Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

La réglementation de l’audit est-elle dans l’intérêt public:quelques enseignements du modèle français

Contents:

Author Info

  • Charles Piot

    ()
    (Université de Grenoble)

  • Alain Schatt

    ()
    (Université de Bourgogne IAE LEG UMR Cnrs 5118)

Abstract

(VF)Cet article s’appuie sur les travaux académiques des dix dernières années pour évaluer les effets de la réglementation française visant à accroître l’indépendance des auditeurs. Pour les sociétés cotées en bourse, l’obligation de recourir à deux auditeurs se solde notamment par une moindre concentration du marché de l’audit : les Big Four détiennent une part de marché plus faible. Pour autant, les honoraires ne sont pas plus faibles, en raison vraisemblablement, d’une part, des coûts de coordination entre les deux auditeurs qui excèdent les bénéfices escomptés résultant d’un marché plus concurrentiel, d’autre part, de l’impossibilité de changer d’auditeur pendant la durée légale de six ans. Par ailleurs, la plus grande indépendance supposée, induite par cette réglementation spécifique, ne se traduit pas par une moindre gestion des résultats par les dirigeants français, malgré l’interdiction de facturer des honoraires de conseil. Ces constats empiriques nous conduisent à avancer que des assouplissements réglementaires du marché de l’audit pourraient s’avérer bénéfiques pour les actionnaires des entreprises françaises.(VA) This paper draws on the growing academic literature, over the last decade, to assess the effects of the French regulation aimed at promoting external auditor independence. For listed companies, the joint-audit requirement results in a less concentrated audit market: Big 4 auditors have a weaker market share as compared with other markets. But audit fees are not lower, however. This could be explained by (1) coordination costs between joint-auditors that outweigh the benefits of a more “open” market, and/or (2) the impossibility to switch auditor during a six-year legal engagement. Elsewhere, the a priori stronger independence associated with that specific regulation does not result in less earnings management activities by French managers, despite of the legal banning of parallel non-audit services. These empirical observations lead us to argue that a less constraining regulation of the audit market could benefit to the shareholders of French companies.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://leg.u-bourgogne.fr/images/stories/wp/1100606.pdf
Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 500 Internal Server Error. If this is indeed the case, please notify (Angèle RENAUD)
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations in its series Working Papers CREGO with number 1100606.

as in new window
Length: 34 pages
Date of creation: Jun 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dij:wpfarg:1100606

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2 Bd Gabriel, BP 26611, 21066 Dijon Cedex, France

Order Information:
Postal: Angèle Renaud, CREGO, 2 Bd Gabriel, BP 26611, 21066 Dijon Cedex, France
Email:

Related research

Keywords: audit; réglementation; France; honoraires; gestion des résultats; regulation; audit fees; earnings management.;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Yuan Ding & Herve Stolowy, 2006. "Timeliness and conservatism: Changes over time in the properties of accounting income in France," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 92-107, May.
  2. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1998. "Agency Problems and Dividend Policies Around the World," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1839, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
  3. Simeon Djankov & Caralee McLiesh & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "Private Credit in 129 Countries," NBER Working Papers 11078, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Ball, Ray & Kothari, S. P. & Robin, Ashok, 2000. "The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-51, February.
  5. Rafael LaPorta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, . "What Works in Securities Laws?," Working Paper 19491, Harvard University OpenScholar.
  6. La Porta, Rafael & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1997. " Legal Determinants of External Finance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(3), pages 1131-50, July.
  7. Bernard Raffournier & Alain Schatt, 2009. "Is European accounting research fairly reflected in academic journals? An investigation of possible non-mainstream and language barrier biases," Working Papers CREGO 1090301, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
  8. Rafael La porta & Florencio Lopez-De-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, 2002. "Investor Protection and Corporate Valuation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1147-1170, 06.
  9. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1998. "Law and Finance," Scholarly Articles 3451310, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  10. Vander Bauwhede, Heidi & Willekens, Marleen & Gaeremynck, Ann, 2003. "Audit firm size, public ownership, and firms' discretionary accruals management," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 1-22.
  11. Géraldine Broye & Laurent Weill, 2008. "Does leverage influence auditor choice? A cross-country analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/14152, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  12. Jeong, Seok Woo & Rho, Joonhwa, 2004. "Big Six auditors and audit quality: The Korean evidence," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 175-196.
  13. Joseph P. H. Fan & T. J. Wong, 2005. "Do External Auditors Perform a Corporate Governance Role in Emerging Markets? Evidence from East Asia," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 35-72, 03.
  14. Apostolos Ballas & Irene Fafaliou, 2008. "Market Shares and Concentration in the EU Auditing Industry: the Effects of Andersen’s Demise," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 485-497, November.
  15. Nathalie Gonthier-Besacier & Alain Schatt, 2006. "Determinants of Audit Fees for French Quoted Firms," Working Papers CREGO 1060301, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
  16. Charles Piot, 2001. "Agency costs and audit quality: evidence from France," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 461-499.
  17. Leuz, Christian & Nanda, Dhananjay & Wysocki, Peter D., 2003. "Earnings management and investor protection: an international comparison," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 505-527, September.
  18. Bushman, Robert M. & Piotroski, Joseph D., 2006. "Financial reporting incentives for conservative accounting: The influence of legal and political institutions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 107-148, October.
  19. Ivana Raonic & Stuart McLeay & Ioannis Asimakopoulos, 2004. "The Timeliness of Income Recognition by European Companies: An Analysis of Institutional and Market Complexity," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1-2), pages 115-148.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dij:wpfarg:1100606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Angèle RENAUD).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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