IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00962383.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Re-Examination Of The Industry Specialist Audit Fee Premium

Author

Listed:
  • Liang Jiang

    (ESSEC Business School)

  • Anne Jeny-Cazavan

    (ESSEC Business School)

  • Sophie Audousset-Coulier

    (Department of accounting - Concordia University [Montreal])

Abstract

This paper analyzes the effects of using various definitions and measures of auditor industry specialization in empirical audit research. Industry specialist (ISP) auditors are auditors who have developed a specific expertise in their industry and who are therefore able to provide higher quality audits. This industry expertise provides them with a superior reputation and allows them to obtain an industry specialist fee premium. On a sample of 29,726 US-listed firms over the 2000-2010 period, we computed and compared 35 ISP measures. We find that the use of different definitions of auditor industry specialization results in inconsistent classifications of audit firms as specialists (or not) in a given industry. We further demonstrate that this lack of consistency between ISP measures is significant and represents a serious measurement issue as it questions the validity of the ISP fee premium estimates. We find that the results regarding the significance, sign and magnitude of the fee premium paid to ISP auditors are strongly dependent on the choice of the ISP measure. Our analysis suggests that the measures of industry specialization employed in empirical research have a low degree of internal and external construct validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Liang Jiang & Anne Jeny-Cazavan & Sophie Audousset-Coulier, 2013. "A Re-Examination Of The Industry Specialist Audit Fee Premium," Post-Print hal-00962383, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00962383
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00962383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00962383/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palmrose, Zv, 1986. "Audit Fees And Auditor Size - Further Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 97-110.
    2. Andrew C. Ferguson & Jere R. Francis & Donald J. Stokes, 2006. "What matters in audit pricing: industry specialization or overall market leadership?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 46(1), pages 97-106, March.
    3. Habib, Ahsan, 2011. "Audit firm industry specialization and audit outcomes: Insights from academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 114-129.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mohd Kharuddin, Khairul Ayuni & Basioudis, Ilias G. & Hay, David, 2019. "Partner industry specialization and audit pricing in the United Kingdom," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 57-70.
    2. Habib, Ahsan, 2011. "Audit firm industry specialization and audit outcomes: Insights from academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 114-129.
    3. Kharuddin, Khairul Ayuni Mohd & Basioudis, Ilias G & Farooque, Omar Al, 2021. "Effects of the Big 4 national and city-level industry expertise on audit quality in the United Kingdom," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    4. Fleischer, Rouven & Goettsche, Max, 2012. "Size effects and audit pricing: Evidence from Germany," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 156-168.
    5. Elizabeth Carson & Neil Fargher, 2007. "Note on audit fee premiums to client size and industry specialization," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(3), pages 423-446, September.
    6. Cheng Y Lai & Yang Li & Yaowen Shan & Stephen Taylor, 2013. "Costs of mandatory international financial reporting standards: Evidence of reduced accrual reliability," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(3), pages 491-521, December.
    7. Fleischer, Rouven & Goettsche, Max & Schauer, Maximilian, 2017. "The Big 4 premium: Does it survive an auditor change? Evidence from Europe," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 103-117.
    8. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    9. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    10. Mary Kehinde Salawu, 2017. "Factors Influencing Auditor Independence among Listed Companies in Nigeria: Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) Approach," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(8), pages 191-203, August.
    11. Amir Ghafourian Shagerdi & Ali Mahdavipour & Reza Jahanshiri Ariyan Tashakori Baghdar & Mohammad Sajjad Ghafourian Shagerdi, 2020. "Investment Efficiency and Audit Fee from the Perspective of the Role of Financial Distress," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 318-333.
    12. Zhigang Qin & Wen Liu & Maonan Chen, 2022. "Corporate Tax Avoidance and Firm Diversification: Evidence from Chinese Listed Firms," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 3-21, March.
    13. Nurul Nazlia Jamil, 2020. "The Power of Political Connections: Review on the Impacts of Audit Committee and Corporate Governance," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(1), pages 333347-3333, December.
    14. Muhammad Shahin Miah & Haiyan Jiang & Asheq Rahman & Warwick Stent, 2023. "The impact of IFRS complexity on analyst forecast properties: The moderating role of high quality audit," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 902-928, January.
    15. Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin & Rahman, Asheq & Sultana, Nigar, 2020. "Female tainted directors, financial reporting quality and audit fees," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    16. George Drogalas & Michail Nerantzidis & Dimitrios Mitskinis & Ioannis Tampakoudis, 2021. "The relationship between audit fees and audit committee characteristics: evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 24-41, March.
    17. James Ross Booth & Lena Chua Booth & Daniel Deli, 2012. "Managerial Incentives and Audit Fees: Evidence from the Mutual Fund Industry," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-76, May.
    18. Sophie Audousset-Coulier, 2009. "L'utilisation des honoraires d'audit pour mesurer la qualité de l'audit : théorie et évidence," Post-Print halshs-00460230, HAL.
    19. Ayad Ahmed Mohammed Al-Qublani & Hasnah Kamardin & Rohami Shafie, 2020. "Audit Committee Chair Attributes and Audit Report Lag in an Emerging Market," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 11(4), pages 475-492, July.
    20. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    auditor industry specialists; audit fees; construct validity; spécialisation sectorielle; honoraires audit; validité de construit;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-00962383. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.