IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/316355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit quality and the cost of debt in private firms: evidence from the Brazilian sugarcane industry

Author

Listed:
  • Manoel, Aviner Augusto Silva
  • Moraes, Marcelo Botelho da Casta
  • Santos, David Ferreira Lopes
  • Pündrich, Gabriel Pereira

Abstract

Evidence is mixed regarding the economic benefits achieved by companies hiring large firms to audit their financial statements. The studies approaching this theme concentrate mostly on public companies in developed markets, while the effect on private firms in emerging markets is still an open question. This research explores this gap by analyzing whether private firms in the Brazilian sugarcane industry audited by a Big 4 have a lower cost of debt than those audited by a non-Big 4. For that, a unique, hand-collected, dataset was used. This paper contributes to the literature by providing evidence of the role of audit institutions in an environment lacking studies on private firms’ financial reports, especially in emerging economies. The empirical analysis does not indicate that the cost of debt is negatively influenced by the verification of financial statements by a high-quality auditor. Banks and credit unions, as the primary funding sources of the industry, condition the cost of debt reduction to the levels of tangibility, leverage, and profitability. We also contribute to the literature by demonstrating that lenders may have other soft information sources, obtained through banking relationship, which may substitute higher-quality auditor. The results hold after robustness checks and endogeneity concerns.

Suggested Citation

  • Manoel, Aviner Augusto Silva & Moraes, Marcelo Botelho da Casta & Santos, David Ferreira Lopes & Pündrich, Gabriel Pereira, 2021. "Audit quality and the cost of debt in private firms: evidence from the Brazilian sugarcane industry," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(01), July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:316355
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.316355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/316355/files/ifamr2020.0033.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.316355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hope, Ole-Kristian & Langli, John Christian & Thomas, Wayne B., 2012. "Agency conflicts and auditing in private firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 500-517.
    2. Ole-Kristian Hope & Dushyantkumar Vyas, 2017. "Private company finance and financial reporting," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 506-537, July.
    3. Jeong†Bon Kim & Dan A. Simunic & Michael T. Stein & CHEONG H. YI, 2011. "Voluntary Audits and the Cost of Debt Capital for Privately Held Firms: Korean Evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 585-615, June.
    4. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    5. Jong†Hag Choi & T. J. Wong, 2007. "Auditors' Governance Functions and Legal Environments: An International Investigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 13-46, March.
    6. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    7. Steve Fortin & Jeffrey A. Pittman, 2007. "The Role of Auditor Choice in Debt Pricing in Private Firms," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 859-896, September.
    8. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    9. Mark Clatworthy & Gerald Makepeace & Michael Peel, 2009. "Selection bias and the Big Four premium: New evidence using Heckman and matching models," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(2), pages 139-166.
    10. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wen Hua Sharpe & Peter Carey & Hong Feng Zhang, 2023. "Being private, Big 4 auditors, and debt raising," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2295-2345, June.
    2. Reiner Quick & Niklas Schenk & Florian Schmidt & Thilo Towara, 2018. "The impact of corporate governance on auditor choice: evidence from Germany," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(2), pages 251-283, June.
    3. Ann Vanstraelen & Caren Schelleman, 2017. "Auditing private companies: what do we know?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 565-584, July.
    4. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2016. "Cross-country evidence on the importance of Big Four auditors to equity pricing: The mediating role of legal institutions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 60-81.
    5. Stefano Azzali & Tatiana Mazza, 2017. "The Association between Big4 and Cost of Debt in Private Firms," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1), pages 63-82.
    6. Huq, Asif & Hartwig, Fredrik & Rudholm, Niklas, 2018. "Do audited firms have lower cost of debt?," HUI Working Papers 132, HUI Research.
    7. Asif M. Huq & Fredrik Hartwig & Niklas Rudholm, 2022. "Do audited firms have a lower cost of debt?," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(2), pages 153-175, June.
    8. Choi, Sunhwa & Choi, Youn-Sik & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Lee, Woo-Jong, 2015. "The impact of mandatory versus voluntary auditor switches on stock liquidity: Some Korean evidence," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 100-116.
    9. Manuel Cano Rodríguez & Santiago Sánchez Alegría, 2012. "The value of audit quality in public and private companies: evidence from Spain," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(4), pages 683-706, November.
    10. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    11. Bley, Jorg & Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2019. "Auditor choice and bank risk taking," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 37-52.
    12. Jeong-Bon Kim & Mikhail Pevzner & Xiangang Xin, 2019. "Foreign institutional ownership and auditor choice: Evidence from worldwide institutional ownership," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(1), pages 83-110, February.
    13. Dang, Man & Puwanenthiren, Premkanth & Truong, Cameron & Henry, Darren & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2022. "Audit quality and seasoned equity offerings methods," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    14. Alhababsah, Salem & Alhaj-Ismail, Alaa, 2023. "Does shared tenure between audit committee chair and engagement partner affect audit outcomes? Evidence from the UK," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    15. Lin, Hsiao-Lun & Yen, Ai-Ru, 2017. "Determinants and market valuation of the decision to audit or review: Evidence from Taiwan," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 209-224.
    16. Ju Ryum Chung & Eun Jung Cho & Ho-Young Lee & Myungsoo Son, 2017. "The impact of labour unions on external auditor selection and audit scope: evidence from the Korean market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(48), pages 4833-4850, October.
    17. Hou, Fei & Shen, Huayu & Wang, Ping & Xiong, Hao, 2023. "Signing auditors' cultural background and debt financing costs," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    18. Ines Kateb & Ines Belgacem, 2024. "Navigating governance and accounting reforms in Saudi Arabia's emerging market: impact of audit quality, board characteristics, and IFRS adoption on financial performance," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(2), pages 290-312, June.
    19. Pinghsun Huang & Yi-Chieh Wen & Yan Zhang, 2020. "Does the monitoring effect of Big 4 audit firms really prevail? Evidence from managerial expropriation of cash assets," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 739-768, August.
    20. Ahrum Choi & Jeong-Bon Kim & Jay Junghun Lee & Jong Chool Park, 2024. "Market for corporate control and demand for auditing: evidence from international M&A laws," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 2753-2797, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:316355. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifamaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.