The empirical relationship between ownership characteristics and audit fees
AbstractThe present study examines the empirical relationship between ownership characteristics and audit fees. The basic premise is that the level of ownership sophistication and the extent to which ownership is large and substantial impact the effectiveness of stockholder monitoring on corporate affairs including the financial reporting process. Furthermore, high managerial ownership firms may experience a decline in agency problems in financial reporting due to a decrease in managerial propensity to misreport financial results. By employing a cross-sectional least squares regression analysis for a sample of 358 New York Stock Exchange-listed firms audited by the Big Five auditors, we find evidence of a significantly positive relationship between diffused institutional stock ownership (i.e., having less than 5% individual shareholding) and audit fees, and a significantly negative relationship between institutional blockholder ownership (i.e., having 5% or more individual shareholding) and audit fees. Finally, we document that managerial stock ownership is negatively associated with audit fees. We do not, however, find evidence of any relationship between noninstitutional blockholder ownership (with at least 5% individual stock ownership) and audit fees. The study's main results hold in various specification tests including when the effects of board-related and audit committee variables are factored in the analysis. Based on the observed relationship between the ownership variables and audit fees, we suggest that the ownership characteristics of a firm as a part of its governance mechanism constitute an important determinant of audit fees. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting.
Volume (Year): 28 (2007)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=102990
Diffused institutional stock ownership; Institutional and noninstitutional blockholder ownership; Managerial stock ownership; Audit fees; Agency problem; Corporate Governance;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Steven Huddart, 1993. "The Effect of a Large Shareholder on Corporate Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(11), pages 1407-1421, November.
- McConnell, John J. & Servaes, Henri, 1990. "Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 595-612, October.
- Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986.
"Large Shareholders and Corporate Control,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-88, June.
- Gillan, Stuart L. & Starks, Laura T., 2000. "Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: the role of institutional investors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 275-305, August.
- Bange, Mary M. & De Bondt, Werner F. M., 1998. "R&D budgets and corporate earnings targets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 153-184, June.
- Holthausen, Robert W. & Larcker, David F. & Sloan, Richard G., 1995. "Annual bonus schemes and the manipulation of earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 29-74, February.
- Aggarwal, Raj & Rao, Ramesh P, 1990. "Institutional Ownership and Distribution of Equity Returns," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 211-29, May.
- Eng, L. L. & Mak, Y. T., 2003. "Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 325-345.
- Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1996.
"A Survey of Corporate Governance,"
NBER Working Papers
5554, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1995. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1741, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Charles Kahn & Andrew Winton, 1998. "Ownership Structure, Speculation, and Shareholder Intervention," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(1), pages 99-129, 02.
- Chung, Richard & Firth, Michael & Kim, Jeong-Bon, 2002. "Institutional monitoring and opportunistic earnings management," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 29-48, January.
- Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1989. "Management entrenchment : The case of manager-specific investments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 123-139, November.
- Kaplan, Steven N. & Minton, Bernadette A., 1994. "Appointments of outsiders to Japanese boards: Determinants and implications for managers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 225-258, October.
- Craswell, Allen T. & Francis, Jere R. & Taylor, Stephen L., 1995. "Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 297-322, December.
- John, Kose & Senbet, Lemma W., 1998. "Corporate governance and board effectiveness1," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 371-403, May.
- Oana Raluca Ivan, 2011. "Audit Fee Econometrical Models An Overview Of The Auditing Research Literature," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 2(13), pages 20.
- Rustam, Sehrish & Rashid, Kashif & Zaman, Khalid, 2013. "The relationship between audit committees, compensation incentives and corporate audit fees in Pakistan," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 697-716.
- Mary Jane Lenard & Karin A. Petruska & Pervaiz Alam & Bing Yu, 2012. "Indicators of audit fees and fraud classification: impact of SOX," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(5), pages 500-525, July.
- Effiezal Aswadi Abdul Wahab & Mazlina Mat Zain & Kieran James, 2011. "Political connections, corporate governance and audit fees in Malaysia," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(5), pages 393-418, May.
- Effiezal Aswadi Abdul Wahab & Mazlina Mat Zain & Kieran James & Hasnah Haron, 2009. "Institutional investors, political connection and audit quality in Malaysia," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 22(2), pages 167-195, September.
- Hope, Ole-Kristian & Langli, John Christian & Thomas, Wayne B., 2012. "Agency conflicts and auditing in private firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 500-517.
- C. Piot & L. Kermiche, 2009. "A quoi servent les comités d'audit ? Un regard sur la recherche empirique," Post-Print halshs-00537952, HAL.
- Ismail Adelopo & Kumba Jallow & Peter Scott, 2012. "Multiple large ownership structure, audit committee activity and audit fees: Evidence from the UK," Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 13(2), pages 100-121.
- Lobna Loukil, 2010. "Conséquences De L'Adoption Des Normes Internationales «Ifrs» Sur Le Coût D'Audit Financier," Post-Print hal-00481517, HAL.
- Azhaar Lajmi & Marjène Gana, 2011. "Structure de Propriété et Qualité de l'Audit Externe : Cas des Entreprises Belges Cotées," Post-Print hal-00650542, HAL.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.