The majority of the world’s financial audits are dominated by four major audit firms, which are known as the “Big 4” (PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, KPMG, and Deloitte). Prior studies suggest that these firms, on average, provide higher quality audit services and also exhibit a fee premium in comparison with their non-Big 4 audit firms; however, it is questionable that whether all these Big 4 audit firms are the same and that whether there are differences in audit quality within the Big 4.
In term of total audit fee dollars, PwC maintains its leadership position among the Big 4 (Appendix A, table 1), followed by Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG. In 2014, PwC generated $15 billion from its audit service – 44% more than those earned by KPMG. PwC also ranked as the most prestigious accounting firm (Appendix A, table 2) in 2015 according to the Vault’s annual Accounting Survey as reported in table 2, followed by Ernst & Young, Deloitte and KPMG. Following qualitative responses are also taken during the Vault’s survey to describe their perception of firms other than their own: “Most prestigious of the Big 4” “Very aggressive firm but over-promises in the marketplace” “Doesn’t seem to care about audit anymore” “Overworking employees beyond every other firm” “Not a good work/life balance” “Big 3’s kid brother” “Least prestigious of the Big 4”. These responses indicate potential variations within the Big 4 firms based on the outside perception of a firm.
In this study, I
However, the application of SOX has brought on regulations that public companies must put in place and follow to prohibit these unethical occurrences. One major advantage for associated with SOX is that more thorough audits are being conducted by auditing firms. Audits being conducted more thoroughly will provide accuracy and an increased reliability of financial data. This will affect taxes in a positive way and provide firms with an advantage. Causholli, Chambers, and Payne (2014) suggest that prior to the implementation of SOX in 2002, “an auditor’s opportunity to sell additional non-audit services in the subsequent year, coupled with the client’s willingness to buy services, intensified the economic bond between auditor and client, in turn reducing auditor independence and the quality of financial reporting” (p.681). The regulation of auditor provided non-audit tax services has increased the reliability of tax and financial reporting within companies. Seetharaman, Sun, and Wang (2011) explain that “in a post-Sarbanes-Oxley environment, the benefits of auditor-provided non-audit tax services (NATS) seem to manifest themselves in higher quality tax-related financial statement management assertions” (p. 677).
In order “to offer high-quality accounting services”, Arthur Andersen (AA), a Northwestern accounting professor started a business to offer services to clients promoting “integrity and sound audit opinions over higher short-run profits”. The company’s “four cornerstones” was good service, quality audits, well-managed staff, and profits for the firm. Their strategy was to focus on quality and high standards of audits rather than profits, a very successful strategy that led to consistent growth over the years.
According to Pompper (2014), “incidents of high-profile deception over the past” four decades “have threatened the reputation of the … accounting function” (p. 131). For instance, an investigation was conducted into the financial audit and reporting process after the savings and loan banking crisis in the 1980s (Pompper, 2014). In addition, the criminal convictions of executives and bankruptcies of Fortune 500 companies such as Enron and WorldCom in the turn of the century motivated Congress to pass the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in 2002 to strengthen regulations within the accounting profession (Whittington & Pany, 2014). As a result, the SOX introduced provisions that changed the accounting function, such as the establishment of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and other major elements; however, the SOX regulations subsequently resulted in consequences to its compliance.
Legitimacy in accounting practices is ensured by the check and balance of having independent auditors from registered public accountant firms reviewing financial practices. The report features eleven sections and these sections pertain to accounting overview, independence of auditors to reduce interest conflicts, corporate responsibility, financial disclosures, tax returns, criminal fraud and various elements of white collar criminal activity (107th Congress
The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 marked a significant change in the world of business with relation to auditors and public companies. In this paper, I will discuss the causes that led to the creation of the Sarbanes Oxley Act as well as key sections of the act that impact auditors and their effect on public companies and investors. I will also address the impact of the auditing standard no. 5 and how it pertain to auditors and public accounting firms.
The Auditing Standards Board has launched the Clarity Project (Lindberg & Seifert, 2011) which is an effort to make the U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (U.S. GAAS) easier to comprehend in the eyes of non-public businesses. “The Clarity Project will result in the first complete redrafting and recodification of U.S. GAAS since 1972” (Morris & Thomas, 2011, para. 2). Four of the most significant changes are: changing the format of the standards so they are more consistent and readable, the wording in the auditor’s report, group audit standards, and the authoritative status on the 10 generally accepted auditing standards (Morris & Thomas, 2011). The Clarity Project also includes the process of integrating the U.S. GAAS with International Standards on Auditing (ISA).
The purpose of Part 1 is to perform preliminary analytical procedures. You have been asked to focus your attention on two purposes of analytical procedures:
In 2009, the research done by Ghosh and Palewicz designnd for analyzing the auditing cost from 2000 through 2005. They collected 23,273 firm’s year observation (Ghosh and Palewicz 181) and the results indicates that the sample’s average audit fees in pre-SOX is $533,360 but after SOX it went up to $1,185,322 over two years, The increase in audit fees is $651,962 which is approximate 122 percent.(Ghosh and Palewicz 185).
PricewaterhouseCoopers is one of the largest auditing firms in the world. The largest auditing firms’ collectively has been called the Big 4 since 2002. The list of the largest auditing firms have been cut in half since the 1980’s due to mergers with other large auditing firms. To call the Big 4 auditing firms is misleading. They each are a professional services network. Each firm in the network is owned and managed independently. The current PricewaterhouseCoopers came into being in 1998 when Coopers & Lybrand and Price Waterhouse merged into one. Both Coopers & Lybrand and Price Waterhouse, are auditing firms that were started in London in the 1840s. Soon, both firms starting to merge with other firms to create larger ones with more stake on the global market. Coopers & Lybrand quickly spread to Canada and the United States while Price Waterhouse went for a more global take over (Boys, 2005).
When looking at the total assets, there is an inverse relationship between the amount of assets and the audit fees paid. Apple Inc. had the largest amount of total assets but paid the least amount in audit fees. On the other hand, Microsoft had the least amount of total assets but paid the most in audit fees. Finally, Walmart had the median amount of total assets and paid the median amount in fees. Comparing the fees by revenue did not produce any clear patterns, but comparing them by assets showed a clear inverse relationship.
Lindberg and Beck (2002) claim that auditor independence is hailed as the “cornerstone” in the accounting profession as it is the core reason as to why the public trusts their professional opinion. However, since 2000, many accounting fraud scandals have negatively impacted public opinion on the legitimacy of the audit profession and, if in fact, its independence is uninfluenced by other parties. One of the scandals being the sudden collapse of Enron, given that a few months prior its bankruptcy its auditors Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accounting firms, claimed that Enron was financially healthy, but in fact they were paid off
The lack of independence for external auditors will lead to the neglect of auditing risks (William R.K., 2003), which are the main reasons for the failure of certified accountants and professional accounting organizations. The consequence of the external auditors deprived of independence would be very serious. And there are many cases, which aroused by the failure of external auditors and most are related to the lack of independence. One famous example is the bankruptcy of Enron and the role played by its external auditor, Arthur Andersen (Todd, S., 2003). Arthur Andersen was once one of the biggest accounting companies in the world, and was canceled for the involvement in the Enron bankruptcy scandal.
control is not effective, the problem can be catastrophic as it was for Arthur Anderson in
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of external auditing in promoting good corporate governance. The role of auditors has been emphasized after the pass of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a response to the accounting scandal of Enron. Even though auditors are hired and paid by the company, their role is not to represent or act in favor of the company, but to watch and investigate the company’s financials to protect the public from any material misstatements that can affect their decisions. As part of this role, the auditors assess the level of the company’s adherence to its own code of ethics.
From the information gathered in this report, it is clear that Audit Diagnostics had neither sufficient presence in their market type nor focus on their marketing strategy. I believe this is what ultimately caused their downfall. With most other companies we would be discussing advertising, promotions and relationships with other companies, but Audit Diagnostics’ marketing is so undeveloped, the website has not even been designed. They have no presence on TV, in newspapers or even online. Audit Diagnostics is the perfect example of a company that failed to recognize the importance of marketing. As a consequence the company has failed and is going into liquidation.