Non‐audit service fees, auditor characteristics and earnings restatements

Author:

Bloomfield Deborah,Shackman Joshua

Abstract

PurposeThe objective of the study is to provide empirical evidence of the impact of non‐audit services (NAS) as well as other auditor characteristics on auditor independence by testing the relationship of NAS fees to the occurrence of financial statement restatements.Design/methodology/approachThe authors tested whether firms that restate their financial statements have higher levels of total service fees or higher levels of NAS fees than non‐restatement firms. The testing also includes an examination of the relationship between the audit firm size and the audit firm industry specialization to financial statement restatements.FindingsThe study found only limited evidence to support the concept that firms with higher NAS fees are more likely to restate earnings, thereby casting doubt on the public perception that NAS impairs auditor independence and the legislative approval of Section 201 of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act prohibiting external auditors from providing certain NAS to audit clients as necessary to preserve auditor independence. The study did find stronger evidence that the level of total fees paid to the audit firm is significant in the predictability of a restatement. In addition, the study also found stronger and more conclusive evidence of a negative association to audit firm industry specialization and a strong positive association to Big 5 audit firms.Practical implicationsResults demonstrate the necessity of regulations concerning NAS and conflict of interest.Originality/valueThis paper is an original contribution that demonstrates the importance of auditor characteristics over audit fees in predicting earnings management.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

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

Reference39 articles.

1. Agrawal, A. and Chadha, S. (2005), “Corporate governance and accounting scandals”, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 371‐406.

2. AICPA (1997) Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82, Consideration of Fraud in Financial Statement Audits, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY.

3. Almer, E., Higgs, J. and Hooks, K. (2000), “An examination of the employment contract of public accounting firm employees: the application of agency theory to professionals”, Working paper, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

4. Antle, R., Narayanamoorthy, G., Zhou, L. and Gordon, E. (2002), “The joint determination of audit fees, non‐audit fees, and abnormal accruals”, Yale International Center for Finance Working Paper No. 02‐21.

5. Ashbaugh, H., LaFond, R. and Mayhew, B. (2003), “Do nonaudit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 611‐40.

Cited by 28 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