Kevin McMeeking

The determinants of the UK Big Firm premium

Abstract Our study attempts to determine whether, and if so why, the large auditing firms are able to earn a premium on their audit work in the UK. We start by confirming the apparent existence of a Big Firm premium during the period 1985-2002. We examine industry specialisation, non-audit service fee and monopoly pricing explanations for the premium. The results of our tests of industry specialisation are mixed. There is little evidence that this premium is associated with industry specialisation when specialists are defined at the national level. Significant premia are observed if specialisation is defined at the city level, particularly if the auditor is the industry leader. However, when appropriate allowance is made for endogeneity. by modelling both audit and non-audit fees in a simultaneous equations framework, the Big Firm premium disappears. We find evidence to suggest that non-audit fees earned by auditors from their audit clients are positively related to the size of the audit fee and vice versa. Finally, when the sample is stratified by the size of audit client, we find no systematic evidence of anti-competitive pricing.

The effect of large audit firm mergers on audit pricing in the UK

Abstract This paper examines the effects on UK audit market concentration and pricing of mergers between the large audit firms and the demise of Andersen. Based on data over the period 1985–2002, it appears that mergers contributed to a rise in concentration ratios to levels that suggest concern about the potential for monopoly pricing. The high concentration ratios have not improved the level of price competition in the UK audit market. Our pooled models suggest that concentration ratios are associated with higher audit fees. The evidence suggests that the effects of mergers between big firms on brand name fee premium and on price competition vary depending on the particular circumstances. The brand name premium is strongest for the largest quartile of companies prior to the mergers. After the Big Six mergers, the premium increases for average‐sized companies but falls for the smallest and largest companies. Following the PricewaterhouseCoopers merger, the premium increases for below median‐sized clients but decreases for above‐median sized clients. For the Deloitte‐Andersen transaction, the premium falls for the smallest and largest companies but increases for those in the second quartile. Our results provide evidence that auditees are likely to pay higher fees if their auditor merges with a larger counterpart. We attribute merger‐related fee hikes to product differentiation, rather than anti‐competitive pricing.

Competition in the UK accounting services market

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between market structure, competition and pricing in the UK accounting services market. This association is important because mergers amongst the leading firms and the collapse of Arthur Andersen have reduced the number of international accounting firms to four.Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines concentration ratios (CR) and the fees charged by accounting firms. The data used encompass the period when the number of leading suppliers fell from eight to four.Findings – FTSE100 consultancy fees increased rapidly in the 1990s. Independence concerns, corporate scandals and additional legislation contributed to a sharp increase in audit fees and a significant decrease in consultancy fees since the turn of the century. The international accounting firms responded to saturation of the FTSE100 market by targeting the small and medium‐sized client sectors as avenues for further growth. The audit market is competitive at the initial ten...

Stock Market Sensitivity to U.K. Firms' Pension Discounting Assumptions

New U.K. pension accounting regulations significantly increase the exposure of the balance sheets of U.K. firms to volatilities in pension fund valuations. We examine whether the abnormal returns of firms that voluntarily used market‐based pension discount rates are significantly different from the abnormal returns of industry‐matched pair samples of firms that retained traditional cost‐based valuation assumptions during the period surrounding the release of the related exposure draft. We also examine the interest rate sensitivity of stock price returns over the 4‐year period before and after the announcement date. Consistent with our hypotheses, U.K. stock price returns incorporate the effect of unexpected interest rate changes on sources of pension earnings for firms that voluntarily switched to market‐based assumptions but do not incorporate these effects for firms that did not switch. These results suggest that unexpected changes in interest rates have a differential effect on a firms sources of pension, financial, and core earnings.

Partnership Law and Its Spawn: Did LLP Deliver on Its Promises?

This is the author pre-print version. The final version is available from the publisher via the link in this record.