit to provide value add services. Further, as suggested by Sarens (2009), the level of internal audit performance could now be identified to its impact on corporate governance, for example such as in areas of expenditure management, revenue management, analysis of data and conflict resolution. The results have implications on the policy regarding internal control for public listed companies, favouring an in-house internal audit function as opposed to outsourcing the function, to address the recommendations on the effectiveness of ACs and its relationship with IAFs. The practice of internal audit in future should be more collaborative to harness the expertise and experience of other departmental personnel in producing effective internal audit, ultimately creating a greater impact on corporate governance.
    01/2014, Degree: Doctor of Philosophy