IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00522481.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Effet de l'obligation de publier les honoraires d'audit sur les honoraires des exercices ultérieurs : Le cas français

Author

Listed:
  • Adel Chouaya

    (DRM Crefige - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres)

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of the COB's mandated public disclosure of audit fees on subsequent period audit pricing. Our theoretical model predicts that the public disclosure of fees will lead to greater precision and reduced dispersion (less variance) in subsequent period fees. Using the new fee disclosures in the first two disclosure years (2002 and 2003), we find significantly smaller variances in audit fees as predicted for 2003 relative to 2002. In sum, the evidence indicates that public disclosure has improved the precision of audit pricing.

Suggested Citation

  • Adel Chouaya, 2008. "Effet de l'obligation de publier les honoraires d'audit sur les honoraires des exercices ultérieurs : Le cas français," Post-Print halshs-00522481, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00522481
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00522481
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00522481/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Verrecchia, Robert E., 2001. "Essays on disclosure," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 97-180, December.
    2. David Hay & Robert Knechel & Vivian Li, 2006. "Non‐audit Services and Auditor Independence: New Zealand Evidence," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5‐6), pages 715-734, June.
    3. Dye, Ronald A., 1991. "Informationally motivated auditor replacement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 347-374, December.
    4. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    5. 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.
    6. Caitlin Ruddock & Sarah J. Taylor & Stephen L. Taylor, 2006. "Nonaudit Services and Earnings Conservatism: Is Auditor Independence Impaired?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 701-746, September.
    7. Michael Firth, 1997. "The Provision of Nonaudit Services by Accounting Firms to their Audit Clients," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 1-21, June.
    8. Nathalie Gonthier-Besacier & Alain Schatt, 2006. "Determinants of Audit Fees for French Quoted Firms," Working Papers CREGO 1060301, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    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. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3506 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    3. Arvind Patel & Pranil Prasad, 2013. "Auditor Independence, Audit Fees Lowballing, And Non-Audit Services: Evidence From Fiji," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 5(2), pages 103-120.
    4. Sharad Asthana & Inder Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2019. "Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 403-438, February.
    5. Christopher Bleibtreu & Ulrike Stefani, 2012. "The Interdependence Between Audit Market Structure and the Quality of Financial Reporting: The Case of Non-Audit Services," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2012-01, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    6. De Fuentes, Cristina & Porcuna, Rubén, 2016. "Main drivers of consultancy services: A meta-analytic approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 4775-4780.
    7. 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.
    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. Eli Amir & Yanling Guan & Gilad Livne, 2010. "Auditor Independence and the Cost of Capital Before and After Sarbanes-Oxley: The Case of Newly Issued Public Debt," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 633-664.
    10. Griffin, Paul A. & Lont, David H., 2011. "Audit fees around dismissals and resignations: Additional evidence," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 65-81.
    11. Averhals, Liesbeth & Van Caneghem, Tom & Willekens, Marleen, 2020. "Mandatory audit fee disclosure and price competition in the private client segment of the Belgian audit market," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    13. Geiger, Marshall A. & Basioudis, Ilias G. & DeLange, Paul, 2022. "The effect of non-audit fees and industry specialization on the prevalence and accuracy of auditor’s going-concern reporting decisions," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    14. repec:dau:papers:123456789/8473 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Cédric Lesage & Sabine Ratzinger & Jaana Kettunen, 2012. "Struggle over joint audit: on behalf of public interest?," Post-Print hal-00935004, HAL.
    16. Marcel Haak & Michelle Muraz & Roland Zieseniß, 2018. "Joint Audits: Does the Allocation of Audit Work Affect Audit Quality and Audit Fees?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 55-80, January.
    17. Elisabeth Dedman & Asad Kausar & Clive Lennox, 2014. "The Demand for Audit in Private Firms: Recent Large-Sample Evidence from the UK," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 1-23, May.
    18. 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.
    19. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Hye‐Jeong Nam, 2018. "The Impact of Mandatory IFRS Transition on Audit Effort and Audit Fees: Evidence from Korea," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(4), pages 512-524, December.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.

    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:halshs-00522481. 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.