IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00935004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Struggle over joint audit: on behalf of public interest?

Author

Listed:
  • Cédric Lesage

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Sabine Ratzinger

    (Department of Orthopaedics - UR - Universität Regensburg)

  • Jaana Kettunen

    (JYU - University of Jyväskylä)

Abstract

European Commission (EC 2011) has recently suggested joint audit - broadly defined as an audit where two independent auditors are jointly liable for the audit report - as a way a way to increase audit quality after the financial crisis and to mitigate audit market concentration, by enlarging the audit offer. Big 4 audit firms have fought this proposal by arguing its unbearable cost while 2nd Tier audit firms have supported it by arguing its added quality. This conflicting position leads us to question their claim of public interest concern. As group-interest economic regulation theories predict that the absence of any effect of a new regulation (here: joint audit) is an evidence of a group rather than a public-interest concern, we test both cost and quality arguments. We perform our main analysis on Denmark (2002-2010), which gave up the mandatory joint audit in 2005. We test the impact of joint audit on both audit costs proxied by audit fees or total fees and audit quality proxied by abnormal accruals. Our results confirm 1) the non-significance association between fees (either audit fees or total fees) and joint audit, and 2) the non-significance association between abnormal accrual and joint audit. We then apply the same approach on a matched French-German sample to assess the arguments based on the French case, as France is characterized by a long tradition of joint audit. We find 1) similar results for audit quality (no significant differences between both countries regarding abnormal accrual in France); and 2) higher fees (audit fees and total fees) in France. However, as given the impossibility to disentangle the effect of joint audit from other institutional differences (as for instance the ban of joint provision of audit and non-audit services in France), we conclude that any argument based on the French case only is dubious. As given the non significance of the hypothesized positive association between joint audit and audit cost or quality, we conclude that arguments raised by both parties relate more to the defense of their private interest than the public (firms or shareholders') interests. The results are of interest for regulators and actors in the audit market.

Suggested Citation

  • Cédric Lesage & Sabine Ratzinger & Jaana Kettunen, 2012. "Struggle over joint audit: on behalf of public interest?," Post-Print hal-00935004, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00935004
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00935004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00935004/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott Whisenant & Srinivasan Sankaraguruswamy & K. Raghunandan, 2003. "Evidence on the Joint Determination of Audit and Non‐Audit Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 721-744, September.
    2. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1998. "Law and Finance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(6), pages 1113-1155, December.
    3. Jones, Jj, 1991. "Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigations," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 193-228.
    4. Djankov, Simeon & La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei, 2008. "The law and economics of self-dealing," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 430-465, June.
    5. Jere Francis & Chrystelle Richard & Ann Vanstraelen, 2006. "Assessing France's Joint Audit Requirement: Are Two Heads Better Than One?," Post-Print halshs-00153518, HAL.
    6. David Hay & Robert Knechel & Vivian Li, 2006. "Non‐audit Services and Auditor Independence: New Zealand Evidence," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5‐6), pages 715-734, June.
    7. Charles Piot & Rémi Janin, 2007. "External Auditors, Audit Committees and Earnings Management in France," Post-Print halshs-00176969, HAL.
    8. Jere R. Francis & Dechun Wang, 2008. "The Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Big 4 Audits on Earnings Quality around the World," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 157-191, March.
    9. Charles Piot & Remi Janin, 2007. "External Auditors, Audit Committees and Earnings Management in France," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 429-454.
    10. 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.
    11. Francis, Jere R., 1984. "The effect of audit firm size on audit prices : A study of the Australian Market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 133-151, August.
    12. Simunic, Da, 1984. "Auditing, Consulting, And Auditor Independence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 679-702.
    13. C. Richard Baker & Alain Mikol & Reiner Quick, 2001. "Regulation of the statutory auditor in the European Union: a comparative survey of the United Kingdom, France and Germany," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 763-786.
    14. Rick Antle & Elizabeth Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2006. "The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 235-266, November.
    15. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    16. Oliver Kim & Mark Walker, 1984. "The free rider problem: Experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 3-24, January.
    17. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
    18. Quick, Reiner & Warming-Rasmussen, B., 2005. "The impact of MAS on perceived auditor independence - some evidence from Denmark," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 24921, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    19. Paul Hribar & D. Craig Nichols, 2007. "The Use of Unsigned Earnings Quality Measures in Tests of Earnings Management," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 1017-1053, December.
    20. Michael Firth, 1997. "The Provision of Nonaudit Services by Accounting Firms to their Audit Clients," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 1-21, June.
    21. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    22. Rick Antle & Elizabeth Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2002. "The Joint Determination of Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees, and Abnormal Accruals," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2502, Yale School of Management, revised 02 May 2006.
    23. Quick, Reiner & Baker, R. & Mikol, A., 2001. "Regulation of the Statutory Auditor in the European Union: A Comparative Survey of the United Kingdom, France and Germany," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 67744, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    24. Nathalie Gonthier-Besacier & Alain Schatt, 2007. "Determinants of audit fees for French quoted firms," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 22(2), pages 139-160, January.
    25. Peter D. Wysocki, 2004. "Discussion of Ultimate Ownership, Income Management, and Legal and Extra‐Legal Institutions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 463-474, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marcel Haak & Michelle Muraz & Roland Zieseniß, 2018. "Joint Audits: Does the Allocation of Audit Work Affect Audit Quality and Audit Fees?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 55-80, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Paul André & GéRaldine Broye & Christopher Pong & Alain Schatt, 2016. "Are Joint Audits Associated with Higher Audit Fees?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 245-274, June.
    4. Jaggi, Bikki & Low, Pek Yee, 2011. "Joint Effect of Investor Protection and Securities Regulations on Audit Fees," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 241-270, September.
    5. Persakis, Anthony & Iatridis, George Emmanuel, 2016. "Audit quality, investor protection and earnings management during the financial crisis of 2008: An international perspective," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 73-101.
    6. Anastasia Kraft & Kerstin Lopatta, 2016. "Auditor fees, discretionary book-tax differences, and tax avoidance," International Journal of Economics and Accounting, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(2), pages 127-155.
    7. O. J. Ilaboya & M. O. Izevbekhai & G. Ohiokha, 2017. "Determinants Of Abnormal Audit Fees In Nigerian Quoted Companies," Economic Thought and Practice, Department of Economics and Business, University of Dubrovnik, vol. 26(1), pages 65-83, june.
    8. Charles Piot & Alain Schatt, 2010. "La réglementation de l’audit est-elle dans l’intérêt public:quelques enseignements du modèle français," Working Papers CREGO 1100606, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    9. Alhababsah, Salem & Alhaj-Ismail, Alaa, 2023. "Does shared tenure between audit committee chair and engagement partner affect audit outcomes? Evidence from the UK," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    10. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    11. Kevan Jensen & Jin-Mo Kim & Han Yi, 2015. "The geography of US auditors: information quality and monitoring costs by local versus non-local auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 513-549, April.
    12. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    13. Alzoubi, Ebraheem Saleem Salem, 2018. "Audit quality, debt financing, and earnings management: Evidence from Jordan," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 69-84.
    14. Ben Ali Chiraz & Cédric Lesage, 2010. "Ownership concentration and audit fees: do auditors matter most when investors are protected least?," Post-Print hal-00476923, HAL.
    15. Kam-Wah Lai & Ferdinand A. Gul, 2021. "Do failed auditors receive lower audit fees from continuing engagements?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1159-1190, April.
    16. Fleischer, Rouven & Goettsche, Max, 2012. "Size effects and audit pricing: Evidence from Germany," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 156-168.
    17. Katsuhiko Muramiya & Tomomi Takada, 2010. "Auditor Conservatism, Abnormal Accruals, and Going Concern Opinions," Discussion Papers 2010-64, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    18. Jeroen van Raak & Erik Peek & Roger Meuwissen & Caren Schelleman, 2020. "The effect of audit market structure on audit quality and audit pricing in the private‐client market," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3-4), pages 456-488, March.
    19. 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.
    20. 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 1-20.

    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:hal:journl:hal-00935004. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.