IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Indicators of audit fees and fraud classification: impact of SOX

Listed author(s):
  • Mary Jane Lenard

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to compare the effect of corporate governance variables and fraud litigation on audit fees both before and after the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act in 2002. Design/methodology/approach - The paper utilizes a sample of firms that had litigation proceedings filed against them for fraudulent financial reporting, and compare these firms to a sample of non-fraud firms in the pre-and post-SOX period. First, the authors examine indicators of audit fees using the Simunic model. Next, the authors develop a logistic regression model with corporate governance variables and other financial control variables in order to identify the characteristics of firms that are accused of fraud in the pre-and post-SOX period. Findings - The paper identifies specific components of corporate governance that are positively related to audit fees and which subsequently aid in classifying companies subject to fraud litigation. The most successful logistic regression model for 2005 (post-SOX) is 64.4 per cent accurate in distinguishing firms litigated for fraud, while the most successful model for 2001 (pre-SOX) is 61.4 per cent accurate in distinguishing such firms. Originality/value - The research design and findings assist in providing additional evidence about the association between the effectiveness of the corporate governance structure and the external auditor in assessing the risk of fraud.

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:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Emerald Group Publishing in its journal Managerial Auditing Journal.

Volume (Year): 27 (2012)
Issue (Month): 5 (May)
Pages: 500-525

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:v:27:y:2012:i:5:p:500-525
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Postal: Emerald Group Publishing, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UK
Web: Email:

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.:

in new window

  1. Santanu Mitra & Mahmud Hossain & Donald Deis, 2007. "The empirical relationship between ownership characteristics and audit fees," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 257-285, April.
  2. repec:kap:iaecre:v:15:y:2009:i:1:p:17-29 is not listed on IDEAS
  3. Ahmed Ebrahim, 2010. "Audit fee premium and auditor change: the effect of Sarbanes-Oxley Act," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(2), pages 102-121, January.
  4. Jenny Goodwin-Stewart & Pamela Kent, 2006. "Relation between external audit fees, audit committee characteristics and internal audit," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 46(3), pages 387-404.
  5. Wenxia Ge & G. Whitmore, 2010. "Binary response and logistic regression in recent accounting research publications: a methodological note," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 81-93, January.
  6. Sameer T. Mustafa, 2010. "Audit committee financial expertise and misappropriation of assets," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(3), pages 208-225, March.
  7. repec:bla:joares:v:28:y:1990:i:1:p:198-210 is not listed on IDEAS
  8. Fen-May Liou, 2008. "Fraudulent financial reporting detection and business failure prediction models: a comparison," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(7), pages 650-662, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:v:27:y:2012:i:5:p:500-525. 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: (Virginia Chapman)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.