IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ysm/somwrk/ysm289.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Joint Determination of Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees, and Abnormal Accruals

Author

Listed:
  • Rick Antle

    (Yale University, School of Management)

  • Elizabeth A. Gordon

    (Accounting)

  • Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy

    (School of Management)

  • Ling Zhou

    (School of Management)

Abstract

Prior research has estimated piecemeal the determinants of audit fees, non-audit services fees and abnormal accruals. Intuition, informal analysis, and a variety of theories of various aspects of auditor-client interaction suggest that audit fees, nonaudit fees, and abnormal accruals are jointly determined. We address this endogeneity issue by modeling the confluence of audit fees, fees for non-audit services and abnormal accruals in a system of simultaneous equations. Using audit and non-audit fee data from the U.K. for 1994-2000, we find evidence consistent with knowledge spillovers (or economies of scope) from auditing to non-audit services and from non-audit services to auditing. While knowledge spillovers from non-audit services to auditing is a known result [e.g. see Simunic (1984)] the presence of knowledge spillovers from auditing to non-audit services is a new result. Contrary to recent results in Ferguson et al. (2001) and Frankel et al. (2002), we do not find support for the assertion that fees for non-audit services increase abnormal accruals. In fact, we find that nonaudit fees decrease abnormal accruals. We also find evidence that audit fees increase abnormal accruals. Finally, our evidence is not consistent with audit firms playing pricing games, bribery or the demand and supply effects of abnormal accruals. The findings are robust to preliminary tests with U.S. data.

Suggested Citation

  • Rick Antle & Elizabeth A. Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2002. "The Joint Determination of Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees, and Abnormal Accruals," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm289, Yale School of Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:ysm:somwrk:ysm289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=318943
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Georges Dionne & Florence Giuliano & Pierre Picard, 2009. "Optimal Auditing with Scoring: Theory and Application to Insurance Fraud," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 58-70, January.
    2. Luo, Bing, 2019. "Effects of auditor-provided tax services on book-tax differences and on investors' mispricing of book-tax differences," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    3. Marco Pagano & Giovanni Immordino, 2007. "Optimal Regulation of Auditing," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 53(3), pages 363-388, September.
    4. David F. Larcker & Scott A. Richardson, 2004. "Fees Paid to Audit Firms, Accrual Choices, and Corporate Governance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 625-658, June.
    5. Bartley R. Danielsen & David M. Harrison & Robert A. Van Ness & Richard S. Warr, 2009. "REIT Auditor Fees and Financial Market Transparency," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 515-557, September.
    6. Ferdinand A. Gul & Judy Tsui & Dan S. Dhaliwal, 2006. "Non‐audit services, auditor quality and the value relevance of earnings," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 46(5), pages 797-817, December.
    7. Callaghan, Joseph H. & Parkash, Mohinder & Singhal, Rajeev, 2008. "The impact of the Multi-jurisdiction Disclosure System on audit fees of cross-listed Canadian firms," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 99-113.
    8. Bartley R. Danielsen & Robert A. Van Ness & Richard S. Warr, 2007. "Auditor Fees, Market Microstructure, and Firm Transparency," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1‐2), pages 202-221, January.
    9. Raghavan J. Iyengar & Ernest M. Zampelli, 2008. "Auditor independence, executive pay and firm performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(2), pages 259-278, June.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. David C. Hay & W. Robert Knechel & Norman Wong, 2006. "Audit Fees: A Meta†analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 141-191, March.
    13. Bartley R. Danielsen & Robert A. Van Ness & Richard S. Warr, 2007. "Auditor Fees, Market Microstructure, and Firm Transparency," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1-2), pages 202-221.
    14. Mark A. Clatworthy & Michael J. Peel, 2007. "The Effect of Corporate Status on External Audit Fees: Evidence From the UK," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1‐2), pages 169-201, January.
    15. Edward L. Maydew & Douglas A. Shackelford, 2005. "The Changing Role of Auditors in Corporate Tax Planning," NBER Working Papers 11504, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Deborah Bloomfield & Joshua Shackman, 2008. "Non-audit service fees, auditor characteristics and earnings restatements," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(2), pages 125-141, January.
    17. Joel S. Demski, 2003. "Corporate Conflicts of Interest," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 51-72, Spring.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auditing; Auditor Independence; Earnings Management; Abnormal Accruals; Economies of Scope; Endogeneity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M49 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Other
    • C30 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - General

    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:ysm:somwrk:ysm289. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/smyalus.html .

    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.