Auditing Final

8/6/2019 Auditing Final

1/21

Abstract

The article investigates the managers of the audit firms upon the relationship between

the audit risk and audit fees through survey. Based on the historical and experimental

data and literatures, it is concluded a common point of view that there exists a positive

relationship between audit risk and audit fee. The aim of the article is to find the

possibility of other elements affect the relationship between audit fee and audit risk in

terms of the survey to the audit firms.


2/21

Table of content

Abstract ...........................................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................2

2.0 Literature review ....................................................................................................... 32.1 Audit pricing model and low-balling theory ...........................................................3

2.2 Risk model review ................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Hypothesis review ..................................................................................................7

3.0 Methodology: .............................................................................................................9

3.1 The purpose of survey ............................................................................................9

3.2 Reasons for using a survey in this paper ................................................................. 9

3.3 Sampling strategies ................................................................................................10

3.4 How to design our survey questions ......................................................................10

3.5 Data issue ...............................................................................................................11

4.0 Analysis .....................................................................................................................11

4.1 Competition among audit firms ............................................................................ 12

4.2 Low-balling provided by auditing firms ................................................................13

4.3 Measurement to reduce the audit risk ....................................................................13

5.0 Conclusion and Limitation ..................................................................................... 15

6.0 reference ................................................................................................................... 15

7.0 Appendix .................................................................................................................. 18

7.1 Appendix 1 (Survey questions) ............................................................................. 18

7.1 Appendix 1 (Top 100 accounting firms in Australia) ............................................18

1.0 IntroductionAccording to the previous studies it can be concluded that a well-acceptable theory is

there exists a positive relationship between the audit risk and audit fee. However, we

have doubted that whether the positive relationship might be affected by the auditor

rotation (Australian Auditor Independence Requirements issued in 2006). The key

statutory provision about auditor rotation, s.324DA of Corporations Acts raises a

limited term for eligibility to play a significant role in audit of listed companies is 5


3/21

consecutive years. This statutory law probably increase the competition in the audit

marketplace. Basis on this situation, we are interested in finding whether there is a

strong competitive pressure to audit firms to reduce audit fee to obtain new clients after

5-year-rotation regulations issued. However, this low-balling price strategy conflicts

with the sufficient quality control procedures and qualified auditor input which comply

with the assurance standards, guidelines.

The remainder of the paper is divided into four sections. The next section provides a

review of the prior research and identifies the hypotheses. This section is then followed

by a description of the research method and the analysis of the findings. The final

section is devoted to a summary and limitation of the paper.

2.0 Literature review

2.1 Audit pricing model and low-balling theory

The pricing model is a well-researched topic in literature review. Simunic (1980)

originally develops an audit fee model explaining nexus between the audit risk and audit

fees. The hypothesis is: When market for audit is competitive, the minimum fees for

different level of audit quantity will equal the incremental expected total cost.

The model is well developed in 2000s. At December 15, 2003, SEC (Securities and

Exchange Commission) alter the audit fee disclosure requirements therefore more

classified and integrated audit services are being performed. Based on regulations set by

SEC in 2006 Dunmore and Shao not only propose a nonlinear regression model to

investigate the different fees charged by auditors in various risky scenarios but also

develop a linear relationship between the audit risk and audit fees.

Although Messier in 2008 states that audit pricing model is the essential component to

assist auditors to make audit decisions. It still can be argued that merely obeying

Simunics model will transfer the focus from specification of pricing model to

exploration of different determinants for audit fees. A variety of factors like the client

size, complexity of operation and risk, industry of client, the firm type of client should

be considered as determinants for audit fees according to the review. Based on the previous results on audit pricing model, audit resources are the vital elements


4/21

determining the audit fees. By utilizing the specific pricing model auditors are able to

evaluate a specific client. Therefore it is necessary to take a look at the empirical pricing

model. It is again Simunic originally introduces the variable factors in analysis of audit

effort and audit risk.

In spite that Palmrose fails to propose the statistic nexus between audit risks and audit

fees its contribution is still remarkable due to the declaration that there exists a positive

relation between clients size and audit fees. In 1994 the conclusion is supported by

Anderson who asserts that the size of the auditor firms could exert a significant

influence on the assessment of risk and performance of the auditors revenue. However

the limitation for the theory is it merely applies to small clients rather than the sample of

the large clients.

Audit risk has the association with audit fees in a subsequent positive or negative

consequence however the role of risk is a difficult concept to understand. Therefore

OKeefe (1994) investigates the likelihood of bearing the legal costs of risk by the audit

firm and their clients. The goal is achieved by examining the nexus between the

auditors business risk and audit fees. The opinion is agreed by Bell, Landsman, and

Shackelford (2001) and both literatures hold the opinion that there is a positive

coefficient nexus between the audit fees and audit risk.

In 2005 Lyon and Maher also investigate the relation between audit risk and fees paid to

auditors by examining the clients misconduct. They predict that auditors will charge a

fee premium to compensate a higher risk. Their hypothesis has been supported by the

statement that there is an obvious relationship between the audit fees and the payment

of bribes. The research illustrates that the audit fees are higher to clients disclosing to

have paid bribes.

Audit fee is decided by various determinants with the purpose maximizing the firms

profit therefore it becomes common phenomenon that the auditors grant a lower price

(discount fee) to the first-year client. The method involved can be defined as low-

balling price

According to the term regulated in AICPA, 1978, low-balling of audit fee is the fee

that auditors charge for initial engagement below cost in order to obtain business in the

audit market and impair audit independence.

When it comes to the low-balling behavior it can be attributed to purchase by auditors

of information on the clients true financial statements. In another words initially-


5/21

engaged clients who are assessed as low risk customers are eager to pay an increased

renewal fees.

It is the common phenomenon that audit firms are more willing to reduce the audit fees

to certain extent to lure more clients. In order to set tone of the audit industry then in

1981 DeAngelo defines low-balling as the practice of setting fees below total current

costs during the initial audit engagement.

Tread way Commission, a subsidiary of AICPA (1987) make the conclusion: auditing

firms led to the competition between the audit fees, the main pressure exerted on the

cost of bring the appropriate issues. The action can be taken involve reducing staff and

reducing time in manual process. By focusing on the pricing of the first-year audit fee

we can test for the role of pricing of risky engagements in the context of the practice of

low-balling.

Following prior literature, study relies on a regression framework to determine how risk

is priced in the first year of an audit engagement for a comprehensive sample of U.S.

public firms with audit fee data between 2000 and 2006. As in prior studies of audit-

fees, we include several firm characteristics that proxy for audit effort and audit risk.

Consistent with prior studies, we find that auditors discount audit fees for first year

audits compared to continuing audits, confirming the existence of low-balling in the US

audit market (Turpen 1990; Walker and Casterella 2000; Ghosh and Lustgarten 2006,

Ghosh and Pawlewicz 2008).

However Arrunada and Paz-Ares (1995) hold the different opinion on the effect of the

low-balling of audit fees. Based on their literature review and well-organized pricing

model they propose that the application of low-balling will inevitably decrease the

competition between the audit firms. In the light of the statement as the audit costs

increase there could be a definite reduction in the incentive for audit firms to be

efficient.

According to SEC (2000) the SEC has regarded the innovation as a frustration by

criticizing: create an economic incentive that may inappropriately influence the audit.

The evidence is in 2000 former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt states that the audit is

sometimes priced lower to attract clients willing to pay for higher margin consulting

services it can be inferred although low-balling has demonstrated the willingness of

auditor to keep clients and it may benefit the firm to certain extent, the problems

existing at the discount of audit price have the risk leading to unhealthy competition

in the long run.


6/21

Levitt supports the assertion in 2000 by stating: This discounting of audit prices is

problematic as it demonstrates a willingness of auditors to make compromises with

clients in order to attain lucrative contracts for non-audit services. Audits are discounted

to promote the more profitable business of NAS so a high level of NAS is considered to

be a sign of lower audit quality.

By review of the pricing model

2.2 Risk model review

According to terms regulated by U.S.GAAP and U.S.GAAS: the risk that the auditor

may unknowingly fail to appropriately modify his opinion on financial report that are

materiaibility to do audit under the general accepted auditing standards (GAASlly

misstated [AICPA, 1983,PAR.2] All auditors have the respons).

SEC (association between financial reporting risk and audit fees) has also accepted the

disciplines set by the GAAS to meet the disclosure requirements. Therefore auditors are

required to take a host of circumstances into account and then choose the most suitable

approach to audit. Meanwhile auditors are supposed to gain sufficient knowledge of a

companys internal control as well as the ability to examine the effectiveness of controls

especially they plan to rely on the substantive procedures.

Based on the method established by Morgan and Stocken (1998), clients business riskand risk of litigation costs (AICPA 1992) are main components of auditors risk. It

should be beard in mind that even the audit is done accordance with GAAS the

likelihood of existence of litigation risk can be still high. (SAS NO. 107, Footnote 2).

When it comes to the factors contributing to the audit risk Houston et al, (1999)

proposes that the litigation is the main reason leading to business risk and it is

evidenced that minority of the business risk arises from other components. Based on the

previous studies the audit risks can be decomposed into three components: (1) inherent

risk (2) control risk and (3) detection risk. {Definition stated at Statement on Auditing

Standards (SAS)}.

The mathematical relationship between the risks can be expressed in the formula below:

AR = IR x CR x DR

Note: each item is defined conditionally due to various scenarios therefore all

components can be combined multiplicatively. However according to the method raised

by Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky [1982] auditors are more willing to use the

simplifying rules instead of complex rules. Many assumptions have been raised in


7/21

1980s. Example is an abstract from accounting review, April 1985 with three

hypothesis listed below:

H1: when control risk rises it will lead to a greater slump in control reliance in a more

susceptible process than in a less susceptible process.

H2: when control design strength decreases it will lead to a greater reduction in control

reliance in a more susceptible process than a less susceptible process.

H3: when the test strength decreases it will lead to a greater reduction in control reliance

in a more susceptible process than a less susceptible process.

By understanding the definition of Audit risk (AR, the risk which the auditor may

unknowingly fail to appropriately modify his or her opinion on financial statements that

are materially misstated). It can be inferred that the level of understanding of the audit

risk model is decided by profession of auditors in performing an audit.

2.3 Hypothesis review

Nexus between the audit risk and audit fees

Collier and Gregory (1996) investigate the nexus between audit fees paid to auditors

and audit committees in both supply and demand sides. Based on their method, at

demand side the preference of low risk may strength auditors to work extra hours tomaintain the quality of the audit and thus lead to an increase in audit fees. As auditors

have the incentive to ensure a high quality audit then the risk of litigation, deterioration

and ruin of the fame in the event of fraudulent activity will be relatively reduced or

eliminated.

Another finding is that the higher external audit fee is probably the result of application

of internal control. This result indicates that firms that engage in greater internal

monitoring through the application of internal audit also demand higher quality external

auditing and thus the payment to auditors goes up.

Houston 1999 Philips 1999 Beaulieu 2001, suggest that auditor should contemplate the

nexus between the aggressiveness of audit reporting and risk of manipulation process

before action.

Then in 2003 Gul proposes a positive relation between the audit risk and audit fees. In

2004 Bedard and Johnstone demonstrate the theory by performing a set of data analysis.

They utilize the internal information of a proprietary company to do clients risk


8/21

assessment and conclude that management risk and governance risk have the linkage

with an increase in planned audit effort and increasing pricing level.

However the statement declares that a higher audit fee implies higher audit quality

(Francis, 2004, p.352) the higher audit fees imply an increased audit testing and as a

consequent a higher quality audit should improve the quality of financial reporting and

thus reduce or eliminate external audit risk. In the light of the statement Shannon L.

Charles, Steven M. Glover, and Nathan Y. Sharp (2010) raise two hypothesis associated

between financial reporting risk and audit fees.

Two hypotheses come out afterward:

H1: Audit fees increase as financial reporting risk increases.

H2: The responsiveness of audit fees to financial reporting risk increases.

Another hypothesis incorporating the committee factors are presented below:

H1: Higher external audit fees are associated with the existence of an audit committee.

H2: Higher external audit fees are associated with audit committees that are more

independent, have greater accounting and finance expertise and meet more frequently.

H3: External audit fees are associated with an interaction between audit committee

independence, accounting and finance expertise and meeting frequency.

All the literature review is the existing research around low-balling of audit fee,

pricing model and risk model.

Firstly, by taking a brief look at the low-balling, the reasons why most firms adjust

the audit fees are methodically investigated. It will guide us perform the survey

sufficiently and make it relevant to the topic.

Secondly by reviewing various pricing models we bear in mind there are a host of

determinants in pricing model while in the survey the size of client is our focus and will

be further discussed. The discussion is about will the influence exerted by application of

low-balling be different in various size of firm?

Finally it can be inferred after review that audit risk is difficult concept to understand.

Although the nexus between various risks (inherent risk, control risk and diction risk)

can be explained in a formula, it still hard to capture and assess the audit risk.

Therefore the purpose of reviewing various risk models is to choose the most relevant

pricing model in the survey from professional perspective.


9/21

3.0 Methodology:

3.1 The purpose of survey

Basis on the literature review above, it is generally believed that there is a positive

relationship between the audit risk and audit fee. Audit firms charge their clients high

audit if they find the level of audit risk is high. However, there is no telling that it is

always positive in every circumstance. Numbers of elements existed to exert impact on

this relationship. Our target of this paper is to find more detail to prove or refute this

opinion. In particular, we are interested on whether the restriction of 5 years rotation

affects the positive relationship between audit fee and audit risk.

Due to the 5 years rotation principle came out, the cooperative time between audit firms

and their clients have been reduced sharply. Hence, more and more new clients show up

in the audit market. This situation could probably result in intensifying competition

among different audit firms. Inevitably, some of the audit firms might provide low-

balling price for attracting new clients. Nevertheless, the audit firm which get new

clients by giving discount of the audit fee does not have enough experience to minimise

the firms risk exposure because this is their fist cooperation. On the other hand, because

of the low audit fee, the timing and extent of audit procedures input to audit are less

than before. Hence, the audit risk will increase.

We want to raise survey questions to find out the possibility of the 5 years auditor

rotation affects the positive relationship between audit fee and audit risk on the basis of

the above analysis and discussion.

3.2 Reasons for using a survey in this paper

For the purpose of exploiting in this topic, we made a survey to investigate respondents:

Australia audit firms. We believe that doing a survey in questionnaire is the best way

for us. Firstly, survey can be administered from remote locations by using email or

telephone. In this case, there are thousands of audit firms. They locate in different area

of the country. It is impossible for us to interview even small part of them. In addition,

almost all the audit firms have emails. It is the most convenient way for us to send them


10/21

the survey by email. Further more, as we can get respondents email easily, large

samples are feasible. The more sample we choose the more accuracy of the statistical

result.

3.3 Sampling strategies

We expect to collected feedback from managers of audit with their points of view.

Obviously, the population of the investigation is all the audit firms in Australia. We did

not choose the whole world scope because different countries have different audit

standards. The sample of the population is the audit firms which will receive the survey

questions. We choose the judgement sampling to select our sample which is top 100

accounting firms in Australia. The criterion of choosing top 100 accounting firms is

basis on their revenues, service scope, and how many of their employees.

3.4 How to design our survey questions

Firstly, we have to check whether the audit firms have new clients which entered into

contract last year. Secondly, if the audit firm really get new clients last year, the second

step is to calculate how many new clients in every selected audit firms and theproportion of new clients in its total clients. It is important for the survey as this data

can prove whether 5 years rotation restriction has increased the number of new clients

in audit firms. After getting this data, we can find out that the competition in audit

market affected by increasing or decreasing new audit clients. Generally speaking, the

increased rotation frequency probable result in intensifying competition in audit market.

Hence we assume that there is more competition between audit firms in external audit

market after 5 years rotation restriction issued. Further more, due to the increased

competition, some audit firms may obtain an assurance engagement by charging a lower

audit fee for attracting a new client. This is called lowballing policy. We want to

know how many audit firms have taken the lowballing policy to obtain new clients and

their reasons. Next, there is another query coming up, do the small audit firms gain the

same benefit from the lowballing policy as well as the large audit firms? Following this

query, there are several aspects need to ask. We will keep focus on whether audit firms

adjust the time and qualified staffs assigned to the new clients task. And what quality

control procedures will be taken to comply with all applicable assurance standards and


11/21

guidelines under a low level of audit fee. In addition, we want to figue out whether

different sizes of audit firms exert impact on the sufficiency of the audit risk assessment

on the new clients audit task. At last, we want to know if there is other beneficial

policy taken by audit firms to obtain the initially-engaged clients besides lowballing

policy.

3.5 Data issue

The first stage is sending survey questions to managers of audit firms by email. The

second stage is the collection of their responses.

On one hand, collection surveys have the potential to provide an enormous amount of

information vital to planning the management of your collection. Due to all of our

survey questions are open-ended questions, there are different kinds of answers of the

survey questions. Which means the procedures of collect and analyse the responses is

difficult. In order to reduce the complex, we are going to create a database through

Microsoft Office Access for data analysis. Because the answers of the survey are sent

back by email, it is easy for us to copy audit firms answers to the Access database from

email box. And separate their answers into groups which have different points of view.

On the other hand, we have to consider there are a portion of audit firms will not reply

our survey questions. It is concern that the percentage of effective survey questionnaires

must stay at a high level. Otherwise, the survey is not precise as we expect.

4.0 AnalysisOur survey is based on the assumption that there is a positive nexus between audit risk

and audit fee. Our targeted respondents are the managers from top 100 audit firms in

Australia.

Generally the aim of the survey is to gather various opinions from managers of audit

firms upon low-balling strategy. There are 2 limbs decomposed: 1) gather the responses


12/21

to influence of low-balling in terms of risk assessment and pricing model 2) analyse the

factors that should considered in order to attain the new clients in terms of audit fees.

As can be concluded from the Arthur Andersen and Enron case, it is the long-term

relationship (approximately 10 years) between clients and auditors that leads to thecorruption. Therefore the Section 203 of the SOX prohibits a audit firm from providing

audit services to a company for certain continuing period.

In Australia it regulates that the limited term for eligibility to play a significant role in

audit of listed companies is 5 consecutive years.

Such mandatory auditor rotation will inevitably bring a series of revolution especially in

audit operation and it can be inferred that certain strategy will be rearranged or replaced.

4.1 Competition among audit firms

According to the results that all firms confirm they do contract with new clients last

year regardless the population of clients it can be inferred that the audit market becomes

more active than before during the survey period.

In another words the competition among audit firms turns out to be more fiercely.

The evidence is that approximate % respondents declare the new clients dominated the

revenue. As a result it can be predicted that it must be introduction of certain

measure/measures that stimulate the market.

In order to find out the causes to the phenomenon it is necessary to do the strategy

review which is to compare the previous prevailing strategy with the current common

practice. The quality-oriented strategy dominated the industry previously. However with

the introduction of rotation policy auditors are more willing to reduce the audit fees

(price-oriented) in order to lure clients.

To summarize, the explanation to alteration of strategy is introduction of rotation policy

on one hand, the motivation of audit firms on the other.

But it should be noticed that due to variability of circumstances and complexity of the

risk assessment, the merits or demerits of the strategy should be further discussed.

Furthermore as a host of determinants for risk assessment such as procedure, reputation

and competence of auditors vary in large and small audit firms, whether the competition

brought by new policy will benefit all sized corporation could be questioned and further

discussed.

It becomes a common phenomenon it is the increasing level of competition within theaudit industry pushing audit firms to offer discount fees.


13/21

4.2 Low-balling provided by auditing firms

In the survey % of the audit firms confirm that they do offer discount fees to new clients

last year. It is the evidence to the statement that auditors are more willing to provide low

price to the first-year clients rather than those with continuing engagements.

According to the survey results, about % of firms accept that the audit risk has been

increased by the application of low-balling price. Therefore it is crucial to examine the

reasons.

Normally the nature of the client should be considered as a priority. The complexity of

clients risk should also be considered.

However by the application of the lower audit fees, certain negative effects come up

with the phenomenon that the financial reporting risk increases with the deterioration of

quality for audit services.

In the article we support one of the causes is the insufficient resource allocated to low

charged clients that lead to the poor performance of the audit service. Additionally, the

inferior understanding of audit procedures, lack of knowledge and experience dealing

with clients also contribute to the increase of audit risk. In the scenario created torespondents in survey it is likely that auditors may carry out irregular practices in order

to attain the client, for instance the timing and extent of audit procedures are lessened,

such behaviour will increase the risk of audit failure.

The opinion then has been supported by the survey results that % of the auditors believe

that the application of low audit fees has exerted negative effect upon audit process and

main reason for unqualified audit is the low price.

4.3 Measurement to reduce the audit risk

Most auditors accept the opinion that the audit risk (detection risk) increases by offering

a discount fee to new clients. The next step is to figure out the alternatives to eliminate

or reduce the audit risk.


14/21

Recommendations are as follows:

According to the results it is suggested that audit fees for initially-engaged clients is

approximate % less than those for continuing services.

It is a significant alteration in audit. As payment to auditors decrease, it will inevitably

affect the motivation of managers in the firm. The auditors attitude to clients may be

altered from positive to negative. With less charge on clients, managers are more likely

to nominate insufficient auditors responsible for the audit tasks.

Although the payment to employees is saved, the audit risk conversely is raised.

According to the mathematical formula below:

DR = AR / (IR x CR).

When inherent and control risks increase, the detection risk need go down. Therefore

audit procedures will be adjusted by auditors. Normally more procedures are required in

various scenarios, timing, nature and extent.

As a consequence the goal is to limit the risk to the acceptable low level and see an

appropriate balance between the costs of an audit opinion and costs of performing the

additional audit procedures to reduce audit risk.

Another finding from the survey is that reporting problems frequently happen during the

first-year clients.

By enquiring measures that auditors take to limit the potentially increasing risk, we bear

in mind the common practice adopted by most audit firms as well as practices tackling

clients with different size and industry.

For instance the procedures taken to gas, oil exploration industry will be different with

manufacturing industry.

Facing the influence exerted by adoption of low-balling audit firms should judge the

level of risk and work on designing the procedures.

Obtaining an understanding by reviewing the clients previous experience, enquiring of

appropriate staff personnel, inspecting relevant documents and records and observing

the financial decisions and operations assist auditors to figure out the risk level and thus

to create relevant assessing procedures.


15/21

By analysing the responses from audit firms upon question (!!!!!), we find all firms are

assessing the potentially increased risk and trying to produce an acceptable level of

detection risk by performing substantive procedures.

(Again it can be explained by formula above: inherent and control risk cant be

controlled by audit firms, detection risk is the only one item can be controlled)

5.0 Conclusion and Limitation

Almost all research studies have limitations and a finite scope. It is the same to this

paper. Firstly, due to all of our survey questionnaires are open-ended questions, it will

take much more time for respondents to answer than close-ended questions. It is

possible that the manager of an audit firm do not even want to waste their precious time

on answering these complex questions. It will make the effective survey questionnaires

not enough for analysis. However, as we discussed above, there are thousands of audit

firms located in different areas. It is impossible for us to interview even small part of

them. Secondly, there is some of the survey questions refer to secrets of corporate

governance. It might be that some managers of audit firms are either reluctant to answer

that or answer it without facility.

6.0 referenceAloke, G & Robert,P,2009, the Impact of Regulation on Auditor Fees: Evidence from

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Auditing Sarasota: Nov. Vol. 28, Iss. 2; p. 171 (27 pages)


16/21

Audit Quality in Australia, a Strategic Review, 2010 the Treasury

Bobbie, W, Daniels, J & Jackson, 2002,Consultant Experience in Conducting

Environmental Audits in Malaysia Questionnaire Environmental Auditing, Department

of Environment

Choi, J., R. Doogar, &A. R. Ganguly. 2004, The riskiness of large audit firm client

portfolios and changes in audit liability regimes: Evidence from the US market,

Contemporary Accounting Research. 21(4): 747-85

Dorothy, A, Feldmann, William J Read, Mohammad J, & Abdolmohammadi,

2009,Audit Fees, and the Moderating Effect of CFO Turnover, Auditing Sarasota,

Vol. 28, Iss. 1; p. 205 (19 pages)

Daniel, T, Simon, Mark, H & Taylor, 2002, A Survey of Audit Pricing in Ireland,

International Journal of Auditing Int. J. Audit. 6: 3-12

Douglas & Niven, 2010, Audit fees and maintaining audit quality, Technical focus

ASIC

Ferguson, A. and D. Stokes. 2002.Brand name audit pricing, industry specialization

and leadership premiums post Big 8 and Big 6 mergers ,Contemporary Accounting

Research 19(1):77-110

Hsuehchang, T & Mingshu, H, 2009, the Effects of Audit Quality on Loan Interest

Rates for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Taiwan, International Journal of

Business, Fresno. Vol. 14, Iss. 3; p. 265 (17 pages)

Jenny, PK, 2006, The relation between external audit fees, audit committee

characteristics and internal audit, School of Business papers

Monika, CW, Robert Knechel & Jason M, 2007,Does Consulting Lead to Audit

Lowballing: Longitudinal Evidence from Audit Fees, International Journal of Business,

Fresno.

Michael, J, Meyer John T & Rigsby, JB, 2007, The impact of auditor-client

relationships on the reversal of first-time audit qualifications, Managerial Auditing

Journal Vol. 22 No. 1

Nieves, GAC, Christopher, HM & Emiliano, RA, 2007,Mandatory audit firm rotation

in Spain: a policy that was never applied, Accounting, Auditing &Accountability

Journal Vol. 20 No. 5

Presha, E, Neidermeyer, TL, Tuten, Adolph, A, Neidermeyer & Gender, 2003,

Differences in auditors attitudes towards lowballing: implications for future practice

International Journal of Auditing Int. J. Audit. 6


17/21

Robert, L, James TA and John J. Willingham, 1985Process Susceptibility Control Risk

and Audit Planning the accounting review Vol lx No.2 April

Ramgopal, Venkataraman, Joseph, Weber, Michael & Willenborg, 2005,

LITIGATION RISK, AUDIT FEES AND AUDIT QUALITY: INITIAL PUBLIC

OFFERINGS AS A NATURAL EXPERIMENT

Rani Hoitash, Udi Hoitash, Jean C Bedard, 2008, Internal Control Quality and Audit

Pricing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,

Auditing. Sarasota. Vol. 27, Iss. 1; p. 105 (22 pages)

Rani Hoitash, Ariel, Markelevich, Charles ,A. Barragato, 2007, Auditor fees and audit

quality, Managerial Auditing Journal. Bradford:. Vol. 22, Iss. 8; p. 761

James Bierstaker, Rich Houston, 2006, The Impact of Competition on Audit Planning,

Review, and Performance, Journal of Accounting Literature. Gainesville:. Vol. 25; p.

1 (58 pages)

Richard, WH, Michael, FP, Jamie H Pratt. 2005, Nonlitigation Risk and Pricing Audit

Services, Auditing. Sarasota. Vol. 24, Iss. 1; p. 37 (17 pages)

Stephen, D, Paul,F, Noel OSullivan, 2002, Highballing and Lowballing in Audit

Pricing: the Impact of Audit Error Professor, CRIS Discussion Paper Series 2002.I

Shannon, LC, Steven, MG, Nathan YS 2010, The Association between Financial

Reporting Risk and Audit Fees before and after the Historic Events Surrounding SOX,

Auditing. Sarasota: May 2010. Vol. 29, Iss. 1; p. 15 (25 pages)

Timothy, B, Wayne, R, Landsmen & Douglas, S,2010, Auditors Perceived Business

Risk and Audit Fees: Analysis and Evidence, Journal of Accounting Research Vol. 39

No. 1 June 2001


18/21

7.0 Appendix

7.1 Appendix 1 (Survey questions)

Survey questions:

1) Do you have any new clients last year? How many new clients

entered the contract with you for audit service last year? What is the

percentage of the new clients among all clients?

2) Do you think the low-balling price policy can attain the new

clients? Specify your reasons below

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

_________________________________

3) Do you think the small audit firms can benefit from the low-balling

price strategy as well as the large audit firms?

4) What is your consideration when determining the specific audit price

for new clients? Do you think there is a need to adjust the audit time

and procedures after reducing the audit fees?

5) What measures will you take if suffering an increased audit risk by

offering the discount audit fees to first-year clients?

6) Do you think the impact upon sufficiency of the audit risk

assessment will be varied by different size of the audit firms after

they reduce the audit fees?

7) What is cost or benefit outcome of low-balling price strategy inyour firm compared to the previous?

8) What other beneficial policy will you take to attain the initially-

engaged clients besides low-balling strategy?

7.1 Appendix 1 (Top 100 accounting firms in Australia)

PricewaterhouseCoopers

KPMG


19/21

Ernst & Young

Deloitte

WHK Group

PKF

BDO

Horwath

Pitcher Partners

Grant Thornton

Moore Stephens

RSM Bird Cameron

William Buck

Bentleys MRI

H&R Block

HLB Mann Judd

Acumen Alliance

Ferrier Hodgson

McGrathNicol+Partners

KordaMentha

WalterTurnbull

SimsPartners

MGI Australian Association

Hall Chadwick

UHY Haines Norton

Forsythes

DFK Australia

BKR Walker Wayland

Hayes Knight Group

Nexia Court & Co

INPACT McDonald Carter

Accru Group

MSI Group

Lawler Partners

Johnston Rorke

DKM Group
http://www.gradconnection.com.au/ernst-and-young/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/deloitte/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/bdo/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/pitcher-partners/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/walter-turnbull/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/deloitte/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/bdo/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/pitcher-partners/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/walter-turnbull/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/ernst-and-young/graduate-jobs/accounting.dot


20/21

Perks

Prosperity Advisers

Australian Solutions Group

Boyce Chartered Accountants

Borough Mazars

Avenir Group

Nexia ASR

Worrells Solvency and Forensic Accountants

Crosbie Warren Sinclair

Einfeld Symonds Vince

Gaddie Metz Kahn

McLean Delmo & Partners

BRW

Roberts & Morrow

Cutcher & Neale

Bell Partners Accountants & Business Advisors

Jones Condon

Stanton Partners

Edwards Marshall

Pilot Partners

Duesburys Nexia

Gould Ralph & Company

Hood Sweeney

Webb Group

The Allan Hall Partnership

Ulton

Fennell Allen & Co

Byfields

Forsyths

Alan Morse & Co

Hill Rogers

Williams & Partners SCI

Bedford Titley

Molloy Orr & Ronan
http://www.gradconnection.com.au/boyce/graduate-jobs/accounting.dothttp://www.gradconnection.com.au/boyce/graduate-jobs/accounting.dot


21/21

PDY Partners

NelsonWheeler Nexia

Saccasan Bailey Partners

Pritchard Adams

Camerons Accountants & Advisors

Mulqueen Griffin Rogers

WMS Chartered Accountants

Bush and Campbell

Stewart, Brown & Co

Wise Lord Ferguson

MB+M Business Solutions

Poole & Associates

Wearne & Co.

McInnes, Graham & Gibbs

Duncan Dovico

Benson Partners

Marsh Ticknell

Anderson Roscoe

Cassim Calligeros Simos

GHR Accounting Group

Wilson Watt Panadrea

Barnes Dowell James

MJC Partners

Rhodes Docherty

Bentley Brett & Vincent

Berger Piepers

Elliotts Accounting

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	harry-li
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Auditing Final

Documents