IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jiaata/v18y2009i2p132-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical analysis of audit fee price competition after the Korean 1999 Omnibus Cartel Repeal Act

Author

Listed:
  • Behn, Bruce K.
  • Lee, Jung Wha
  • Jin, Lian Hua

Abstract

This study examines the audit service market in Korea after the 1999 Omnibus Cartel Repeal Act to determine if increased competition has led to audit fee discounting. Until 19 December 2001, when the Korean government enacted The Financial Supervisory Regulations, researchers could not address questions related to price competition in the Korean audit market due to data limitations. The new regulations allow researchers to examine audit effort for the first time because both audit hours and audit fees are now recommended disclosures. We use audit fee data of Korean companies for the 6-year period 1999–2004, and find evidence that total audit fees paid have been increasing but audit fees per hour have been decreasing. We also find that Big 5 auditing firms’ fees per hour are significantly lower than non-Big 5 auditing firms and are decreasing across time. These price pressures should be of concern to regulators and investors because prior research has demonstrated that price competition leads to discounting, which can result in unrealistically low audit fees and poor audit quality. Finally, as in previous research, we also find discounting of initial audit engagements in the Korean market.

Suggested Citation

  • Behn, Bruce K. & Lee, Jung Wha & Jin, Lian Hua, 2009. "An empirical analysis of audit fee price competition after the Korean 1999 Omnibus Cartel Repeal Act," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 132-140.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jiaata:v:18:y:2009:i:2:p:132-140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2009.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1061951809000123
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2009.05.002?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    2. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    3. Aloke Ghosh & Steven Lustgarten, 2006. "Pricing of Initial Audit Engagements by Large and Small Audit Firms," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 333-368, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Minjung Kang & Jung‐wha Lee & Mihye Ha & Moon‐Kyung Cho, 2021. "Impact of IFRS adoption on audit pricing: evidence from audit hours and unit audit price in the Korean audit market," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(2), pages 3517-3564, June.
    2. Dykxhoorn, Hans J. & Sinning, Kathleen E., 2010. "A review and analysis of international accounting research in JIAAT: 2002–2010," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 137-153.

    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. Kam-Wah Lai & Ferdinand A. Gul, 2021. "Do failed auditors receive lower audit fees from continuing engagements?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1159-1190, April.
    2. Ball, Fiona & Tyler, Jonathan & Wells, Peter, 2015. "Is audit quality impacted by auditor relationships?," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 166-181.
    3. Yang Xu & Elizabeth Carson & Neil Fargher & Liwei Jiang, 2013. "Responses by Australian auditors to the global financial crisis," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 53(1), pages 301-338, March.
    4. Smith, Deborah Drummond & Gleason, Kimberly C. & Kannan, Yezen H., 2021. "Auditor liability and excess cash holdings: Evidence from audit fees of foreign incorporated firms," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    6. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Nurul Nazlia Jamil, 2020. "The Power of Political Connections: Review on the Impacts of Audit Committee and Corporate Governance," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(1), pages 333347-3333, December.
    8. Hye‐Jeong Nam, 2018. "The Impact of Mandatory IFRS Transition on Audit Effort and Audit Fees: Evidence from Korea," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(4), pages 512-524, December.
    9. Cao, June & Ee, Mong Shan & Hasan, Iftekhar & Huang, He, 2024. "Asymmetric reactions of abnormal audit fees jump to credit rating changes," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    10. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    11. Arrunada, Benito & Paz-Ares, Candido, 1997. "Mandatory rotation of company auditors: A critical examination," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-61, March.
    12. Veronica Tibiletti & Stefano Azzali & Tatiana Mazza, 2023. "Gender Diversity in Audit Partners and Audit Efforts," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(4), pages 1-96, February.
    13. Le Wang & Xiaoyan Chen & Xing Li & Gaoliang Tian, 2021. "MD&A readability, auditor characteristics, and audit fees," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(4), pages 5025-5050, December.
    14. Sharad Asthana & Rachana Kalelkar, 2011. "The Market For Audit Services And S&P 500 Index Clients," Working Papers 0022, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    15. Najihah Yaacob & Ayoib Che-Ahmad, 2012. "Audit Fees after IFRS Adoption: Evidence from Malaysia," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 2(1), pages 31-46, June.
    16. Doogar, Rajib, 2001. "Discussion of Fargher, Taylor, and Simon's "The demand for auditor reputation across international markets for audit services"," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 423-428, 012.
    17. Ji, Xu-dong & Lu, Wei & Qu, Wen, 2018. "Internal control risk and audit fees: Evidence from China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 266-287.
    18. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    19. Rajib Doogar & Padmakumar Sivadasan & Ira Solomon, 2010. "The Regulation of Public Company Auditing: Evidence from the Transition to AS5," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 795-814, September.
    20. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    21. Fernández Méndez, Carlos & Pathan, Shams & Arrondo García, Rubén, 2015. "Monitoring capabilities of busy and overlap directors: Evidence from Australia," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(PA), pages 444-469.

    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:eee:jiaata:v:18:y:2009:i:2:p:132-140. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-international-accounting-auditing-and-taxation .

    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.