IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/reroxx/v33y2020i1p3071-3092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit fees and cost of debt: differences in the credibility of voluntary and mandatory audits

Author

Listed:
  • Juan L. Gandía
  • David Huguet

Abstract

Despite the extensive research on audit fees, few studies have examined the effect of audit fees on the cost of debt. Based on the credence goods theory, we examine whether the effect of audits on the cost of debt is affected by the type of audit (voluntary or mandatory) and the audit fees, as well as whether there is a combined effect of voluntary audits and audit fees, so that the effect of voluntary audits on the cost of debt is affected by audit fees. Using a sample of Spanish SMEs, we find an asymmetric effect of audit fees on the cost of debt: higher audit fees are associated with a lower cost of debt for voluntarily audited companies, while the association is not significant for mandatory audits. Results suggest that, although the type of audit and the audit fees do not have a direct effect on the credibility of audits, the combination of both factors has relevance for lenders, so that higher audit fees in the voluntary setting are positively valued by them. The study contributes to the literature on auditing by showing that voluntary audits are relevant for capital providers as long as audits are perceived of quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan L. Gandía & David Huguet, 2020. "Audit fees and cost of debt: differences in the credibility of voluntary and mandatory audits," Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 3071-3092, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:reroxx:v:33:y:2020:i:1:p:3071-3092
    DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2019.1678501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1678501
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1678501?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Huishui Su & Yu Lu & Oleksii Lyulyov & Tetyana Pimonenko, 2023. "Good Governance within Public Participation and National Audit for Reducing Corruption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    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:taf:reroxx:v:33:y:2020:i:1:p:3071-3092. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rero .

    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.