Formed under the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was charged with providing the interpretive guidance for auditors to use in carrying out their responsibilities under Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404. Auditing Standard No. 2 (AS2) provided the initial guidance to auditors beginning in 2004. Early research on audit delay and audit fees under these new requirements revealed significant increases in both. Although audit delay and audit fees decreased in subsequent years, they remained much higher than predicted. As a result of the concerns and complaints of the accounting profession and the public firms affected by AS2, the PCAOB rescinded AS2 and replaced it with Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) in 2007. The primary objective of the new guidance focuses the auditors’ attention on the most important matters in the audit of internal controls over financial reporting and eliminating procedures that the Board believes are unnecessary to an effective audit of internal control. Intended to streamline the audit process, the goal of the PCAOB was to reduce audit delay and audit fees. Research in the AS5 era has produced mixed results for both. In this study, I extend the early AS5 research to determine if AS5 has had a significant impact on reducing both audit delay and audit fees. Using multiple regression analysis, I examine audit delay and audit fees from 2007 through 2013 to determine their long-term trend. Data sources include Audit Analytics, Compustat, and CRSP. Based on the literature review, I expect to find a decrease to both audit delay and audit fees over the long-term.

Audit delay refers to the time from the end of the country or company’s financial year to the date of the audit report. The chances of delay of audit in the public sector are pervasive and as such the expectations of users of these audit reports may differ which could result in the quality and reliability of these audits within this sector to be questioned. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to explore the external and internal factors that cause audit delay and the aftermath they have on public sector audit quality. As for this study, its original value correlates with the espousal of the institutional theory from the perspective of public sector auditing. Considering the aim of this study, a qualitative research was preferred with the objective of gathering in-depth and enriched empirical data; hence, semi structured interviews were conducted with ten auditors of the top and middle management of the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) of Liberia – General Auditing Commission. There are varying views regarding the findings of this study as the respondents disclose that the external factors that result to audit delays are caused by either the audited entity or other external parties and not the SAI; however, it is the responsibility of the SAI to work with the entity involved to ensure those factors do not impede the audit process to the extent it cannot be completed; whereas, internal factors which includes inadequate staff training, delay in the review and approval of the draft audit report by top management to the poor performance of auditors as a result of lack of knowledge and etcetera cause audit delays as well and the SAI is solely responsible for ensuring that they are resolved or lessened so as not to affect the timeliness of the reporting process. The study mentions several limitations. One of them is the lack of observation being conducted which would have provided first-hand information on factors that cause the delay of audits in the public sector.

The determinants of audit fees and report lag: A comparative study of Egypt and the UK Despite the occurrence of recent economic and political events such as the global financial crisis and Arab spring in the Middle East, researchers have not addressed the effects of such events on the auditing profession. That is has given a motive to this study to explore this point of research. This study has three main objectives. The first objective is to investigate the determinants of audit fees and audit report timeliness in the Egyptian and UK contexts. The second objective is to point out how the economic and political events could affect these determinants. The third objective is to make a comparison between the response of auditors towards economic and political instability in both countries. These objectives are set to solve the research problem of this study which is to investigate how the price behaviour of audit fees and report timeliness can vary in two different contexts: Egypt and the UK, and to highlight how auditors respond to such economic (Global Financial Crisis) and political events (Egyptian Revolution). A special attention has been addressed to tourism industry while investigating audit pricing and timeliness decisions throughout this study for two reasons. First, tourism industry play a critical role for the economy of many developing and developed countries. Second, tourism industry is highly affected by any economic and political events. For these reasons, tourism industry is surrounded by high risk during the economic or political instability, and thus this might result in special procedures and decisions taken by the auditors regarding tourism industry clients during instable periods. To take into account the most recent economic and political events, the study sample covers the period of six financial years from 2008 to 2013. This sample period has been chosen to capture the global financial crisis that has taken place during 2008-2009 and also to investigate the effects of the Egyptian revolution that has taken place on January 25, 2011, and subsequent political events. The study sample includes 212 Egyptian companies listed in the Egyptian stock market and the top 350 companies (FTSE 350) listed in the London Stock Exchange. For guaranteeing the preciseness of the findings, advanced panel data Prais-Winsten statistical analysis technique has been used throughout this study. Results of this study reveal consistency between Egypt and UK in most signs of coefficients of audit fees determinants. However, a lot of differences exist between the audit report lag determinants in the Egyptian and UK context that suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot be generalized in audit report lag determinants for various countries. Despite that tourism is a very risky industry that is easily affected by economic and political instability, results reported in Egypt and UK reveal that audit fees charged and audit delay reported for tourism did not differ from other industries in both contexts. Results also reveal that Big N auditing firms in the UK have competitive advantages of not charging an audit fee premium and offering a more timely audit report than non-big N. These advantages increase the demand of Big N in the UK and increase their dominance. On the other side, in Egypt, Big N auditing firms do not offer such advantage of timely audit reports than non-big N, besides, they charge their clients with audit fee premium. That enabled medium sized and small auditing firms to penetrate the Egyptian auditing market and increase their market share, and thus, Big N dominance is not high in the Egyptian audit market as that in the UK. Different auditor responses to global financial crisis (GFC) have been documented in both countries. As auditors in Egypt decreased their audit fees and offered more timely audit report to face the economic recession and the anxiety of investors accompanied with the GFC. However, neither the pricing of auditing services nor the audit report lag have been affected during the GFC in the UK audit market. According to the results of this study, during the Egyptian Revolution, auditors tended to charge audit fees premium without increasing/decreasing audit delay. This implies that the increase in audit fees during revolution was a risk premium due to the instability in economic and political conditions and was not accompanied by any increase in audit effort and delay.