Audit and Non-Audit Fees: New Zealand Evidence

This study adds to the evidence concerning the link between the fees that auditors charge for audit and non-audit services to the same client. We argue that audit fees will be cross-subsidised in a particular way: they will be reduced dollar for dollar by the expected profi ts from nonaudit work tha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pacific accounting review 2006-07, Vol.18 (2), p.32-46
Hauptverfasser: Dunmore, Paul, Sarah Shao, Yingxin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 46
container_issue 2
container_start_page 32
container_title Pacific accounting review
container_volume 18
creator Dunmore, Paul
Sarah Shao, Yingxin
description This study adds to the evidence concerning the link between the fees that auditors charge for audit and non-audit services to the same client. We argue that audit fees will be cross-subsidised in a particular way: they will be reduced dollar for dollar by the expected profi ts from nonaudit work that is 'tied' to the engagement in the sense that such work generally goes to the incumbent auditor. This argument is tested using New Zealand listed company data for 2002. A nonlinear model for audit fees is developed that respects the mathematical relationship between audit and non-audit fees implied by the argument from tied profits, and which includes standard control variables in a mathematically consistent way. When linearized for estimation the model has a form that differs from the linear regressions commonly used. The coefficient which tests for cross-subsidisation is not significant, and the confi dence interval for that coefficient excludes plausible numerical values. Changing the way in which non-audit fees are scaled and using a conventional (but unjustified) control for subsidiaries leads to a significant but spurious positive association between audit and nonaudit fees. This indicates the importance of avoiding mathematically infeasible specifications in audit-fee research.
doi_str_mv 10.1108/01140580610732804
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_30976389</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1197569631</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-d6f06452062b4e359de36e1dda2b539a2894c980fca4ede0290fb0acd38792043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE9Lw0AQxRdRsFY_gLfgwZOps3-S7HorpVWh1ItevCzb3QmkpEncbRS_vVviyQp6Gob3e8ObR8glhQmlIG-BUgGZhJxCwZkEcURGDARNM6HEMRnt9TQC7JSchbABoFFgIzKZ9q7aJaZxyapt0mFbIIa7ZIUfySuaeq_N3yuHjcVzclKaOuDF9xyTl8X8efaQLp_uH2fTZWoFZbvU5SXkImOQs7VAnimHPEfqnGHrjCvDpBJWSSitEegQmIJyDcY6LgsVY_MxuR7udr596zHs9LYKFusYBts-aJ7JIlMq_xsEVeRcqghe_QA3be-b-ISmSsSsHGiE6ABZ34bgsdSdr7bGf2oKet-zPug5emDw4Ba9qd2_LDe_Ww5Q3bmSfwHwiYd_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>194452301</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Audit and Non-Audit Fees: New Zealand Evidence</title><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Emerald Journals</source><creator>Dunmore, Paul ; Sarah Shao, Yingxin</creator><creatorcontrib>Dunmore, Paul ; Sarah Shao, Yingxin</creatorcontrib><description>This study adds to the evidence concerning the link between the fees that auditors charge for audit and non-audit services to the same client. We argue that audit fees will be cross-subsidised in a particular way: they will be reduced dollar for dollar by the expected profi ts from nonaudit work that is 'tied' to the engagement in the sense that such work generally goes to the incumbent auditor. This argument is tested using New Zealand listed company data for 2002. A nonlinear model for audit fees is developed that respects the mathematical relationship between audit and non-audit fees implied by the argument from tied profits, and which includes standard control variables in a mathematically consistent way. When linearized for estimation the model has a form that differs from the linear regressions commonly used. The coefficient which tests for cross-subsidisation is not significant, and the confi dence interval for that coefficient excludes plausible numerical values. Changing the way in which non-audit fees are scaled and using a conventional (but unjustified) control for subsidiaries leads to a significant but spurious positive association between audit and nonaudit fees. This indicates the importance of avoiding mathematically infeasible specifications in audit-fee research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0114-0582</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2041-5494</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/01140580610732804</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Palmerston North: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Audit engagements ; Audit fees ; Auditors ; Audits ; Competition ; Corporate profits ; Hypotheses ; Professional fees ; Profit margins ; Profitability ; SEC regulations ; Studies ; Variables</subject><ispartof>Pacific accounting review, 2006-07, Vol.18 (2), p.32-46</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Copyright Pacific Accounting Review Trust % Massey University, Dept of Accountancy and Business Law Dec 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-d6f06452062b4e359de36e1dda2b539a2894c980fca4ede0290fb0acd38792043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-d6f06452062b4e359de36e1dda2b539a2894c980fca4ede0290fb0acd38792043</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/01140580610732804/full/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/01140580610732804/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,966,11634,27923,27924,52685,52688</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dunmore, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarah Shao, Yingxin</creatorcontrib><title>Audit and Non-Audit Fees: New Zealand Evidence</title><title>Pacific accounting review</title><description>This study adds to the evidence concerning the link between the fees that auditors charge for audit and non-audit services to the same client. We argue that audit fees will be cross-subsidised in a particular way: they will be reduced dollar for dollar by the expected profi ts from nonaudit work that is 'tied' to the engagement in the sense that such work generally goes to the incumbent auditor. This argument is tested using New Zealand listed company data for 2002. A nonlinear model for audit fees is developed that respects the mathematical relationship between audit and non-audit fees implied by the argument from tied profits, and which includes standard control variables in a mathematically consistent way. When linearized for estimation the model has a form that differs from the linear regressions commonly used. The coefficient which tests for cross-subsidisation is not significant, and the confi dence interval for that coefficient excludes plausible numerical values. Changing the way in which non-audit fees are scaled and using a conventional (but unjustified) control for subsidiaries leads to a significant but spurious positive association between audit and nonaudit fees. This indicates the importance of avoiding mathematically infeasible specifications in audit-fee research.</description><subject>Audit engagements</subject><subject>Audit fees</subject><subject>Auditors</subject><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Corporate profits</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Professional fees</subject><subject>Profit margins</subject><subject>Profitability</subject><subject>SEC regulations</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Variables</subject><issn>0114-0582</issn><issn>2041-5494</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE9Lw0AQxRdRsFY_gLfgwZOps3-S7HorpVWh1ItevCzb3QmkpEncbRS_vVviyQp6Gob3e8ObR8glhQmlIG-BUgGZhJxCwZkEcURGDARNM6HEMRnt9TQC7JSchbABoFFgIzKZ9q7aJaZxyapt0mFbIIa7ZIUfySuaeq_N3yuHjcVzclKaOuDF9xyTl8X8efaQLp_uH2fTZWoFZbvU5SXkImOQs7VAnimHPEfqnGHrjCvDpBJWSSitEegQmIJyDcY6LgsVY_MxuR7udr596zHs9LYKFusYBts-aJ7JIlMq_xsEVeRcqghe_QA3be-b-ISmSsSsHGiE6ABZ34bgsdSdr7bGf2oKet-zPug5emDw4Ba9qd2_LDe_Ww5Q3bmSfwHwiYd_</recordid><startdate>20060701</startdate><enddate>20060701</enddate><creator>Dunmore, Paul</creator><creator>Sarah Shao, Yingxin</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060701</creationdate><title>Audit and Non-Audit Fees: New Zealand Evidence</title><author>Dunmore, Paul ; Sarah Shao, Yingxin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c412t-d6f06452062b4e359de36e1dda2b539a2894c980fca4ede0290fb0acd38792043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Audit engagements</topic><topic>Audit fees</topic><topic>Auditors</topic><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Corporate profits</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Professional fees</topic><topic>Profit margins</topic><topic>Profitability</topic><topic>SEC regulations</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Variables</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dunmore, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarah Shao, Yingxin</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Accounting &amp; Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax &amp; Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Pacific accounting review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dunmore, Paul</au><au>Sarah Shao, Yingxin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Audit and Non-Audit Fees: New Zealand Evidence</atitle><jtitle>Pacific accounting review</jtitle><date>2006-07-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>32</spage><epage>46</epage><pages>32-46</pages><issn>0114-0582</issn><eissn>2041-5494</eissn><abstract>This study adds to the evidence concerning the link between the fees that auditors charge for audit and non-audit services to the same client. We argue that audit fees will be cross-subsidised in a particular way: they will be reduced dollar for dollar by the expected profi ts from nonaudit work that is 'tied' to the engagement in the sense that such work generally goes to the incumbent auditor. This argument is tested using New Zealand listed company data for 2002. A nonlinear model for audit fees is developed that respects the mathematical relationship between audit and non-audit fees implied by the argument from tied profits, and which includes standard control variables in a mathematically consistent way. When linearized for estimation the model has a form that differs from the linear regressions commonly used. The coefficient which tests for cross-subsidisation is not significant, and the confi dence interval for that coefficient excludes plausible numerical values. Changing the way in which non-audit fees are scaled and using a conventional (but unjustified) control for subsidiaries leads to a significant but spurious positive association between audit and nonaudit fees. This indicates the importance of avoiding mathematically infeasible specifications in audit-fee research.</abstract><cop>Palmerston North</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/01140580610732804</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0114-0582
ispartof Pacific accounting review, 2006-07, Vol.18 (2), p.32-46
issn 0114-0582
2041-5494
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_30976389
source Business Source Complete; Emerald Journals
subjects Audit engagements
Audit fees
Auditors
Audits
Competition
Corporate profits
Hypotheses
Professional fees
Profit margins
Profitability
SEC regulations
Studies
Variables
title Audit and Non-Audit Fees: New Zealand Evidence
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T15%3A16%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Audit%20and%20Non-Audit%20Fees:%20New%20Zealand%20Evidence&rft.jtitle=Pacific%20accounting%20review&rft.au=Dunmore,%20Paul&rft.date=2006-07-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=32&rft.epage=46&rft.pages=32-46&rft.issn=0114-0582&rft.eissn=2041-5494&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/01140580610732804&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E1197569631%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=194452301&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true