IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/ijodag/v14y2017i3d10.1057_s41310-017-0023-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intangible assets on the balance sheet and audit fees

Author

Listed:
  • Gnanakumar Visvanathan

    (George Mason University)

Abstract

This study empirically examines how auditors view intangible assets that are recorded on the balance sheet. Intangible assets have been rising on corporate balance sheets and are growing in importance. In contrast to tangible assets, intangible assets pose unique challenges to auditors in terms judgment and complexity. The study uses a sample of COMPUSTAT firms over the period 2010-2015. The results show that auditors charge higher fees for firms with higher proportion of intangible assets on the balance. This result holds for all intangible assets, goodwill type intangible assets, and intangible assets other than goodwill. For firms with high book to market ratios these results are stronger indicating that potential impairment concerns lead auditors to charge even higher fees for such firms. A variety of sensitivity tests are conducted to verify the robustness of the results. These results are of interest to investors, regulators, firm managers, corporate boards, and auditors.

Suggested Citation

  • Gnanakumar Visvanathan, 2017. "Intangible assets on the balance sheet and audit fees," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(3), pages 241-250, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:ijodag:v:14:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1057_s41310-017-0023-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41310-017-0023-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41310-017-0023-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41310-017-0023-x?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. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    2. Leonard I. Nakamura, 2010. "Intangible Assets And National Income Accounting," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 56(s1), pages 135-155, June.
    3. 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. Chen, Vincent Y.S. & Keung, Edmund C. & Lin, I-Min, 2019. "Disclosure of fair value measurement in goodwill impairment test and audit fees," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    2. Mahmoud Lari Dashtbayaz & Amjed Hameed Mezher & Khalid Haitham Khalid Albadr & Bashaer Khudhair Abbas Alkafaji, 2023. "The Relationship between Intellectual Capital and Audit Fees," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.

    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. Nan-Ting Kuo & Cheng Few Lee, 2020. "A Potential Benefit of Increasing Book–Tax Conformity: Evidence from the Reduction in Audit Fees," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Cheng Few Lee & John C Lee (ed.), HANDBOOK OF FINANCIAL ECONOMETRICS, MATHEMATICS, STATISTICS, AND MACHINE LEARNING, chapter 3, pages 151-197, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Adam Esplin & Karim Jamal & Shyam Sunder, 2018. "Demand for and Assessment of Audit Quality in Private Companies," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 319-352, September.
    3. Paul A. Griffin & David H. Lont & Yuan Sun, 2009. "Governance regulatory changes, International Financial Reporting Standards adoption, and New Zealand audit and non‐audit fees: empirical evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(4), pages 697-724, December.
    4. Barnes, Paul, 2013. "The effects on financial statements of the litigation cost rule in a civil action for negligence against the auditor," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 170-182.
    5. Jinghui Sun & Liuchuang Li & Baolei Qi, 2022. "Financial statement comparability and audit pricing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(5), pages 4631-4661, December.
    6. Meiying Hua & Pervaiz Alam, 2021. "Audit Quality and Environment, Social, and Governance Risks," International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Computer Science Journals (CSC Journals), vol. 12(2), pages 50-75, April.
    7. Shivaram Rajgopal & Suraj Srinivasan & Xin Zheng, 2021. "Measuring audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 559-619, June.
    8. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    9. Wysocki, Peter, 2010. "Corporate compensation policies and audit fees," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 155-160, February.
    10. Rustam, Sehrish & Rashid, Kashif & Zaman, Khalid, 2013. "The relationship between audit committees, compensation incentives and corporate audit fees in Pakistan," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 697-716.
    11. Silvia Ferramosca & Giulio Greco & Marco Allegrini, 2017. "External audit and goodwill write-off," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 21(4), pages 907-934, December.
    12. Lai, Kam-Wah, 2013. "Audit Reporting of Big 4 Versus Non-Big 4 Auditors: The Case of Ex-Andersen Clients," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 495-524.
    13. Shyam Sunder & Karim Jamal, 2006. "Regulation, Competition and Independence in a Certification Society: Financial Reports Vs. Baseball Cards," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2578, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Jun 2007.
    14. Engel, Ellen & Hayes, Rachel M. & Wang, Xue, 2010. "Audit committee compensation and the demand for monitoring of the financial reporting process," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 136-154, February.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Bryan, David B., 2017. "Organized labor, audit quality, and internal control," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 11-26.
    18. Ettredge, Michael & Fuerherm, Elizabeth Emeigh & Li, Chan, 2014. "Fee pressure and audit quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 247-263.
    19. Brad Badertscher & Bjorn Jorgensen & Sharon Katz & William Kinney, 2014. "Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 303-339, May.
    20. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.

    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:pal:ijodag:v:14:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1057_s41310-017-0023-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave.com .

    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.