DOCSLIB.ORG

Transparency of Firms That Audit Public Companies Consultation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transparency of Firms That Audit Public Companies Consultation Report Transparency of Firms that Audit Public Companies Consultation Report Comment Letters TECHNICAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF SECURITIES COMMISSIONS OR07/10 OCTOBER 2010 IOSCO Consulting Paper Transparency of Firms that Audit Public Companies List of Comment Letters Received No. Respondent Organization 1. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision 2. Canadian Public Accountability Board 3. The Compagnie Nationale des Comissaires aux Comptes (CNCC) 4. Conway, Robert – Individual CPA 5. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 6. Dubai Financial Services Authority 7. European Group of International Accounting Networks and Associations 8. EUMEDION Corporate Governance Forum 9. Ernst & Young Global Limited 10. FAR SRS (The Institute for the Accountancy Profession in Sweden) 11. Federation of European Accountants 12. Financial Reporting Council 13. Grant Thornton International Ltd. 14. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (Audit and Assurance Committee) 15. Instituto De Censores Jurados De Cuentas De Espana 16. Institut der Wirtschaftsprufer 17. International Federation of Accountants 18. KPMG International 19. The Nordic Federation of Public Accountants 20. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 21. SEC Thailand Chairman Via email: [email protected] Mr Greg Tanzer Secretary General IOSCO General Secretariat Calle Oquendo 12 28006 Madrid Spain 14 January 2010 Public Comment on the consultation report "Transparency of Firms that Audit Public Companies" Dear Mr Tanzer The Basel Committee welcomes the opportunity to provide a general comment on IOSCO’s consultation report Transparency of Firms that Audit Public Companies. The Committee has a strong interest in high-quality audits of published financial statements. This is because high-quality audits of banks complement supervisory processes and increase supervisory efficiency. This notion has been firmly established in our paper, External audit quality and banking supervision, which was published in December 2008. The Committee’s External audit paper recognises that the vast majority of banking assets are audited by the four largest globally active accounting firms. It notes “The large globally active firms do not provide sufficient public information about how the firms are managed on a global basis, how audit quality is assured at the global level, or about their world-wide overall financial condition and profitability.”1 Understanding how globally active accounting firms are governed is necessary to ensure that there is sufficient audit quality maintained in these organisations’ that audit banks. The Committee, therefore, welcome your consultative report on transparency of firms that audit public companies, and looks forward to seeing the results of the consultation. We believe it would also be mutually beneficial for the audit sub- groups of the Basel Committee and IOSCO to meet and discuss the results of the consultation and other audit quality issues of common interest. 1 External audit quality and banking supervision, page 14. This report is available at www.bis.org/publ/bcbs146.htm. Centralbahnplatz 2 · CH-4002 Basel · Switzerland · Tel: +41 61 280 8080 · Fax: +41 61 280 9100 · [email protected] 1/2 This letter has been prepared by the Committee’s Accounting Task Force, chaired by Mrs Sylvie Mathérat, Director of the Banque de France, and has been approved by the Committee. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact Mrs Mathérat (+33 1 4292 6579), Marc Pickeur who chairs the Audit Subgroup of the Accounting Task Force (+32 2 220 5253) or Rob Sharma at the Basel Committee Secretariat (+41 61 280 8007). Yours sincerely Nout Wellink Centralbahnplatz 2 · CH-4002 Basel · Switzerland · Tel: +41 61 280 8080 · Fax: +41 61 280 9100 · [email protected] 2/2 January 13, 2010 Mr. Greg Tanzer Secretary General IOSCO General Secretariat Calle Oquendo 12 28006 Madrid Spain Dear Mr. Tanzer: Re: Public Comment on the Transparency of Firms that Audit Public Companies: Consultation Report The Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) is pleased to comment on the consultation report “Transparency of Firms that Audit Public Companies”. CPAB is very supportive of the work being performed by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) to explore ways to improve audit quality and we compliment IOSCO on the high quality of the consultation report. In light of the challenging economic climate and audit fee pressures that many firms are currently facing it is all the more important that firms maintain a focus on audit quality. Audit Quality Audit quality is subjective in nature and in our experience is best evaluated based on key drivers/indicators of audit quality, many of which have been highlighted in the consultation report. However, caution has to be exercised when evaluating data obtained from firms to ensure there is consistency when comparing firms and to ensure that data is being interpreted appropriately. For example, if a firm is obtaining new public company audit clients this may be more due to the firm’s competitive pricing rather than superior audit quality. Increased competition amongst firms based on audit quality is a desirable goal and we believe more research and analysis is required on the best ways to achieve this. We also note that the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) has an Audit Quality project proposal scheduled for June 2010. In our view, it makes sense for international bodies such as IAASB, IOSCO and IFIAR (International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators) to have a coordinated approach to develop ways to improve audit quality. Transparency of Audit Firms In discussions on transparency of audit firms it is important to focus on the key objectives of increased transparency. A key objective should be to drive positive changes in behaviour such that audit quality is improved. However, if firm disclosures are too high level there is a risk of these becoming boiler-plate with very little to distinguish one firm from another in areas such as audit quality. It is important the appropriate disclosures are developed so that audit quality may be meaningfully compared and improved. With increased globalization of the major accounting firms it is especially critical for regulators to understand global networks and how quality control systems are implemented, maintained and monitored. CPAB has an effective working relationship with the firms it inspects and receives a high level of cooperation from the firms. Increased transparency should not negatively impact firm cooperation with audit regulators and firm responsiveness to audit regulator findings and recommendations to improve audit quality. In certain areas it may be more effective for audit regulators to “monitor” firms and related risks as opposed to making public disclosure. In conclusion we reiterate our support for the work being performed on audit quality and audit firm transparency and we appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the consultation report. We would be pleased to discuss any of the above comments. Yours very truly, Brian Hunt, FCA Chief Executive Officer International Organization of Securities Commissions Response to Request for Public Comment on Transparency of Firms that Audit Public Companies November 25, 2009 My name is Robert Conway. I am a licensed Certified Public Accountant in the United States and a retired Big Four audit partner. I am also an employee of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB” or “the Board”). The views I express herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Board, Board Members, or other members of the PCAOB staff. Prior to joining the PCAOB in 2005, I had a 26+ year career with one of the Big Four public accounting firms, including 17+ years as an audit partner. I am also the author (identified at the time only as the “Anonymous Retired Audit Partner”) of the recommendation1 to the United States Treasury Department’s Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession (“ACAP”) that audit firms be required to publicly report certain operational metrics which I referred to as “Audit Quality Drivers.” The thinking behind this recommendation was that the operational metrics of competing audit firms would be of interest to the purchasers of audit services and competitive forces would drive audit firm leaders to improve their operational metrics in a direction conducive to improving audit quality. After all, what audit firm leader would want to be in last place when the metrics are published and what audit committee would desire to engage an audit firm with the least desirable blend of operational metrics? The six metrics I proposed in my ACAP recommendation and the desired direction of improvement are summarized below: Audit Quality Driver / Metric Desired Direction of Improvement Years experience after CPA licensing >>> More experienced professionals Percentage staff turnover during year >>> Better continuity year over year Chargeable hours per professional >>> More reasonable staff workloads Chargeable hours managed per partner >>> More reasonable partner workloads Ratio of audit staff to partners >>> Better supervision Training hours per professional >>> Increasing technical excellence My recommendation to ACAP has been widely regarded as having provided the impetus for ACAP’s recommendation that the PCAOB determine the feasibility of developing key indicators of audit quality and the effectiveness of requiring audit firms to publicly disclose these indicators.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pkf International Limited Is Named Amongst the First Full Members of the Forum of Firms After Meeting International Quality and Ethics Requirements
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contacts: Eric Tait - 0044 (0) 20 7065 0105 [email protected] PKF INTERNATIONAL LIMITED IS NAMED AMONGST THE FIRST FULL MEMBERS OF THE FORUM OF FIRMS AFTER MEETING INTERNATIONAL QUALITY AND ETHICS REQUIREMENTS. 24 January 2008 – PKF International today announced that it has been named one of the first full members of the Forum of Firms. The Forum of Firms, formally established in 2002, is an association of international networks of accounting firms. These firms perform audits of financial statements that are or may used across national borders. The Forum’s goal is to promote consistent and high quality standards of financial reporting and auditing practices worldwide. In order to achieve full membership status PKF International had to commit to meet the Forum’s membership obligations, which require members to: • Maintain appropriate quality control standards in accordance with International Standards on Quality Control issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) in addition to relevant national quality control standards and conduct, to the extent not prohibited by national regulation, regular globally coordinated internal quality assurance reviews; • Have policies and methodologies for the conduct of transnational audits that are based, to the extent practicable, on ISAs issued by the IAASB; and • Have policies and methodologies that conform to the IFAC Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants and national codes of ethics. “In the light of the globalisation of business and capital flows, the public interest can only be served through globally consistent and high quality standards in auditing. PKF International is proud to be amongst the first group of members of the Forum of Firms.” said Wolfgang Hoffman, Chairman of the Board of PKF International.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Other Component Auditors on the Costs and Quality of Multinational Group Audits
    The Impact of Other Component Auditors on the Costs and Quality of Multinational Group Audits Elizabeth Carson University of New South Wales Roger Simnett University of New South Wales Greg Trompeter University of Central Florida Ann Vanstraelen Maastricht University Draft: For presentation at University of Texas Preliminary draft: Please do not quote without permission of the authors. We thank Ashna Prasad, Dale Fu and Lin Liao for research assistance, and appreciate the comments of Ronen Gal-Or, Karla Johnstone and Per Christen Tronnes as well as participants at workshops at Boston College, Maastricht University, the University of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales and the European Accounting Association Annual Meeting and American Accounting Association Annual Meeting. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council. 1 The Impact of Other Component Auditors on the Costs and Quality of Multinational Group Audits Abstract Regulators have raised concerns about the quality of audits of financial statements of multinational companies. Of particular concern are engagements in which parts of the audit are not undertaken by the principal auditor but involve component auditors either affiliated or unaffiliated with the signing audit firm. Using unique disclosure requirements for Australian listed firms, we examine the incidence of such arrangements and their impact on audit fees and audit quality over the period 2008-2011 for a large sample of multinational companies. We find that relative to multinational group audits conducted solely by principal auditors, audit fees are lower when other auditors, either within or outside the network, are involved. Further we find that where other component auditors are engaged, audit fees are lower when the principal auditor’s network is involved relative to unaffiliated auditors.
    [Show full text]
  • Fof Constitution – June 4, 2021 Page 1 of 16 FORUM of FIRMS
    FORUM OF FIRMS CONSTITUTION DEFINITIONS In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise dictates: "Assurance-related committees "means the following standards boards: International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants; "Code of Ethics" means the Code of Ethics which is set by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants; "International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants" (IESBA) means the board which develops and promulgates the IESBA Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants and related guidance on ethical issues for the international accountancy profession; "Firm" means an entity, in any organizational form, performing or participating in the conduct of Transnational Audits; "Forum" means the Forum of Firms; "Founder Members" means the following networks: BDO, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Ernst & Young Global Limited, Grant Thornton International Ltd, KPMG International Limited and PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited; "Globally coordinated internal quality assurance reviews" means internal quality assurance reviews meeting the minimum requirements of policies established by the TAC; "IFAC" means the International Federation of Accountants which is the worldwide organization for the accountancy profession whose membership comprises professional accountancy bodies; "IFAC Board" means the body of IFAC as defined in the IFAC Constitution; "IFAC By-laws" are those dated November 2020; "IFAC Council" means the supreme governing body of IFAC as defined
    [Show full text]
  • Forum of Firms and Transnational Auditors
    An overview of the roles, responsibilities, and activities of the Forum of Firms and TAC June 2018 MEMBERSHIP FORUM OF FIRMS AND TRANSNATIONAL AUDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS AUREN OBJECTIVE OF THE FORUM OF FIRMS Baker Tilly International Limited The objective of the Forum of Firms (Forum) is to promote consistent and high- BDO quality standards of financial reporting and auditing practices worldwide. The Constantin – Serval & Associés Forum brings together firms that perform transnational audits and involves them more closely with the activities of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) Crowe Global in audit and other assurance-related areas. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited Ernst & Young Global Limited STRUCTURE FinExpertiza The Forum is registered as a legal entity in Switzerland. The Transnational Auditors Grant Thornton International Ltd Committee (TAC) is the executive arm of the Forum, and, therefore, provides the HLB International official linkage between the Forum and IFAC. IECnet The Forum and IFAC work together in areas such as standard setting, dialogue with JPA International the regulatory community, and promoting convergence to international standards. KPMG International Cooperative The Forum provides technical expertise to the standard-setting boards supported Kreston International by IFAC through its nominated members each to the International Auditing and Kudos International Network Assurance Standards Board, the International Accounting Education Standards Board, and the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants. The Forum Mazars also supports IFAC’s Member Body Compliance Program and developing nations Moore Stephens International Limited initiatives to strengthen the accountancy profession around the world. Nexia International PKF International Limited ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES PricewaterhouseCoopers International The work of the Forum is primarily conducted by the TAC.
    [Show full text]
  • Fof Constitution – February 22, 2007 Page 1 of 16 FORUM of FIRMS
    FORUM OF FIRMS CONSTITUTION DEFINITIONS In this Constitution, unless the context otherwise dictates: "Assurance-related committees" mean the following boards of IFAC: International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants; "Code of Ethics" means the Code of Ethics which is set by the IFAC International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants; "International Accounting Education Standards Board" means the board of IFAC which develops and promulgates International Education Standards and related guidance for the international accountancy profession; "International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants" means the board of IFAC which develops and promulgates the IFAC Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants and related guidance on ethical issues for the international accountancy profession; “Firm” means an entity, in any organizational form, performing or participating in the conduct of Transnational Audits; "Forum" means the Forum of Firms; "Founder Members" means the following networks: BDO, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers; “Full Members” means those networks and firms that have met the membership obligations of the Forum; “Globally coordinated internal quality assurance reviews” means internal quality assurance reviews meeting the minimum requirements of policies established by the TAC; "IFAC" means the International Federation of Accountants which is the worldwide organization for the accountancy profession whose membership
    [Show full text]
  • Forum of Firms and Transnational Auditors
    An overview of the roles, responsibilities, and activities of the Forum of Firms and TAC September 2019 MEMBERSHIP FORUM OF FIRMS AND TRANSNATIONAL AUDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS AUREN OBJECTIVE OF THE FORUM OF FIRMS Baker Tilly International Limited The objective of the Forum of Firms (Forum) is to promote consistent and high- BDO quality standards of financial reporting and auditing practices worldwide. The Constantin – Serval & Associés Forum brings together firms that perform transnational audits and involves them more closely with the activities of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) Crowe Global in audit and other assurance-related areas. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited ECOVIS STRUCTURE Ernst & Young Global Limited The Forum is registered as a legal entity in Switzerland. The Transnational Auditors FinExpertiza Committee (TAC) is the executive arm of the Forum, and, therefore, provides the Grant Thornton International Ltd official linkage between the Forum and IFAC. HLB International The Forum and IFAC work together in areas such as standard setting, dialogue with IECnet the regulatory community, and promoting convergence to international standards. JPA International The Forum provides technical expertise to the standard-setting boards supported KPMG International Cooperative by IFAC through its nominated members each to the International Auditing and Kreston International Assurance Standards Board, the International Accounting Education Standards Board, and the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants. The Forum Kudos International Network also supports IFAC’s Member Body Compliance Program and developing nations Mazars initiatives to strengthen the accountancy profession around the world. MGI Worldwide Moore Global Network Limited ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Nexia International The work of the Forum is primarily conducted by the TAC.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Item 7-A
    IESBA Meeting (September 2017) Agenda Item 7-A Professional Skepticism and Professional Judgment—Summary of Significant Comments, Issues and Task Force Proposals How the Project Serves the Public Interest The project establishes new application material relating to professional skepticism and professional judgment which clarifies what is already implicit in the provisions of the IESBA Code for Professional Accountants (Code). The proposed application material relating to: • Professional skepticism (PS) will heighten auditors’ focus on how compliance with the fundamental principles (FPs) supports the exercise of PS by illustrating this linkage in the context of an audit of financial statements. • Professional judgment (PJ) emphasizes the importance of professional accountants (PAs) obtaining a sufficient understanding of the facts and circumstances known to them when exercising PJ in applying the conceptual framework to comply with the FPs. Together, the proposed texts will better support PAs (auditors in the case of the proposal relating to PS) in fulfilling their responsibility to act in the public interest and with respect to audits of financial statements, contribute to supporting audit quality. Introduction 1. This paper summarizes the significant issues raised by respondents to the May 2017 Exposure Draft, Proposed Application Material Relating to Professional Skepticism and Professional Judgment (ED) and is organized as follows: A. Background B. Overview of Responses C. Issues and Task Force proposals (i) PS (ii) PJ D. Matters relating longer term PS initiative A. Background 2. The two sets of application material were approved for exposure in April 2017 and represent proposed additions to Section 1201 of the restructured Code, the text of which was agreed in principle by IESBA in December 2016 as part of Phase 1 of its Safeguards and Structure of the Code (Structure) projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda-Item-3-Structure-Phase-2
    Meeting: IESBA Agenda Item Meeting Location: New York Meeting Date: June 19–21, 2017 3 Structure of the Code Phase 2 Objectives of Agenda Item 1. To consider highlights of comments1 received on the January 2017 Exposure Draft, Improving the Structure of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants—Phase 2 (Structure ED-2) and provide input on the Structure Task Force’s (TF’s) preliminary proposals. Task Force 2. Members: • Don Thomson, Chair, former IESBA Member • Brian Caswell, IESBA Member • Liesbet Haustermans, IESBA Member • Peter Hughes, former IESBA Member • Stefano Marchese, IESBA Member Overview of Respective Responsibilities 3. The Structure TF has overall responsibility for the Structure of the Code project, including oversight of restructuring being performed by other TFs. The Structure TF will liaise with the Safeguards, Part C, NOCLAR and Long Association TFs and their respective staff to coordinate the analysis of the feedback received on, and any related revisions to, the relevant material in Structure ED-2. Coordination with the Safeguards, Part C, NOCLAR and Long Association TFs 4. As part of its ongoing coordination efforts, the Structure TF continues to provide input to the agenda materials relating to the other projects involved in restructuring. 5. Some respondents commented on, and provided suggestions about, certain matters raised in response to Safeguard’s project’s Phase 2 exposure draft and to Chapters 1-3 of Structure ED-2 (see Agenda Items 3-A and 3-B). Those comments and suggestions have been referred to, and will be addressed by, the other TFs during their forthcoming TF meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • IAB 529V2.Indd
    September 2013 Issue 529 www.InternationalAccountingBulletin.com Fair play Implications of UEFA’s new financial rules XXX G XXX G XXX G XXX G G Deloitte’s record £14m fi ne G Lehman Brothers reprised G Critical moment for US audit reporting G Mixed fortunes in Latin America Give your students a business perspective of the world of accounting. Give your students access to content they can trust. Give your students the edge. Subscribe to The Accountant xxxxx A subscription to The Accountant is the ideal accompaniment to an accountancy course of study. Including exclusive features and interviews with major figures in the accountancy sector, The Accountant will help your students to understand the real-world implications of the theory they are learning, and help improve their employability in a competitive jobs market. A weekly newswire gives you regular updates of all the big stories, while IP access means students can view our content anywhere with access to the student portal. Subscribe to The Accountant for: SIGN UP FOR THE FREE NEWSWIRE • IP access to our content. So your students can access our Get free weekly updates and free content. content campus-wide with one login Sign up here: • Content you can trust. We have 125 years of experience http://www.vrl-financial-news.com/system- delivering accountancy news. pages/headernav/free-news.aspxwww.theaccountant-online.com/newslet- ter-subscription • Truly global analysis. We cover a range of stories from around the world, so your students get a wide perspective of the sector. DON’T MISS OUT. Subscribe to The Accountant today.
    [Show full text]
  • The Viability of Enterprise Jurisdiction: a Case Study of the Big Four Accounting Firms
    The Viability of Enterprise Jurisdiction: A Case Study of the Big Four Accounting Firms Hannah L. Buxbaum* One of the boundaries that U.S. courts must observe as they adjudicate regulatory disputes is the limit on their own jurisdictional authority — authority that is measured at the level of the particular forum state. Confronting the expansion of U.S. business activity from the local to the national scale during the second half of the twentieth century, courts consciously broadened jurisdictional standards to address the expanded activities of nationwide corporate groups. Today, by contrast, as the economy continues to expand from the national to the transnational scale, the U.S. Supreme Court has begun a retrenchment. In cases decided during the past several years, the Court has both restricted the basis for general jurisdiction over non-resident defendants and articulated a highly localized approach for assessing the availability of specific jurisdiction. This retrenchment opens a gap between the effectiveness of global enterprises in operating within the transnational space and the effectiveness of our courts in regulating their activity. This Article investigates whether enterprise theory can provide a way to fill that gap. In general, jurisdictional analysis follows an entity approach: personal jurisdiction over a particular company within a corporate enterprise must be predicated on that company’s own contacts with the forum. Even the exceptions that courts have developed to this rule — for instance, using agency principles to attribute the contacts of one * Copyright © 2015 Hannah L. Buxbaum. Professor of Law and John E. Schiller Chair, Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • KPMG UK Submission to the Competition Commission
    Market Investigation into the provision of statutory audit services to large companies: KPMG UK Submission to the Competition Commission Contents Introduction and summary Page 3 KPMG UK’s position on the reference Page 3 KPMG UK’s view of the market and competition Page 3 KPMG UK’s view of the CC’s statement of issues Page 6 1. Introduction to KPMG Page 9 1.1 KPMG merger Page 9 1.2 KPMG International Page 9 1.3 KPMG Europe LLP Page 10 1.4 KPMG Europe LLP Governance Page 10 1.5 KPMG Limited Liability Partnership Page 10 1.6 KPMG in the UK Page 11 Part A: Background on the provision of audit services Page 12 2. Statutory and regulatory background Page 12 2.1 Introduction Page 12 2.2 Legal Requirements Page 13 2.3 The regulatory framework Page 14 2.4 The audit Page 17 2.5 Supply of non-audit services to audit clients: independence rules Page 19 2.6 Current proposals for change Page 21 3. Nature of services provided by audit firms Page 22 3.1 Introduction to statutory audit services Page 22 3.2 The stages in the delivery of an audit service Page 25 4. Audit clients Page 28 4.1 Characteristics of FTSE350 companies Page 28 4.2 Client demands for quality and value for money Page 34 5. Clients’ audit requirements and the implications for audit firms Page 37 5.1 Client requirements drive audit firm investment and organisation Page 37 5.2 Relationship-specific investments Page 42 Part B: Competition in the provision of audit services Page 44 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Group Audit Arrangements on Audit Pricing and Audit Quality
    The Impact of Group Audit Arrangements on Audit Pricing and Audit Quality Elizabeth Carson University of New South Wales Roger Simnett University of New South Wales Greg Trompeter University of Central Florida Ann Vanstraelen Maastricht University Please do not quote without permission of the authors. We thank Ashna Prasad, Dale Fu and Lin Liao for research assistance, and appreciate the comments of Ronen Gal-Or, Karla Johnstone, Bill Kinney and Per Christen Tronnes as well as participants at workshops at Boston College, Maastricht University, the University of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales, University of Texas, University of Western Australia and the European Accounting Association Annual Meeting and American Accounting Association Annual Meeting. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council. 1 The Impact of Group Audit Arrangements on Audit Pricing and Audit Quality Abstract Regulators have raised concerns about audits of financial statements of groups. Of particular concern are engagements in which parts of the audit are not undertaken by the principal auditor but involve the use of other component auditors. These component auditors may be either affiliated or unaffiliated with the principal audit firm signing the audit report. Using unique disclosure requirements for Australian listed firms, we examine the incidence of such arrangements and their impact on audit fees and audit quality. We find that relative to group audits conducted solely by principal auditors, audit fees are higher when other auditors, either within or outside the network, are involved. Further we find that where other component auditors are engaged, audit fees are higher when the principal auditor’s network is involved relative to unaffiliated auditors.
    [Show full text]