Annual report inquiry letters, disclosure of key audit matters and audit fees: Evidence from Chinese A-share listed companies

Abstract

Research background: Issuing an annual report inquiry letter is a powerful means by which securities exchanges regulate the information of listed companies, which can convey information, reveal risks, and sustain the orderly development of capital markets. However, research on the economic consequences is limited.

Purpose of the article: This study analyses the relationships and mechanisms between annual report inquiry letters, key audit matters (KAMs), and audit fees.

Methods: We collected data from Chinese A-share companies listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges between 2017 and 2022, totalling 9,903 observations. We used Stata to conduct mediation effects and heterogeneity tests on the data. We also conducted further research on the relationship between audit fees and the purchase of audit opinions.

Findings & value added: The results indicate that (1) companies that receive annual report inquiry letters have higher audit fees. Furthermore, (2) companies that receive annual report inquiry letters are more likely to increase the number of disclosed KAMs, leading to higher audit fees. Finally, (3) the above relationship is more significant amongst companies audited by non-Big-Four accounting firms than amongst those audited by Big-Four accounting firms. Further, the increase in audit fees for the sample companies is not due to the purchase of audit opinions and is combined with robustness tests, further validating the conclusions of this study. These findings contribute to research on the economic impact of implementing the annual report inquiry system and new auditing standards, providing empirical evidence for the effectiveness of government oversight of capital markets.

Keywords

annual report inquiry letter, key audit matters, audit fees, audit quality

References

1. Alberti, C. T., Bedard, J. C., Bik, O., & Vanstraelen, A. (2022). Audit firm culture: Recent developments and trends in the literature. European Accounting Review, 31(1), 59–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2020.1846574
   View in Google Scholar
2. Anton, S. G. (2021). The impact of temperature increase on firm profitability. Empirical evidence from the European energy and gas sectors. Applied Energy, 295, 117051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117051
   View in Google Scholar
3. Bader, A., Nawaiseh, M. E., & Nawaiseh, H. N. (2019). Does audit quality mediate the relationship between audit firm size and audit fees. African Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 6(4), 279–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/AJAAF.2019.105133
   View in Google Scholar
4. Bozanic, Z., Dietrich, J. R., & Johnson, B. A. (2017). SEC comment letters and firm disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36(5), 337–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2017.07.004
   View in Google Scholar
5. Cai, Y., & Li, M. (2022). CEO-CFO tenure consistency and audit fees. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 73, 101779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101779
   View in Google Scholar
6. Cai, Y., Li, M., Guo, S., & Nan, X. (2023). Former CEO director and audit fees. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 59(4), 1074–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2022.2129965
   View in Google Scholar
7. Calderon, T. G., & Gao, L. (2022). Changes in corporate cybersecurity risk disclosures after SEC comment letters. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 41, 106993. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2022.106993
   View in Google Scholar
8. Camacho-Miñano, M., Muñoz-Izquierdo, N., Pincus, M., & Wellmeyer, P. (2023). Are key audit matter disclosures useful in assessing the financial distress level of a client firm? British Accounting Review. Advance online publication. . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2023.101200
   View in Google Scholar
9. Cao, F., Zhang, X., & Liu, J. (2023). Comment letter regulation and stock price synchronicity: Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 30(3), 569–593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2021.1993073
   View in Google Scholar
10. Cao, Q., Yang, F., & Liu, M. (2022). Impact of managerial power on regulatory inquiries from stock exchanges: Evidence from the text tone of Chinese listed companies’ annual reports. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 71, 101646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2021.101646
    View in Google Scholar
11. Cassell, C. A., Dreher, L. M., & Myers, L. A. (2013). Reviewing the SEC’s review process: 10-K comment letters and the cost of remediation. Accounting Review, 88(6), 1875–1908. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50538
    View in Google Scholar
12. Chang, H., Ho, L.C., Liu, Z., & Ouyang, B. (2021). Income smoothing and audit fees. Advances in Accounting, 54, 100547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2021.100547
    View in Google Scholar
13. Chen, J. Z., Elemes, A., Hope, O.-K., & Yoon, A. S. (2023). Audit-firm profitability: Determinants and implications for audit outcomes. European Accounting Review. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2023.2169735
    View in Google Scholar
14. Costa, M. D., & Habib, A. (2023). Local creative culture and audit fees. British Accounting Review, 55(2), 101151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2022.101151
    View in Google Scholar
15. Dao, M., Pham, T., & Xu, H. (2022). Government contracts and audit fees. International Journal of Auditing, 27(1), 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12298
    View in Google Scholar
16. Duboisée de Ricquebourg, A., & Maroun, W. (2023). How do auditor rotations affect key audit matters? Archival evidence from South African audits. British Accounting Review, 55, 101099. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2022.101099
    View in Google Scholar
17. Duong, H. K., Gotti, G., Stein, M. T., & Chen, A. (2022). Code of ethics quality and audit fees. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 41, 107001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2022.107001
    View in Google Scholar
18. Dusadeedumkoeng, O., Gandía, J. L., & Huguet, D. (2023). Determinants of key audit matters in Thailand. Journal Of Competitiveness, 15(3), 184–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2023.03.10
    View in Google Scholar
19. Ebaid, I. E. (2023). Board characteristics and the likelihood of financial statements fraud: Empirical evidence from an emerging market. Future Business Journal, 9, 47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-023-00218-z
    View in Google Scholar
20. Elmarzouky, M., Hussainey, K., & Abdelfattah, T. (2022). The key audit matters and the audit cost: Does governance matter? International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 31(1), 195–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-08-2022-0178
    View in Google Scholar
21. Espahbodi, R., Lin, J., Liu, N., Mock, T. J., & Song, M. (2023). The effect of reporting key audit matters on audit fees and financial reporting quality: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of International Accounting Research, 22(2), 83–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/JIAR-2021-045
    View in Google Scholar
22. Ettredge, M., Johnstone, K., Stone, M., & Wang, Q. (2011). The effects of firm size, corporate governance quality, and bad news on disclosure compliance. Review of Accounting Studies, 16(4), 866–889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-011-9153-8
    View in Google Scholar
23. Firoozi, M., & Magnan, M. (2022). Audit committee members’ proximity to corporate headquarters and audit fees. Managerial Auditing Journal, 37(8), 1062–1090. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-05-2020-2684
    View in Google Scholar
24. Gandía, J. L., & Huguet, D. (2018). Differences in audit pricing between voluntary and mandatory audits. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 31(2), 336–359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-01-2016-0007
    View in Google Scholar
25. Geiger, M. A., Johnson, B. A., Jones, K. L., & Kumas, A. (2022). Information leakage around SEC comment letters. Management Science, 68(11), 8449–8463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4259
    View in Google Scholar
26. Gietzmann, M. B., & Pettinicchio, A. K. (2014). External auditor reassessment of client business risk following the issuance of a comment letter by the SEC. European Accounting Review, 23(1), 57–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2013.774703
    View in Google Scholar
27. Gietzmann, M., Marra, A., & Pettinicchio, A. (2016). Comment letter frequency and CFO turnover: A dynamic survival analysis. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 31(1), 79–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X15579493
    View in Google Scholar
28. Haapamäki, E. E., & Mäki, J. (2023). An analysis of comment letters on a new, stand-alone standard for audits of less complex entities’ financial statements. Journal of Accounting Literature. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-12-2022-0131
    View in Google Scholar
29. Heese, J., Khan, M., & Ramanna, K. (2017). Is the SEC captured? Evidence from comment-letter reviews. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 64(1), 98–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.06.002
    View in Google Scholar
30. Hu, J., Li, X., & Wan, Z. (2023). Corporate corruption and future audit fees: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 19, 100367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2023.100367
    View in Google Scholar
31. Hu, N., Xu, J., & Xue, S. (2022). Regulatory risk and auditors’ reporting conservatism: Evidence from Chinese comment letters. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 41, 106997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2022.106997
    View in Google Scholar
32. Hudaib, M., & Haniffa, R. (2009). Exploring auditor independence: An interpretive approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(2), 221–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570910933951
    View in Google Scholar
33. Hutton, A., Shu, S., & Zheng, X. (2022). Regulatory transparency and the alignment of private and public enforcement: Evidence from the public disclosure of SEC comment letters. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(1), 297–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.07.011
    View in Google Scholar
34. Ji, X., Lu, W., & Qu, W. (2018). Internal control risk and audit fees: Evidence from China. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 14(3), 266–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2018.07.002
    View in Google Scholar
35. Kong, D., Ji, M., & Liu, S. (2022). Does the mandatory disclosure of audit information affect analysts’ information acquisition? International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102281
    View in Google Scholar
36. Lennox, C. S., Schmidt, J. J., & Thompson, A. M. (2023). Why are expanded audit reports not informative to investors? Evidence from the United Kingdom. Review of Accounting Studies, 28(2), 497–532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09650-4
    View in Google Scholar
37. Lento, C., & Yeung, W. H. (2023). Exploring the audit quality and audit fee impacts of joining different types of non-big four accounting networks and associations: Evidence from China. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-10-2022-0359
    View in Google Scholar
38. Li, H. (2017). The benefit of adding key audit matters to the auditing report. In T. Hee & J. Liu (Eds.). Proceedings of the 2017 2nd international conference on education, management science and economics (ICEMSE 2017) (pp. 21–24). Amsterdam: Atlantis Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/icemse-17.2017.6
    View in Google Scholar
39. Li, V., & Luo, Y. (2023). Costs and benefits of auditors' disclosure of critical audit matters: Initial evidence from the Unit ed States. Advances in Accounting, 60, 100641. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2022.100641
    View in Google Scholar
40. Liao, L., Sharma, D., Yang, Y., & Zhao, R. (2023). Adoption and content of key audit matters and stock price crash risk. International Review of Financial Analysis, 88, 102706. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102706
    View in Google Scholar
41. Liu, J. J., & Liu, Y. (2023). Multiple directorships and firm performance: Evidence from independent director effort allocation in Hong Kong. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 79, 102051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102051
    View in Google Scholar
42. Liu, Z., Liang, H., & Liu, C. (2023). The effects of debt liquidity risk on firms' growth rate. International Journal of Managerial Finance. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-02-2022-0073
    View in Google Scholar
43. Lu, J., & Qiu, Y. (2023). Does non-punitive regulation diminish stock price crash risk? Journal of Banking & Finance, 148, 106731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2022.106731
    View in Google Scholar
44. Lu, P., Wang, Y., & Li, B. (2023). Short selling and corporate financial fraud: Empirical evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 89, 1569–1582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.09.011
    View in Google Scholar
45. Lv, J., Zhang, S., & Zhang, S. (2022). Hometown sentiment: CEO hometown identity and company audit fees. Managerial Auditing Journal, 37(8), 993–1016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-01-2022-3431
    View in Google Scholar
46. Maçãs Nunes, P., Neves Sequeira, T., & Serrasqueiro, Z. (2007). Firms’ leverage and labour productivity: A quantile approach in Portuguese firms. Applied Economics, 39(14), 1783–1788. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600707076
    View in Google Scholar
47. Mohammad Rezaei, F., Mohd-Saleh, N., & Ahmed, K. (2018). Audit firm ranking, audit quality and audit fees: Examining conflicting price discrimination views. International Journal of Accounting, 53(4), 295–313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2018.11.003
    View in Google Scholar
48. Nurjanah, E., & Diyanty, V. (2019). Analysis of the effect of public accounting firm size on audit fee in Indonesia. In I. Trinugroho & E. Lau (Eds.). Business innovation and development in emerging economies (pp. 15–24). Florida: CRC Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429433382-2
    View in Google Scholar
49. Pinto, I., & Morais, A. I. (2019). What matters in disclosures of key audit matters: Evidence from Europe. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 30(2), 145–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12095
    View in Google Scholar
50. Santos‐Jaén, J. M., Martín de Almagro-Vázquez, G., & Valls Martínez, M. D. (2023). Is earnings management impacted by audit fees and auditor tenure? An analysis of the big four audit firms in the US market. Oeconomia Copernicana, 14(3), 899–934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2023.027
    View in Google Scholar
51. Schantl, S. F., & Wagenhofer, A. (2021). Optimal internal control regulation: Standards, penalties, and leniency in enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 40(3), 106803. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2020.106803
    View in Google Scholar
52. Seebeck, A., & Kaya, D. (2022). The power of words: An empirical analysis of the communicative value of extended auditor reports. European Accounting Review. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2021.2021097
    View in Google Scholar
53. Sellami, Y. M., & Chérif, I. (2020). Female audit committee directorship and audit fees. Managerial Auditing Journal, 35(3), 398–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-12-2018-2121
    View in Google Scholar
54. Sierra-García, L., Gambetta, N., García-Benau, M. A., & Orta-Pérez, M. (2019). Understanding the determinants of the magnitude of entity-level risk and account-level risk key audit matters: The case of the United Kingdom. British Accounting Review, 51(3), 227–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.02.004
    View in Google Scholar
55. Simunic, D. A., (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 161–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2490397
    View in Google Scholar
56. Skomra, J., Alam, P., & Skomra, P. A. (2022). Audit demand and monitoring mechanisms: Evidence from SEC comment letters and short sellers. Managerial Auditing Journal, 37(6), 700–720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-09-2020-2836
    View in Google Scholar
57. Sun, G., Li, T., Ai, Y., & Li, Q. (2023). Digital finance and corporate financial fraud. International Review of Financial Analysis, 87, 102566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102566
    View in Google Scholar
58. Suttipun, M. (2021). Impact of key audit matters (KAMs) reporting on audit quality: Evidence from Thailand. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(5), 869–882. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-10-2020-0210
    View in Google Scholar
59. Tang, J., & Liu, C. (2022). Financial comment letters, geographic proximity and audit quality. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2022.2147969
    View in Google Scholar
60. Tian, J., & Sun, H. (2023). Corporate financialization, internal control and financial fraud. Finance Research Letters, 56, 104046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104046
    View in Google Scholar
61. Wang, J., & Wang, D. (2022). Corporate fraud and accounting firm involvement: Evidence from China. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15, 180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15040180
    View in Google Scholar
62. Wang, L., & Zhou, Y. (2018). The effect of accounting firms size on audit fees. In E. McAnally, I. Solovjeva, Y. Zhang, R. Green & R. Hou (Eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on culture, education and economic development of modern society (ICCESE 2018) (pp. 1061–1065). Amsterdam: Atlantis Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/iccese-18.2018.236
    View in Google Scholar
63. Wang, M., Zhang, Y., Dong, Y., Zou, G., & Zhao, W. (2022). Interactive information disclosure and non-penalty regulatory review risk. Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 8(1), 149–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmse.2022.10.003
    View in Google Scholar
64. Wang, Q., & Zhou, K. (2022). Common ownership and the spillover effect of market reaction: Evidence from stock exchange comment letters. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 73, 101729. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101729
    View in Google Scholar
65. Xie, Y., Ma, W., Ma, Y., Ren, Z., Tong, Z., & Wang, Y. (2023). A counterfactual thinking perspective of moral licensing effect in machine-driven communication: An example of natural language processing chatbot developed based on WeChat API. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 197, 122926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122926
    View in Google Scholar
66. Xu, L., Huang, Z. J., & Wen, F. (2022). Comment letters and stock price synchronicity: Evidence from China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 59(4), 1387–1421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-022-01078-4
    View in Google Scholar
67. Xue, B., & O’Sullivan, N. (2023). The determinants of audit fees in the alternative investment market (Aim) in the UK: Evidence on the impact of risk, corporate governance and auditor size. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 50, 100523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2023.100523
    View in Google Scholar
68. Zhao, Q., Luo, Q., & Tao, Y. (2023). From chaos to compliance: Standards-setting and financial fraud. Finance Research Letters, 55, 103902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103902
    View in Google Scholar
69. Zhou, H. (2023). Inquiry letter supervision and stock price informativeness-research based on the stock price non-synchronicity. Applied Economics Letters, 30(5), 683–688. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2021.2011097
    View in Google Scholar
70. Zhu, X., Li, X., Zhou, K., & Yu, Y. (2023). The impact of annual reports transparency and comment letters on the cost of debt: Evidence for China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 77, 101942. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.101942
    View in Google Scholar