IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/13317.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Big 4 Audit Fee Premiums Always Related to Superior Audit Quality? Evidence from India’s Unique Audit Market

Author

Listed:
  • Joshy,Jacob
  • Desai, Naman
  • Agarwalla, Sobhesh Kumar

Abstract

In this study we examine the fee premiums earned by Big 4 auditors (B4As) in India. We then try to determine the primary cause of the fee premiums in an Indian context. The B4As charge fee premiums for two primary reasons. First they are considered to be a potential indemnifier of losses for the stakeholders of the company. Second they provide a better quality of audit which improves the quality of reported earnings. Since the legal regime in India in significantly less stringent and the risk of auditor litigations is relatively low, B4A premiums in India are most likely to be driven by the need for superior audit quality. The results of our analysis indicate that B4As earn significantly higher fees than Non-Big 4 auditors (NB4As) in India. However there is no difference in the quality of audit provided by the B4As and NB4As as evidenced by the quality of reported earnings. Our results also indicate that B4As earn significantly higher abnormal fees. However, unlike the results of prior research, such abnormal fees are not associated with reduction in the quality of audit and reported earnings. After eliminating the two primary causes of B4A fee premiums, we posit that the need for B4As in India is primarily driven by the need to “signal” a superior quality of reported information.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshy,Jacob & Desai, Naman & Agarwalla, Sobhesh Kumar, 2015. "Are Big 4 Audit Fee Premiums Always Related to Superior Audit Quality? Evidence from India’s Unique Audit Market," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-10, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:iim:iimawp:13317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iima.ac.in/sites/default/files/rnpfiles/15251702332015-03-10.pdf
    File Function: English Version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sattar A. Mansi & William F. Maxwell & Darius P. Miller, 2004. "Does Auditor Quality and Tenure Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 755-793, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Jong†Hag Choi & Jeong†Bon Kim & Xiaohong Liu & Dan A. Simunic, 2008. "Audit Pricing, Legal Liability Regimes, and Big 4 Premiums: Theory and Cross†country Evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 55-99, March.
    4. Subramanyam, K. R., 1996. "The pricing of discretionary accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1-3), pages 249-281, October.
    5. Jeong†Bon Kim & Richard Chung & Michael Firth, 2003. "Auditor Conservatism, Asymmetric Monitoring, and Earnings Management," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 323-359, June.
    6. Rusmin Rusmin, 2010. "Auditor quality and earnings management: Singaporean evidence," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(7), pages 618-638, July.
    7. Pittman, Jeffrey A. & Fortin, Steve, 2004. "Auditor choice and the cost of debt capital for newly public firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 113-136, February.
    8. Masoud Azizkhani & Gary S. Monroe & Greg Shailer, 2010. "The value of Big 4 audits in Australia," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 50(4), pages 743-766, December.
    9. Craswell, Allen T. & Francis, Jere R. & Taylor, Stephen L., 1995. "Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 297-322, December.
    10. Seetharaman, Ananth & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Lynn, Stephen G., 2002. "Litigation risk and audit fees: evidence from UK firms cross-listed on US markets," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 91-115, February.
    11. Xin Chang & André F. Gygax & Elaine Oon & Hong Feng Zhang, 2008. "Audit quality, auditor compensation and initial public offering underpricing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(3), pages 391-416, September.
    12. Monika Causholli & W. Robert Knechel, 2012. "Lending relationships, auditor quality and debt costs," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(6), pages 550-572, 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. Alrashidi, Rasheed & Baboukardos, Diogenis & Arun, Thankom, 2021. "Audit fees, non-audit fees and access to finance: Evidence from India," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    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. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    2. 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).
    3. Sherry Fang Li & Sherry Fang Li, 2020. "Cost Of Debt And Auditor Choice," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 12(1), pages 35-44.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Persakis, Anthony & Iatridis, George Emmanuel, 2015. "Cost of capital, audit and earnings quality under financial crisis: A global empirical investigation," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 3-24.
    7. 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.
    8. Huq, Asif & Hartwig, Fredrik & Rudholm, Niklas, 2018. "Do audited firms have lower cost of debt?," HUI Working Papers 132, HUI Research.
    9. 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.
    10. Li-Jen He & Jianxiong Chen, 2021. "Does Mandatory Audit Partner Rotation Influence Auditor Selection Strategies?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Wouter Dutillieux & Donald Stokes & Marleen Willekens & Gary Monroe, 2013. "Strategic pricing by Big 4 audit firms in private client segments," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 53(4), pages 961-994, December.
    12. Monika Causholli & W. Robert Knechel, 2012. "Lending relationships, auditor quality and debt costs," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(6), pages 550-572, June.
    13. Jaspreet Kaur & Madhu Vij & Ajay Kumar Chauhan, 2023. "Signals influencing corporate credit ratings—a systematic literature review," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 50(1), pages 91-114, March.
    14. Chi, Hsin-Yi & Weng, Tzu-Ching, 2014. "Managerial legal liability and Big 4 auditor choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1857-1869.
    15. Michel Magnan & Haiping Wang & Yaqi Shi(Sans nom), 2016. "Fair Value Accounting and the Cost of Debt," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-32, CIRANO.
    16. 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.
    17. Omrane Guedhami & Jeffrey A. Pittman & Walid Saffar, 2014. "Auditor Choice in Politically Connected Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 107-162, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Jeong-Bon Kim & Byron Song & Judy Tsui, 2013. "Auditor size, tenure, and bank loan pricing," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 75-99, January.
    20. Nitai Chandra Debnath & Suman Paul Chowdhury & Safaeduzzaman Khan, 2022. "The impact of audit quality on real earnings management: evidence from Bangladesh," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(2), pages 218-231, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iim:iimawp:13317. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eciimin.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.