The Pricing of National and City-Specific Reputations for Industry Expertise in the U.S. Audit Market

TLDR

But note that Purpose and Mechanism are combined in one line: [Purpose, Mechanism] The pricing of Big 5 industry leadership in the U.S. audit market is investigated using audit fee disclosures for the 2000–2001 fiscal years and the joint nationalcity framework in Ferguson et al. The instruction: "For each non‑empty label, condense all its corresponding content into exactly one TLDR sentence." If a sentence is labeled with multiple labels, its information should influence both the Purpose and the Findings summaries appropriately. The content is same: "The pricing of Big 5 industry leadership in the U.S.

Abstract

The pricing of Big 5 industry leadership in the U.S. audit market is investigated using audit fee disclosures for the 2000–2001 fiscal years and the joint nationalcity framework in Ferguson et al. (2003). There is a significant fee premium of 19 percent on those engagements where Big 5 auditors are both the nationally top-ranked auditor and the city-level industry leader in the city where the client is headquartered, indicating that national and city-specific industry leadership jointly affect auditor reputation and pricing. However, there is never a premium in any tests for auditors that are national industry leaders alone without also being city-specific industry leaders, indicating that national leadership by itself does not result in a premium. The evidence is mixed with respect to city-specific industry leaders alone that are not also national industry leaders. While there is a premium of 8 percent in the primary tests, this result is inconclusive as it does not hold in all sensitivity analyses.