The Joint Determination of Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees, and Abnormal Accruals
AbstractPrior research has estimated piece-meal the determinants of audit fees, non-audit fees and abnormal accruals. Intuition, informal analysis, and a variety of theories suggest that audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals are jointly determined. We address this endogeneity issue by modeling the confluence of audit fees, fees for non-audit services and abnormal accruals in a system of simultaneous equations. Our joint estimation provides a starting point to look simultaneously at several competing theories. Using audit and non-audit fee data from the UK for 1994-2000, we find evidence consistent with knowledge spillovers (or economies of scope) from auditing to non-audit services and from non-audit services to auditing. While knowledge spillovers from non-audit services to auditing have been found in prior research [e.g. see Simunic 1984], the presence of knowledge spillovers from auditing to non-audit services is a new result. Contrary to recent results in Ferguson et al. (2001) and Frankel et al. (2002), we do not find support for the assertion that fees for non-audit services increase abnormal accruals. In fact, contrary to the results in Ashbaugh et al. (2003) and Chung and Kallapur (2003), we find that non-audit fees decrease abnormal accruals, which we attribute to the productive effects of non-audit services. We also find evidence that audit fees increase abnormal accruals, consistent with behavioral theories of unconscious influence or bias in the auditor-client relation. The findings are robust to tests with US data.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Yale School of Management in its series Yale School of Management Working Papers with number amz2502.
Date of creation: 07 Aug 2002
Date of revision: 02 May 2006
Auditing; Auditor Independence; Earnings Management; Abnormal Accruals; Economies of Scope; Endogeneity;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C30 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - General
- M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Accounting - - - General
- M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Accounting - - - Accounting
- M49 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Accounting - - - Other
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.:
- Phillip McKnight & Cyril Tomkins, 1999. "Top Executive Pay in the United Kingdom: A Corporate Governance Dilemma," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 223-243.
- DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
- Burgstahler, David & Dichev, Ilia, 1997. "Earnings management to avoid earnings decreases and losses," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 99-126, December.
- Johnson, Marilyn F. & Nelson, Karen K. & Frankel, Richard M., 2002. "The Relation Between Auditor's Fees for Non-audit Services and Earnings Quality," Research Papers 1696r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
- 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.
- Guay, W. & Kothari, S.P. & Watts, R.L., 1996. "A Market-Based Evaluation of Discretionary-Accrual Models," Papers 96-01, Rochester, Business - Financial Research and Policy Studies.
- 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, 09.
- Alex Chu & Xingqiang Du & Guohua Jiang, 2011. "Buy, Lie, or Die: An Investigation of Chinese ST Firms’ Voluntary Interim Audit Motive and Auditor Independence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 135-153, August.
- Christopher Bleibtreu & Ulrike Stefani, 2011. "Auditing, Consulting, and Audit Market Concentration," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2011-28, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
- Cédric Lesage & Sabine Ratzinger & Jaana Kettunen, 2012. "Struggle over joint audit: on behalf of public interest?," Post-Print hal-00935004, HAL.
- Vieru, Markku & Schadewitz, Hannu, 2010. "Impact of IFRS transition on audit and non-audit fees: evidence from small and medium-sized listed companies in Finland," MPRA Paper 44664, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Bernard Raffournier & Alain Schatt, 2011. "La relation entre honoraires d'audit et honoraires de conseil des auditeurs dans un contexte post-SOX : Le cas suisse," Post-Print hal-00650561, HAL.
- 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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.