SOA Attestation: What Are the Initial Costs for Banks?
A recent study examined the audit fees for a sample of Fortune 1000 firms and found that the average audit fee increase and average percentage increase from 2003 to 2004 for this sample were $2.3 million and 103%, respectively. It was also found that SOA audit rates varied by firm size, existence of...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Bank Accounting & Finance 2005-12, Vol.19 (1), p.3 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 3 |
| container_title | Bank Accounting & Finance |
| container_volume | 19 |
| creator | Eldridge, Susan W Kealey, Burch T |
| description | A recent study examined the audit fees for a sample of Fortune 1000 firms and found that the average audit fee increase and average percentage increase from 2003 to 2004 for this sample were $2.3 million and 103%, respectively. It was also found that SOA audit rates varied by firm size, existence of material weaknesses, asset growth and industry. The average SOA audit rate of $0.13 for financial services firms was low compared to the average rate of $0.49 for the full sample. The regression results indicate that smaller and more complex banks faced higher SOA audit unit costs as did banks that reported ineffective internal controls. The regression model controls for auditor type and delayed SOA reporting and indicates that banks paid higher SOA audit unit costs if they used Big 4 auditors and if they delayed their SOA reporting. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_215027568</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>943899821</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_reports_2150275683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0sLA00TW2NLXgYOAqLs4yMDA0NrY05GQwC_Z3VHAsKUktLkksyczPs1IIz0gsUXAsSlUoyUhV8MzLLMlMzFFwzi8uKVZIyy9ScErMyy6252FgTUvMKU7lhdLcDIpuriHOHroFRfmFpUDD4otSC_KLSorjjQxNDYzMTc0sjIlRAwD4xTI9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>215027568</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>SOA Attestation: What Are the Initial Costs for Banks?</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Eldridge, Susan W ; Kealey, Burch T</creator><creatorcontrib>Eldridge, Susan W ; Kealey, Burch T</creatorcontrib><description>A recent study examined the audit fees for a sample of Fortune 1000 firms and found that the average audit fee increase and average percentage increase from 2003 to 2004 for this sample were $2.3 million and 103%, respectively. It was also found that SOA audit rates varied by firm size, existence of material weaknesses, asset growth and industry. The average SOA audit rate of $0.13 for financial services firms was low compared to the average rate of $0.49 for the full sample. The regression results indicate that smaller and more complex banks faced higher SOA audit unit costs as did banks that reported ineffective internal controls. The regression model controls for auditor type and delayed SOA reporting and indicates that banks paid higher SOA audit unit costs if they used Big 4 auditors and if they delayed their SOA reporting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0894-3958</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Riverwoods: CCH INCORPORATED</publisher><subject>Audit engagements ; Audits ; Banks ; Financial reporting ; Internal controls ; Professional fees ; Public Company Accounting Reform & Investor Protection Act 2002-US ; Regression analysis ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Bank Accounting & Finance, 2005-12, Vol.19 (1), p.3</ispartof><rights>Copyright Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC Dec 2005/Jan 2006</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>312,780,784,791</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Eldridge, Susan W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kealey, Burch T</creatorcontrib><title>SOA Attestation: What Are the Initial Costs for Banks?</title><title>Bank Accounting & Finance</title><description>A recent study examined the audit fees for a sample of Fortune 1000 firms and found that the average audit fee increase and average percentage increase from 2003 to 2004 for this sample were $2.3 million and 103%, respectively. It was also found that SOA audit rates varied by firm size, existence of material weaknesses, asset growth and industry. The average SOA audit rate of $0.13 for financial services firms was low compared to the average rate of $0.49 for the full sample. The regression results indicate that smaller and more complex banks faced higher SOA audit unit costs as did banks that reported ineffective internal controls. The regression model controls for auditor type and delayed SOA reporting and indicates that banks paid higher SOA audit unit costs if they used Big 4 auditors and if they delayed their SOA reporting.</description><subject>Audit engagements</subject><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Banks</subject><subject>Financial reporting</subject><subject>Internal controls</subject><subject>Professional fees</subject><subject>Public Company Accounting Reform & Investor Protection Act 2002-US</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0894-3958</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNpjYeA0sLA00TW2NLXgYOAqLs4yMDA0NrY05GQwC_Z3VHAsKUktLkksyczPs1IIz0gsUXAsSlUoyUhV8MzLLMlMzFFwzi8uKVZIyy9ScErMyy6252FgTUvMKU7lhdLcDIpuriHOHroFRfmFpUDD4otSC_KLSorjjQxNDYzMTc0sjIlRAwD4xTI9</recordid><startdate>20051201</startdate><enddate>20051201</enddate><creator>Eldridge, Susan W</creator><creator>Kealey, Burch T</creator><general>CCH INCORPORATED</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>20051201</creationdate><title>SOA Attestation: What Are the Initial Costs for Banks?</title><author>Eldridge, Susan W ; Kealey, Burch T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_2150275683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Audit engagements</topic><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Banks</topic><topic>Financial reporting</topic><topic>Internal controls</topic><topic>Professional fees</topic><topic>Public Company Accounting Reform & Investor Protection Act 2002-US</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Eldridge, Susan W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kealey, Burch T</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Bank Accounting & Finance</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Eldridge, Susan W</au><au>Kealey, Burch T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>SOA Attestation: What Are the Initial Costs for Banks?</atitle><jtitle>Bank Accounting & Finance</jtitle><date>2005-12-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>3</spage><pages>3-</pages><issn>0894-3958</issn><abstract>A recent study examined the audit fees for a sample of Fortune 1000 firms and found that the average audit fee increase and average percentage increase from 2003 to 2004 for this sample were $2.3 million and 103%, respectively. It was also found that SOA audit rates varied by firm size, existence of material weaknesses, asset growth and industry. The average SOA audit rate of $0.13 for financial services firms was low compared to the average rate of $0.49 for the full sample. The regression results indicate that smaller and more complex banks faced higher SOA audit unit costs as did banks that reported ineffective internal controls. The regression model controls for auditor type and delayed SOA reporting and indicates that banks paid higher SOA audit unit costs if they used Big 4 auditors and if they delayed their SOA reporting.</abstract><cop>Riverwoods</cop><pub>CCH INCORPORATED</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0894-3958 |
| ispartof | Bank Accounting & Finance, 2005-12, Vol.19 (1), p.3 |
| issn | 0894-3958 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_215027568 |
| source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
| subjects | Audit engagements Audits Banks Financial reporting Internal controls Professional fees Public Company Accounting Reform & Investor Protection Act 2002-US Regression analysis Studies |
| title | SOA Attestation: What Are the Initial Costs for Banks? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T04%3A13%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=SOA%20Attestation:%20What%20Are%20the%20Initial%20Costs%20for%20Banks?&rft.jtitle=Bank%20Accounting%20&%20Finance&rft.au=Eldridge,%20Susan%20W&rft.date=2005-12-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=3&rft.pages=3-&rft.issn=0894-3958&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E943899821%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=215027568&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |