Leaving a joint audit system: conditional fee reductions

Author:

Holm Claus,Thinggaard Frank

Abstract

Purpose – The authors aim to exploit a natural experiment in which voluntary replace mandatory joint audits for Danish listed companies and analyse audit fee implications of using one or two audit firms. Design/methodology/approach – Regression analysis is used. The authors apply both a core audit fee determinants model and an audit fee change model and include interaction terms. Findings – The authors find short-term fee reductions in companies switching to single audits, but only where the former joint audit contained a dominant auditor. The authors argue that in this situation bargaining power is more with the auditors than in an equally shared joint audit, and that the auditors' incentives to offer an initial fee discount are bigger. Research limitations/implications – The number of observations is constrained by the small Danish capital market. Future research could take a more qualitative research approach, to examine whether the use of a single audit firm rather than two has an effect on audit quality. The area calls for further theory development covering audit fee and audit quality in joint audit settings. Practical implications – Companies should consider their relationship with their auditors before deciding to switch to single auditors. Fee discounts do not seem to reflect long-lasting efficiency gains on the part of the audit firm. Originality/value – Denmark is the first country to leave a mandatory joint audit system, so this is the first time that it is possible to study fee effects related to this.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Accounting,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Business, Management and Accounting

Reference36 articles.

1. André, P. , Broye, G. , Pong, C.K.M. and Schatt, A. (2013), “Are joint audits associated with higher audit fees?”, SSRN Working Paper Series, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

2. Baker, C.R. and Quick, R. (1996), “A comparison of auditors' legal liability in the USA and selected European countries”, European Business Review, Vol. 96, pp. 36-44.

3. Burgstahler, D.C. and Dichev, I.D. (1997), “Earnings, adaptation and equity value”, Accounting Review, Vol. 72, p. -.

4. Causholli, M. , De Martinis, M. , Hay, D. and Knechel, W.R. (2010), “Audit markets, fees and production: towards an integrated view of empirical audit research”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 29, pp. 167-215.

5. Choi, J.-H. , Kim, J.-B. , Liu, X. and Simunic, D.A. (2008), “Audit pricing, legal liability regimes, and Big 4 premiums: theory and cross-country evidence”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 25, pp. 55-99.

Cited by 27 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3