Skip to main content
Log in

Abnormal audit fees and audit quality: initial evidence from the German audit market

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the economic auditor–client dependency issue by examining the association between abnormal audit fee pricing and audit quality. Our study is the first to analyze this phenomenon empirically for the institutional setting of German IFRS firms by using a sample of 2,334 firm-year observations for the period from 2005 to 2010. Our empirical results demonstrate that positive abnormal audit fees are negatively associated with audit quality and imply that the audit fee premium is a significant indicator of compromised auditor independence due to economic auditor–client bonding. Audit fee discounts generally do not lead to a reduced audit effort, or respectively, audit quality is not impaired when client bargaining power is strong. The association of positive abnormal audit fees and audit quality is robust to different audit quality surrogates such as absolute discretionary accruals, financial restatements, and meeting or beating analysts’ earnings forecasts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Please note that we are not able to measure audit effort directly. However, it is reasonable to assume that audit fees are positively correlated with, for example, the working hours of the auditor or the assignment of more experienced staff, both signaling greater effort (Asthana and Boone 2012; Blankley et al. 2012; Eshleman and Guo 2013).

  2. Also, we are not able to measure client bargaining power directly. However, and consistent with previous audit research studies, we do think that audit fee discounts are correlated with the clients’ ability to exercise bargaining power (Asthana and Boone 2012; Eshleman and Guo 2013).

  3. Throughout this paper positive abnormal audit fees and audit fee premiums as well as negative abnormal audit fees, below-normal audit fees, and audit fee discounts, respectively, are used synonymously.

  4. In 2009 the audit fee disclosure requirements were amended through the Accounting Law Modernization Act. After the amendment audit fees have also to be disclosed by major non-listed companies that meet certain accounting benchmarks as determined in Section 267 paragraph 3 of the German Commercial Code.

  5. We thank one of our anonymous reviewers for this insight.

  6. As Eshleman and Guo (2013) point out, research should work on developing refined measures of audit quality.

  7. The Arthur Anderson–Enron case can be seen as a prime example for the trade-off between economic benefits and the desire to uphold a firm’s reputation. Arthur Andersen, a large international audit company with a 90-years firm history and total revenues of nine billion dollars had to shut down its business within 3 months after the state attorneys detected irregular auditing practices within the Enron audit engagement (Alexander et al. 2002). Kinney and Libby (2002) note in this context that Enron’s actual audit fees paid in the fiscal year 2000 were 250 % of the estimated normal audit fees.

  8. For example, Bedingfield and Loeb (1974) find that disputes over accounting principles are a significant factor for clients to change their auditor.

  9. For example, Eshleman and Guo (2013) argue that the mixed findings in this research field are primarily caused by the choice of the audit quality proxy.

  10. We define the auditor’s net economic bonding incentives to be the potential rents of compromising audit independence (and keeping the mandate) less the potential associated costs of low quality reporting (e.g., litigations, reputation loss, etc.). See DeAngelo (1981a, b) for a discussion of the auditor’s trade-off between audit rents and independence.

  11. The liability of compensatory damages is limited by the German Commercial Code, section 323, paragraph 2 to a maximum amount of € 1 million for audits of non-listed companies and to a maximum amount of € 4 million for audits of listed companies.

  12. Please note that traditional and recent legal practice by the Federal Court of Justice in Germany (“Bundesgerichtshof”) points out that section 323 (paragraph 1, sentence 3) of the German Commercial cannot be used as the basis for claims by third parties. However, an exception exists if the audit contract between the statutory auditor and the client explicitly includes a third party liability clause. In addition, it is worth noting that there also exist alternative opinions on the notion whether auditor misbehavior can give rise to third party liabilities in Germany. Please refer to Seibt and Wollschläger (2011) for further details.

  13. The composition of a supervisory board of a limited liability company in Germany is characterized by explicitly involving various stakeholders; e.g., banks, blockholders, employees and/or trade union representatives (Hackethal et al. 2005, p. 398–401). In addition, see Lane (2003) and Goergen et al. (2008) for a discussion on the differences and the convergence of the German and Anglo-American corporate governance model.

  14. It is important to note that the supervisory board of a public limited company is obliged by the German Stock Corporation Act (section 124 paragraph 3, sentence 1) to propose a statutory auditor to the shareholders’ meeting. After the formal voting of the members of the shareholders’ meeting the supervisory board is also entitled to assign the auditor for the upcoming annual financial statement audit (German Commercial Code, section 318, paragraph 1, sentence 1; German Stock Corporation Act, section 119, paragraph 1, no. 4).

  15. Please note that the public enforcement index equals the average of the following sub-indices: (1) supervisor characteristics index; (2) rule-making power index; (3) investigative powers index; (4) orders index; and (5) criminal index.

  16. The German law-maker enacted the Accounting Enforcement Act as of December 15, 2004. The act created the basis for the implementation of a two-tier financial reporting enforcement in Germany. In addition, the German law-maker enacted the Auditor Oversight Law as of December 27, 2004. The act introduced the Auditor Oversight Commission (APAK) in Germany, which is among other things responsible for disciplinary oversight of German auditors. We are not sure whether and how those accounting reforms are considered in the study results by La Porta et al. (2006). However, it can be assumed that those reforms have improved the public enforcement characteristics in the German institutional setting. Please refer to Ernstberger et al. (2012) for further details on the accounting enforcement reforms in Germany. Please also note our additional robustness analysis in section 6, on the effects of the regulatory changes in the German audit environment.

  17. The German law-maker enacted the Accounting Law Reform Act as of December 4, 2004. The act became effective for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2005. The act contained the rules of mandatory IAS/IFRS adoption for listed companies in Germany and substantially modified the existing regulations on auditor independence.

  18. Throughout this paper, we generally omit subscripts for the firm and year for the sake of brevity when presenting our model equations.

  19. With regard to the study of Hay et al. (2006) the majority of prior empirical audit fee studies used other profitability measures (e.g., ROA, etc.). Due to several collinearity issues with other independent control variables we decide to use ROE as a proxy for profitability.

  20. Given the German audit market peculiarities, we define the following audit firms to be Big 5 auditors: KPMG, Ernst & Young, Deloitte, PWC, and BDO.

  21. According to Ernstberger et al. (2013) German setting modification of Frankel et al. (2002) industry membership, the classification is defined by SIC code as follows: agriculture (0100–0999), mining and construction (1000–1999, excluding 1300–1399), consumer manufactures (2000–2111, 2200–2799), chemicals, pharma, and refining (1300–1399, 2800–2824, 2830–2836, 2840–2899, 2900–2999), durable manufactures (3000–3999, excluding 3570–3579 and 3670–3679), transportation (4000–4899), utilities (4900–4999), retail (5000–5999), services (7000–8999, excluding 7370–7379), and computers (3570–3579, 3670–3679, 7370–7379).

  22. Please note that the Ball and Shivakumar (2006) model already controls for firm performance by incorporating the CFO variable.

  23. The IFRS classification follows Daske et al. (2013). As some regression variables are based on information of the previous period, data of the fiscal year 2004 is also included in our analyses.

  24. The missing audit fee disclosures are mainly related to the alternative fiscal year-end (i.e., not December 31) of some companies for which the mandatory fee disclosure requirements were not yet binding in 2005.

  25. This issue is mainly driven by the legal restructuring of KPMG in Europe. In October 2007, KPMG Germany, KPMG United Kingdom and KPMG Switzerland merged to form KPMG Europe LLP. During the period under study, the KPMG offices of the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Russia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait have joined KPMG LLP.

  26. The audit fee data was hand-collected by one of the authors as well as by research assistants. All numbers were validated by another author, not involved in the initial collection process.

  27. It is important to note, however, that the audit market concentration is lower in comparison to many other countries (for example, the Big 4 control approx. 80 % of the US audit market). See Asthana and Boone (2012), Table 3.

  28. A majority of German listed companies used an option enacted by the Capital Raising Act in 1998 to prepare the annual consolidated statement in accordance with IFRS (or US-GAAP) instead of German GAAP before 2005. As a consequence, Germany is a country where a considerable amount of IFRS annual financial statements is available for a relatively long time period (Ernstberger 2008).

  29. We use a cross-sectional estimation approach where we cluster heteroscedasticity-adjusted standard errors on the firm-level. The cross-sectional estimation approach follows prior literature such as Choi et al. (2010), Asthana and Boone (2012), and Blankley et al. (2012). Please note that a firm fixed effect estimation could result in an understatement of the true standard error when the residuals of a given firm are correlated across years (Petersen 2009). In addition, a pooled estimation approach generally increases the statistical power in comparison to firm fixed effect computations.

  30. Excluding the industry- and year-fixed effects does not alter our results qualitatively.

  31. Throughout this study the presented t-values are all calculated on an adjusted basis, using robust standard errors corrected for heteroscedasticity and firm-level clustering (Petersen 2009).

  32. In comparison, other German audit market studies as, for instance, Bigus and Zimmermann (2009), Köhler et al. (2010) and Wild (2010) show similar adjusted R2 of approximetaly 82 % for their audit fee models.

  33. The significant positive coefficient is in line with the study results of Köhler et al. (2010), although the authors used the binary variable BIG4 in their research approach. Moreover, the results are partially supported by the findings of Wild (2010). The author states that among the Big 4 auditors only PWC is able to earn fee premiums in the German audit market. However, the empirical evidence of Wild (2010) cannot be taken at face value as the study mainly focus on audit pricing practices after auditor changes.

  34. Please note that we do not try to specifically derive a normal range of audit fee pricing nor to disentangle its economic consequences, but leave this promising topic for future research.

  35. Asthana and Boone (2012) use discretionary accruals as an audit quality proxy in their main analysis, too.

  36. The dependent variable RESTATE refers to the publication of error findings established by the German two-tier enforcement system. The German enforcement system consists of a private review panel, namely the “Deutsche Prüfstelle für Rechnungslegung” (DPR, German Financial Reporting Enforcement Panel), and the German securities regulator BaFin (“Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht”). To collect the restatement data for our robustness test, we searched the electronic version of the federal registry (“elektronischer Bundesanzeiger”). This web-based archive, which is maintained by the federal Ministry of Justice, stores filings by German firms and has been the mandatory channel of disclosure since October 2007. Please refer to Hitz et al. (2012) and Ernstberger et al. (2012) for further details on the institutional setup of the German two-tier enforcement system.

  37. The rationale of using the first-time modified GCO instead of all (subsequent) GCOs issued during the sample period is that continuing GCO modifications represent a different set of risks to the auditor and the client than a first-time modification (Carey et al. 2008; Mutchler and Williams 1990), because initial audit report modifications are the most difficult for a client to accept (Kida 1980). This procedure results in a total of 64 first-time GCO observations.

  38. Please note that we drop the independent variable LAGTACC as there is no need to control for variations in the reversal of accruals over time in non-accrual based models.

  39. Please refer to Ernstberger et al. (2012) for further details as well as capital market consequences of the German accounting enforcement reform.

  40. The coefficients for negative abnormal audit fees are insignificant for both of the subsample periods.

  41. These findings are similar to the enhanced auditor independence in the years following the enactment of SOX. See Asthana and Boone (2012) for further details.

  42. Quick and Sattler (2011) conduct an empirical study of the effects of non-audit services on audit quality for the German audit market. Using working capital accruals as a measure of audit quality, the authors find insignificant results for both audit-related and tax fees. However, the study provides evidence that other (consulting) fees are positively associated with the magnitude of working capital accruals.

References

  • Alexander D, Burns G, Manor R, McRoberts F, Torriero E (2002) The fall of Andersen: Greed tarnished golden reputation. The Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0209010315sep01,0,538751.story

  • Allison PD (2005) Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Antle R, Gordon E, Narayanamoorthy G, Zhou L (2006) The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals. Rev Quant Financ Acc 27(3):235–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asthana SC, Boone JP (2012) Abnormal audit fee and audit quality. Audit J Pract Theory 31(3):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball R, Shivakumar L (2006) The role of accruals in asymmetrically timely gain and loss recognition. J Account Res 44(2):207–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes P (2004) The auditor’s going concern decision and types I and II errors: the coase theorem, transaction costs, bargaining power and attempts to mislead. J Account Public Policy 23(6):415–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth ME, Landsman WR, Lang HL, Williams CD (2012) Are IFRS-based and US GAAP-based accounting amounts comparable? J Account Econ 54(1):68–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker C, DeFond M, Jiambalvo J, Subramanyam K (1998) The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemp Account Res 15(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedingfield J, Loeb S (1974) Auditor changes: an examination. J Account 137(3):66–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigus J, Zimmermann R-C (2008) Non-audit fees, market leaders and concentration in the German audit market: a descriptive analysis. Int J Audit 12(3):159–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigus J, Zimmermann R-C (2009) Quasirentenmodell und Honorare für Abschlussprüfungen in Deutschland—eine empirische Analyse. J Bus Econ 79(11):1283–1308 (ZfB—Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blankley AI, Hurtt DN, MacGregor JE (2012) Abnormal audit fees and restatements. Audit J Pract Theory 31(1):79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey PJ, Geiger MA, O’Connell BT (2008) Costs associated with going-concern-modified audit opinions: an analysis of the Australian audit market. ABACUS 44(1):61–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles SL, Glover SM, Sharp NY (2010) The association between financial reporting risk and audit fees before and after the historic events surrounding SOX. Audit J Pract Theory 29(1):15–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi J-H, Wong TJ (2007) Auditors’ governance functions and legal environments: an international investigation. Contemp Account Res 24(1):13–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi J-H, Kim J-B, Liu X, Simunic DA (2008) Audit pricing, legal liability regimes, and Big 4 premiums: theory and cross-country evidence. Contemp Account Res 25(1):55–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi J-H, Kim J-B, Liu X, Simunic DA (2009) Cross-listing audit fee premiums: theory and evidence. Account Rev 84(5):1429–1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi J-H, Kim J-B, Zang Y (2010) Do abnormally high audit fees impair audit quality? Audit J Pract Theory 29(2):73–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craswell AT, Francis JR, Taylor SL (1995) Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations. J Account Econ 20(3):297–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daske H, Hail L, Leuz C, Verdi R (2013) Adopting a label: heterogeneity in the economic consequences around IAS/IFRS adoptions. J Account Res 51(3):495–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis LR, Soo BS, Trompeter GM (2009) Auditor tenure and the ability to meet or beat earnings forecasts. Contemp Account Res 26(2):517–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo LE (1981a) Auditor independence, “low balling” and disclosure regulation. J Account Econ 3(2):113–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo LE (1981b) Auditor size and audit quality. J Account Econ 3(3):183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechow P, Dichev I (2002) The quality of accruals and earnings. Account Rev 77:35–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechow P, Sloan R, Sweeney A (1995) Detecting earnings management. Account Rev 70(2):193–225

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFond M, Jiambalvo J (1994) Debt covenant effects and the manipulation of accruals. J Account Econ 17(1–2):145–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFond M, Subramanyam K (1998) Auditor change and discretionary accruals. J Account Econ 25(1):35–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFond M, Raghunandan K, Subramanyam K (2002) Do non-audit services fees impair auditor independence? evidence from going concern audit opinions. J Account Res 40(4):1247–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deis D, Giroux G (1996) The effect of auditor changes on audit fees, audit hours, and audit quality. J Account Public Policy 15(1):55–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Schleifer A (2008) The law and economics of self-dealing. J Financ Econ 88(3):430–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dye RA (1991) Informationally motivated auditor replacement. J Account Econ 14(4):347–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernstberger J (2008) The value relevance of comprehensive income under IFRS and US GAAP: empirical evidence from Germany. Int J Account Audit Perform Eval 5(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernstberger J, Stich M, Vogler O (2012) Economic consequences of accounting enforcement reforms: the case of Germany. Eur Account Rev 21(2):217–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernstberger J, Koch C, Tan H-T (2013) Lead auditor expertise, audit quality, and audit fees. Working Paper

  • Eshleman JD, Guo P (2013) Abnormal audit fees and audit quality: The importance of considering managerial incentives in tests of earnings management. Audit J Pract Theory (in press)

  • European Commission (EU-Commission) (2010) Green paper. Audit policy: Lessons from the crises. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/auditing/reform/index_en.htm

  • European Commission (EU-Commission) (2011) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/auditing/reform/index_en.htm

  • Ferguson MJ, Seow GS, Young D (2004) Nonaudit services and earnings management: UK evidence. Contemp Account Res 21(4):813–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis JR, Wang D (2005) Impact of the SEC’s public fee disclosure requirement on subsequent period fees and implications for market efficiency. Audit J Pract Theory 24(Suppl):145–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis JR, Maydew EL, Sparks HC (1999) The role of Big 6 auditors in the credible reporting of accruals. Audit J Pract Theory 18(2):17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel R, Johnson M, Nelson K (2002) The relation between auditors’ fees for non-audit services and earnings quality. Account Rev 77(Suppl):71–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gietzmann MB, Quick R (1998) Capping auditor liability: the German experience. Account Organ Soc 23(1):81–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaum M, Lichtblau K, Lindemann J (2004) The extent of earnings management in the US and Germany. J Int Account Res 3(2):45–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goergen M, Manjon MC, Renneboog L (2008) Is the German system of corporate governance converging towards the Anglo-American model? J Manage Gov 12(1):37–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory A, Collier P (1996) Audit fees and auditor change: an investigation of the persistence of fee reduction by type of change. J Bus Finance Account 23(1):13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta PP, Krishnan GV, Yu W (2009) You get what you pay for: An examination of audit quality when audit fee is low. Working Paper

  • Hackethal A, Schmidt RH, Tyrell M (2005) Banks and German corporate governance: on the way to a capital market-based system? Corporate Governance. An international. Review 13(3):397–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay DC, Knechel WR, Wong N (2006) Audit fees: a meta-analysis of the effect of supply and demand attributes. Contemp Account Res 23(1):141–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heß B, Stefani U (2012) Audit market regulation and supplier concentration around the world: Empirical evidence. Working Paper

  • Higgs JL, Skantz TR (2006) Audit and nonaudit fees and the market’s reaction to earnings announcements. Audit J Pract Theory 25(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitz J-M, Ernstberger J, Stich M (2012) Enforcement of accounting standards in Europe: empirical evidence for the two-tier mechanism in Germany. Eur Account Rev 21(2):253–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoitash R, Markelevich A, Barragato CA (2007) Auditor fees and audit quality. Managerial Audit J 22(8):761–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hribar P, Kraver T, Wilson R (2010) A new measure of accounting quality. Working Paper

  • Ireland JC, Lennox CS (2002) The large audit firm fee premium: a case of selectivity bias? J Account Audit Finance 17(1):73–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Joe JR, Vandervelde SD (2007) Do auditor-provided nonaudit services improve audit effectiveness? Contemp Account Res 24(2):467–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson VE, Khurana IK, Reynolds JK (2002) Audit-firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemp Account Res 19(4):636–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kida T (1980) An investigation into auditors’ continuity and related qualification judgments. J Account Res 18(2):506–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinney WR, Libby R (2002) Discussion of the relation between auditors’ fees for non-audit services and earnings management. Account Rev 77(Suppl):107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinney W, Palmrose Z, Scholz S (2004) Auditor independence, non-audit services, and restatements: was the US Government right? J Account Res 42(3):561–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köhler AG, Marten K-U, Quick R, Ruhnke K (2008) Audit regulation in Germany. Improvements driven by internationalization. Auditing, Trust and Governance. Developing Regulation in Europe. Routledge, London, pp 111–43

  • Köhler AG, Marten K-U, Ratzinger NVS, Wagner M (2010) Prüfungshonorare in Deutschland—Determinanten und Implikationen. J Bus Econ 80(1):5–29 (ZfB—Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothari SP, Leone AJ, Wasley CE (2001) Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. J Account Econ 39(1):163–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause R, Semadeni M (2013) Apprentice, departure, and demotion: an examination of the three types of CEO-board chair separation. Acad Manag J 56(3):805–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Schleifer A, Vishny R (1997) Legal determinants of external finance. J Finance 52(3):1131–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Schleifer A (2006) What works in security laws? J Finance 61(1):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane C (2003) Changes in corporate governance of German corporations: convergence to the Anglo-American model? Compet Change 7(2–3):79–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larcker DF, Richardson SA (2004) Fees paid to audit firms, accrual choices, and corporate governance. J Account Res 42(3):625–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuz C, Nanda D, Wysocki PD (2003) Earnings management and investor protection: an international comparison. J Financ Econ 69(3):505–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim C-Y, Tan H-T (2008) Non-audit service fees and audit quality: the impact of auditor specialization. J Accout Res 46(1):199–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNichols MF (2000) Research design issues in earnings management studies. J Account Public Policy 19(4–5):313–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra S, Deis DR, Hossain M (2009) The association between audit fees and reported earnings quality in pre-and post-Sarbanes-Oxley regimes. Rev Account Finance 8(3):232–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutchler J, Williams D (1990) The relationship between audit technology, client risk profiles, and the going-concern opinion decision. Audit J Pract Theory 9(3):39–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmrose Z-V (1986a) Audit fees and auditor size: further evidence. J Account Res 24(4):97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmrose Z-V (1986b) The effect of nonaudit services on the pricing of audit services: further evidence. J Account Res 24(2):405–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterson JS, Valencia A (2011) The effects of recurring on nonrecurring tax, audit-related, and other nonaudit services on auditor independence. Contemp Account Res 28(5):1510–1536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen MA (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing approaches. Rev Financ Stud 22(1):435–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pott C, Mock TJ, Watrin C (2009) Review of empirical research on rotation and non-audit services: auditor independence in fact vs. appearance. J Für Betriebswirtschaft 58(4):209–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J, Stice JD (1994) The effects of client characteristics on auditor litigation risk judgments, required audit evidence, and recommended audit fees. Account Rev 69(4):639–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Quick R (2012) EC green paper proposals and audit quality. Account Europe 9(1):17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quick R, Sattler M (2011) Beeinträchtigen Beratungsleistungen die Urteilsfähigkeit des Abschlussprüfers? Zum Einfluss von Beratungshonoraren auf diskretionäre Periodenabgrenzungen. J Bus Econ 63(6):310–343 (ZfB—Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft)

    Google Scholar 

  • Quick R, Warming-Rasmussen BW (2009) Auditor independence and the provision of non-audit services: perceptions by German investors. Int J Audit 13(2):141–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratzinger-Sakel NVS (2013) Auditor fees and auditor independence—Evidence from going concern reporting decisions in Germany. Audit J Pract Theory 32(4):129–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds JK, Deis DR, Francis JR (2004) Professional service fees and auditor objectivity. Audit J Pract Theory 23(1):29–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Church BK, Ely KM (2006) Non-audit services and auditor independence: a review of the literature. J Account Lit 25:169–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibt CH, Wollenschläger B (2011) Dritthaftung des Abschlussprüfers kapitalmarktorientierter Unternehmen. Der Betrieb 24:1378–1385

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon DT, Francis JR (1988) The effects of auditor change on audit fees: tests of price cutting and price recovery. Account Rev 63(2):255–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Simunic DA (1980) The pricing of audit services: theory and evidence. J Account Res 18(1):161–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simunic DA (1984) Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence. J Account Res 22(2):679–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simunic DA, Stein MT (1996) The impact of litigation risk on audit pricing: a review of the economics and the evidence. Audit J Pract Theory 15(Suppl):119–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinidhi B, Gul FA (2007) The differential effects of auditors’ non-audit and audit fees on accrual quality. Contemp Account Res 24(2):595–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telberg R (2010) How clients squeeze CPAs on audit fees. CPA Trendlines, November 8

  • Turpen RA (1990) Differential pricing on auditors’ initial engagements: further evidence. Audit J Pract Theory 9(2):60–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuschke A, Sanders WG (2003) Antecedents and consequences of corporate governance reform: the case of Germany. Strateg Manag J 24(7):631–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whisenant S, Sankaraguruswamy S, Raghunandan K (2003) Evidence on the joint determination of audit and non-audit fees. J Account Res 41(4):721–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wild A (2010) Fee cutting and fee premium of German auditors. DBW (Die Betriebswirtschaft) 70(6):513–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie Z, Cai C, Ye J (2010) Abnormal audit fees and audit opinion—further evidence from China’s capital market. China J Account Res 3(1):51–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zmijewski ME (1984) Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models. J Account Res 22(Suppl):59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the comments and suggestions of the editor, two anonymous reviewers, Christopher Koch and participants at the VHB/IAAER Annual Conference 2013 in Frankfurt, Carolina Bona Sánchez and participants at the Workshop on Empirical Research in Financial Accounting 2011 at the University of Seville as well as of Joachim Gassen and the Finance-Accounting Research Seminar at Humboldt University Berlin. We also wish to thank Nicole Ratzinger-Sakel and the participants at the 6th EARNet Symposium 2011, the annual European Accounting Association (EAA) Conference 2011, and the 2010 Business and Research (BuR) Conference for their helpful comments. We thank Aasmund Eilifsen, Marcy Shepardson and Devrimi Kaya for the review of prior versions of this manuscript. We also thank Omer Cemal for scientific assistance. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Krauß.

Appendix

Appendix

Variable definitions

Variable

Description

|DA1|

Absolute value of discretionary accruals as measured by the Ball and Shivakumar (2006) model

|DA2|

Absolute value of discretionary accruals as measured by the Jones (1991) model specification in Dechow et al. (1995) and adjusted for firm performance by including the ROA variable as suggested by McNichols (2000) and Kothari et al. (2001)

ABAFEE

Abnormal audit fees estimated from Eq. (1)

AGE

Number of years since company foundation

BIG5

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the statutory auditor is one of the Big 5 audit firms (KPMG, Ernst & Young, Deloitte, PWC, and BDO), and 0 otherwise

BTM

Book-to-market ratio (total book value of equity divided by the firms’ market capitalization)

BUSY

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the fiscal year ends in December, and 0 otherwise

CFO

Cash flow from operations scaled by lagged total assets

CHGLEVE

Leverage change from the prior to the current fiscal year, whereas leverage is defined as long-term liabilities divided by total assets

DAX

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the company is listed in the DAX index of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and 0 otherwise

DCFO

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the cash flow from operations is negative, and 0 otherwise

DPABAFEE

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the abnormal audit fees estimated from Eq. (1) are positive, and 0 otherwise

FIRST_GCO

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the company received a going-concern modified opinion for the first time, and 0 otherwise

FOREIGN

Ratio of foreign revenue to total revenue

GROWTH

Revenue change from the prior to the current fiscal year

IFRS

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the company applies IFRS for the first time, and 0 otherwise

INITIAL

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the firm’s statutory auditor is in the first audit engagement year, and 0 otherwise

ISSUE

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if equity titles are issued in the current fiscal year, and 0 otherwise

LAGLOSS

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the prior year’s net income is negative, and 0 otherwise

LAGTACC

Prior-year’s total accruals

LNFEE

Natural log of audit fees

LNSEG

Natural log of the number of business segments

LNINVREC

Natural log of the sum of inventories and receivables

LNNFC

Natural log of the number of analysts’ earnings forecasts

LNTA

Natural log of total assets

LOSS

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the current year’s net income is negative, and 0 otherwise

MBEX

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the firm meets or beats the earnings expectation (proxied by the most recent median consensus analyst earnings forecast available on I/B/E/S file) by two cents or less, and 0 otherwise

MDAX

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the company is listed in the MDAX index of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and 0 otherwise

NAS

Ratio of non-audit fees to total fees

PABAFEE

Positive abnormal audit fees estimated from Eq. (1), or respectively, interaction term of ABAFEE and DPABAFEE

PPE

Net property, plant and equipment

REC

Accounts receivables

REPORTLAG

Number of days between the fiscal year-end and the audit opinion date

RESTATE

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the client has issued a financial statement restatement for the respective fiscal year, and 0 otherwise

REV

Total revenues

ROA

Return on assets (net income divided by total assets)

ROE

Return on equity (net income divided by total equity)

SDAX

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the company is listed in the SDAX index of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and 0 otherwise

STDFC

Standard deviation of analysts’ earnings forecasts

TA

Total assets

TACC

Total accruals (net income minus cash flows from operations)

TECDAX

Indicator variable that takes the value of 1 if the company is listed in the TECDAX index of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, and 0 otherwise

ZSCORE

Zmijewski’s (1984) financial condition index

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krauß, P., Pronobis, P. & Zülch, H. Abnormal audit fees and audit quality: initial evidence from the German audit market. J Bus Econ 85, 45–84 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0709-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0709-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation