Particularities Concerning The Beneficiaries Of Audit Services Provided By The Big 4 Companies: Evidence From Romania
This study aims to explore some particularities concerning the Romanian auditedentities which are oriented mainly towards contracting audit services from the largest companiesproviding auditing services (Big 4 companies). The assessment criteria taken into consideration forthe differentiation of the beneficiaries of the audit services, at Romanian level are related tocompetitiveness, to the structure of share capital and to the nature of the audited entities‘management. There was taken into consideration the impact differentiation of each indicator, bycoefficients of importance. If at international level, previous results show a supremacy for the Big 4audit services providers, not the same situation confirms at Romanian level. The results show thatonly 18% of the sampled audited entities benefit from audit services provided by the Big 4,irrespective of their level of competitiveness, the structure of share capital or the structure ofmanagement.
Volume (Year): 2 (2013)
Issue (Month): 15 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| |
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.:
- Dan Topor & Ioana Dorin & Alina Putan, 2011. "The Role Of Cost Information In Decision-Making. Case Study," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 2(13), pages 1-15.
- Boone, Jeff P. & Khurana, Inder K. & Raman, K.K., 2010. "Do the Big 4 and the Second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality?," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 330-352, July.
- 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.
- Tom Van Caneghem, 2010. "Audit pricing and the Big4 fee premium: evidence from Belgium," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(2), pages 122-139, January.
- 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.
- Dopuch, Nicholas & Holthausen, Robert W. & Leftwich, Richard W., 1986. "Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of `subject to' qualified audit opinions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 93-117, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:alu:journl:v:2:y:2013:i:15:p:14. 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: (Dan-Constantin Danuletiu)
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.