IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jocaae/v13y2017i1p37-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of ambiguity in an auditing standard on auditor independence: Evidence from nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Chan
  • Raman, K.K.
  • Sun, Lili
  • Wu, Da

Abstract

We examine the relation between nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions on the effectiveness of a client’s internal control over financial reporting. We find a negative association between nonaudit fees and the auditor’s propensity to issue an adverse SOX 404 opinion during 2004–2006 (when AS2 was the applicable standard), but not in 2007 or 2008 (when AS5 was the applicable standard). Our results hold when we control for office size and time trend and examine tax and nontax nonaudit fees separately. These findings suggest that AS5 reduced ambiguity relative to AS2 and improved auditor independence. Our paper contributes to two literature streams: (1) the sparse literature on the adverse effects associated with ambiguity (lack of precision) in an auditing standard (Willekens and Simunic, 2007; Ye and Simunic, 2013), and (2) the AS5 literature by documenting that AS5 contributed to a more effective audit via greater auditor independence.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Chan & Raman, K.K. & Sun, Lili & Wu, Da, 2017. "The effect of ambiguity in an auditing standard on auditor independence: Evidence from nonaudit fees and SOX 404 opinions," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-51.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jocaae:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:37-51
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jcae.2017.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1815566917300073
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jcae.2017.02.001?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris E. Hogan & Michael S. Wilkins, 2008. "Evidence on the Audit Risk Model: Do Auditors Increase Audit Fees in the Presence of Internal Control Deficiencies?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 219-242, March.
    2. Hollis Ashbaugh‐Skaife & Daniel W. Collins & William R. Kinney Jr & Ryan Lafond, 2009. "The Effect of SOX Internal Control Deficiencies on Firm Risk and Cost of Equity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 1-43, March.
    3. Jere R. Francis & Paul N. Michas & Michael D. Yu, 2013. "Office Size of Big 4 Auditors and Client Restatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 1626-1661, December.
    4. Joseph Aharony & Amihud Dotan, 2004. "A Comparative Analysis of Auditor, Manager and Financial Analyst Interpretations of SFAS 5 Disclosure Guidelines," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3‐4), pages 475-504, April.
    5. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Schneider, Arnold, 2008. "Provision of non-audit services and individuals’ investment decisions: Experimental evidence," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 177-185.
    6. Roberts, Michael L., 2010. "Independence, impartiality, and advocacy in client conflicts," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 29-39.
    7. Ashbaugh-Skaife, Hollis & Collins, Daniel W. & Kinney Jr., William R., 2007. "The discovery and reporting of internal control deficiencies prior to SOX-mandated audits," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 166-192, September.
    8. Bin N. Srinidhi & Ferdinand A. Gul, 2007. "The Differential Effects of Auditors' Nonaudit and Audit Fees on Accrual Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 595-629, June.
    9. Zhang, Yan & Zhou, Jian & Zhou, Nan, 2007. "Audit committee quality, auditor independence, and internal control weaknesses," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 300-327.
    10. David F. Larcker & Scott A. Richardson, 2004. "Fees Paid to Audit Firms, Accrual Choices, and Corporate Governance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 625-658, June.
    11. Sarah C. Rice & David P. Weber, 2012. "How Effective Is Internal Control Reporting under SOX 404? Determinants of the (Non‐)Disclosure of Existing Material Weaknesses," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 811-843, June.
    12. Jeffrey S. Paterson & Adrian Valencia, 2011. "The Effects of Recurring and Nonrecurring Tax, Audit†Related, and Other Nonaudit Services on Auditor Independence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1510-1536, December.
    13. Minlei Ye & Dan A. Simunic, 2013. "The Economics of Setting Auditing Standards," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1191-1215, September.
    14. Anna M. Costello & Regina Wittenberg‐Moerman*, 2011. "The Impact of Financial Reporting Quality on Debt Contracting: Evidence from Internal Control Weakness Reports," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 97-136, March.
    15. Mark L. DeFond & K. Raghunandan & K.R. Subramanyam, 2002. "Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1247-1274, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Zmijewski, Me, 1984. "Methodological Issues Related To The Estimation Of Financial Distress Prediction Models," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22, pages 59-82.
    18. Michael Gibbins & Steven Salterio & Alan Webb, 2001. "Evidence About Auditor–Client Management Negotiation Concerning Client’s Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 535-563, December.
    19. Chan Li, 2009. "Does Client Importance Affect Auditor Independence at the Office Level? Empirical Evidence from Going†Concern Opinions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 201-230, March.
    20. Bedard, Jean C. & Hoitash, Udi & Hoitash, Rani, 2008. "Audit pricing and internal control disclosures among non-accelerated filers," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 103-126.
    21. Ilias G. Basioudis & Evangelos Papakonstantinou & Marshall A. Geiger, 2008. "Audit Fees, Non‐Audit Fees and Auditor Going‐Concern Reporting Decisions in the United Kingdom," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 44(3), pages 284-309, September.
    22. Francis, J & Philbrick, D & Schipper, K, 1994. "Shareholder Litigation And Corporate Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 137-164.
    23. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    24. Rajib Doogar & Padmakumar Sivadasan & Ira Solomon, 2010. "The Regulation of Public Company Auditing: Evidence from the Transition to AS5," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 795-814, September.
    25. Joseph Aharony & Amihud Dotan, 2004. "A Comparative Analysis of Auditor, Manager and Financial Analyst Interpretations of "SFAS 5" Disclosure Guidelines," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3-4), pages 475-504.
    26. Marleen Willekens & Dan Simunic, 2007. "Precision in auditing standards: effects on auditor and director liability and the supply and demand for audit services," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 217-232.
    27. Allen D. Blay & Marshall A. Geiger, 2013. "Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 579-606, June.
    28. William R. Kinney & Zoe‐Vonna Palmrose & Susan Scholz, 2004. "Auditor Independence, Non‐Audit Services, and Restatements: Was the U.S. Government Right?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 561-588, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mihai Carp & Costel Istrate, 2021. "Audit Quality under Influences of Audit Firm and Auditee Characteristics: Evidence from the Romanian Regulated Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.

    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. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    2. Legoria, Joseph & Rosa, Gina & Soileau, Jared S., 2017. "Audit quality across non-audit service fee benchmarks: Evidence from material weakness opinions," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 97-108.
    3. Joseph V. Carcello & Terry L. Neal & Lauren C. Reid & Jonathan E. Shipman, 2020. "Auditor Independence and Fair Value Accounting: An Examination of Nonaudit Fees and Goodwill Impairments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 189-217, March.
    4. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Beng Wee Goh & Jayanthi Krishnan & Dan Li, 2013. "Auditor Reporting under Section 404: The Association between the Internal Control and Going Concern Audit Opinions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 970-995, September.
    7. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    8. Chan Li & K. K. Raman & Lili Sun & Rong Yang, 2020. "The SOX 404 control audit and the effectiveness of additional audit effort in lowering the risk of financial misstatements," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 981-1009, April.
    9. Bryan, David B., 2017. "Organized labor, audit quality, and internal control," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 11-26.
    10. Chee Lim & David Ding & Charlie Charoenwong, 2013. "Non-audit fees, institutional monitoring, and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 343-384, August.
    11. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles-Bosch, Josep Maria & Castillo-Merino, David & Martinez-Blasco, Monica, 2017. "An Assessment of the Provisions of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 on Non-audit Services and Audit Firm Tenure: Evidence from Spain," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 251-261.
    12. Emma-Riikka Myllymäki, 2014. "Incumbent audit firm-provided tax services and clients with low financial reporting quality," Working Papers 1404, Departament Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, revised Sep 2014.
    13. Timothy B. Bell & Monika Causholli & W. Robert Knechel, 2015. "Audit Firm Tenure, Non‐Audit Services, and Internal Assessments of Audit Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 461-509, June.
    14. Der-Fen Huang & Ming-Lei Chang, 2016. "Do auditor-provided tax services improve the relation between tax-related internal control and book-tax differences?," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 177-199, June.
    15. Beardsley, Erik L. & Imdieke, Andrew J. & Omer, Thomas C., 2021. "The distraction effect of non-audit services on audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2).
    16. Sarowar Hossain & Jenny Jing Wang, 2023. "Abnormal audit fees and audit quality: Australian evidence," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 48(3), pages 596-624, August.
    17. Myojung Cho & Gopal V. Krishnan, 2023. "Principles-based accounting standards and audit outcomes: empirical evidence," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 164-200, March.
    18. Chen, Long & Krishnan, Gopal V. & Yu, Wei, 2018. "The relation between audit fee cuts during the global financial crisis and earnings quality and audit quality," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 14-31.
    19. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    20. Inder K. Khurana & Nathan G. Lundstrom & K. K. Raman, 2021. "PCAOB Inspections and the Differential Audit Quality Effect for Big 4 and Non–Big 4 US Auditors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 376-411, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nonaudit fees; SOX 404 audit opinions; Auditor independence; Engagement risk; Ambiguity in AS2;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing
    • M48 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    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:eee:jocaae:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:37-51. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-contemporary-accounting-and-economics .

    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.