Do audit fees and audit hours influence credit ratings?: A comparative analysis of Big4 vs Non-Big4

We examine the relationship between credit ratings / changes and audit fees (hours) for Big4 and Non-Big4 firms. Audit fee (hours) may be considered as a default risk metric for credit ratings agencies. However, firms audited by Big4 are larger, better performing and operate with lower leverage compared to firms followed by Non-Big4. Therefore, the association between audit fee (hours) may be different for firms followed by Big4 and Non-Big4 audit firms. We find that there is a negative association between audit fees and credit ratings for firms followed by Big4 audit firms. However, we find an insignificant relation for firms followed by Non-Big4. We conjecture the different association due to the Big4 firms having more robust accounting procedures; Big4 firms must offer competitive audit fees because they are engaged in fierce competition with other Big4 firms. Moreover, Big4 and Non-Big4 firms have different relationships with their clients because Non-Big4 firms are more income dependent on their clients. Using a sample of 1,717 firm–year observations between 2002 and 2013, we establish a relation between audit fees in period t and credit ratings in period t+1, for firms followed by Big4 auditors. We do not find a significant relation for firms followed by Non-Nig4 firms, suggesting that credit ratings agencies perceive audit fee differently for Big4 and Non-Big4 firms. Client firms followed by Big4 auditors that experience a credit rating change in period t+1 pay lower audit fees in period t compared to firms that do not experience a credit rating change. Our additional analysis suggests a different association between firms audit fees and firm performance for firms that experience a credit rating increase and decrease. Firms that experience a credit ratings increase in period t+1 have strong performance and lower audit fees in period t. On the other hand, firms that experience a credit rating decrease have weak financial performance and negative audit fees compared to firms that do not experience a credit ratings change. Our results suggest that audit fees combined with financial performance influence a credit ratings agency' perception of default risk

Changes in capital allocation practices – ERM and organisational change

This paper aims to study changes in capital allocation routines following the introduction of a new risk management system, enterprise risk management (ERM). Based on an institutional framework and empirical evidence from multiple sources in a large UK insurance company, we evaluated the extent and nature of organisational change. ERM was seen as an external driver to the change in the existing routines, which in turn led to internal changes in new capital allocation routines. The change was extreme, which signifies that existing capital allocation routines were not strong enough to deal with ERM as a key driver of change