IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v29y2005i2p137-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of MAS on perceived auditor independence-some evidence from Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Reiner Quick
  • Bent Warming-Rasmussen

Abstract

The Enron case has highlighted that the provision of management advisory services (MAS) can endanger auditor independence. Recently, a number of changes have not only been made to the relevant international and US regulations, but also to the Danish regulations in this area. Theoretical research explains the emergence of non-independence and demonstrates that the provision of MAS can decrease independence. According to the economic model of DeAngelo, the existence of client-specific quasi-rents impairs auditor independence. The provision of MAS increases quasi-rents and thus, is a threat to independence. Antle used an agency theoretical approach. Information asymmetries between auditor and client could lead to a moral hazard risk, i.e. the auditor could give up independence from client's management and accept payments for withholding detected errors and irregularities. The client's management could also use MAS to legally compensate the auditor for giving away independence.

Suggested Citation

  • Reiner Quick & Bent Warming-Rasmussen, 2005. "The impact of MAS on perceived auditor independence-some evidence from Denmark," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 137-168, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:29:y:2005:i:2:p:137-168
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2004.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.09.001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.09.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reiner Quick & Matthias Sattler, 2012. "Erwiderung auf Hansrudi Lenz: Eine wissenschaftsethische Anmerkung zum Beitrag „Beeinträchtigen Beratungsleistungen die Urteilsfreiheit des Abschlussprüfers? Zum Einfluss von Beratungshonoraren auf di," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 64(3), pages 271-279, May.
    2. Reshma Kumari Tiwari & Jasojit Debnath, 2021. "Joint Provision of Non-audit Services to Audit Clients: Empirical Evidences from India," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 46(3), pages 153-165, September.
    3. Cédric Lesage & Sabine Ratzinger & Jaana Kettunen, 2012. "Struggle over joint audit: on behalf of public interest?," Post-Print hal-00935004, HAL.
    4. Roger Meuwissen & Reiner Quick, 2009. "Abschlussprüfung und Beratung - Eine experimentelle Analyse der Auswirkungen auf Unabhängigkeitswahrnehmungen deutscher Aufsichtsräte," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 61(4), pages 382-415, June.
    5. Meuwissen, Roger & Quick, Reiner, 2019. "The effects of non-audit services on auditor independence: An experimental investigation of supervisory board members’ perceptions," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Daniela Hohenfels & Reiner Quick, 2020. "Non-audit services and audit quality: evidence from Germany," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 959-1007, October.
    7. Mariana Cristina BULUCEA, 2020. "Audit Firm Rotation And Audit Quality: Case Of The Listed Romanian Firms," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 2(22), pages 158-168.
    8. Dart, Eleanor, 2011. "UK investors’ perceptions of auditor independence," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 173-185.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:29:y:2005:i:2:p:137-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.