Audit Fee: Early Evidence about the Role of Some Omitted Variables

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D Candidate of Accounting, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Finance, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor of Accounting, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.

10.22103/jak.2021.17928.3536

Abstract

Objective: Audit pricing is one of the most critical issues for practitioners and regulators. In Iran, the report of Admission and Supervision Committee of the Trusted Audit Firms of Securities and Exchange Organization in 2009 raised serious concerns about the low audit fees to carry out audit services. "In spite of the actions taken by Iranian Institute of Certified Public Accountants (IACPA), competition to keep engagement with the client firms sometimes leads to fee discounting by the auditors, has raised a confusing problem with certain detrimental effects." However, audit fee studies in Iran are only the replication of foreign research about audit fees. In addition, empirical research of audit fees in Iran suffers from several methodological issues, including omitted correlated variable bias, overlooked environmental circumstances and endogenity issues raised from sample selection bias. This paper attempts to solve these problems and tests the potential role of several environmental variables, such as determining audit fees before starting audit project. In addition, another driver to study this issue is developing the audit fee model for Iranian context as a significant issue for researchers, practitioners and regulators.
 
Hypotheses: Eierle et al. (2021) as the latest review study about the factors influencing the audit fee show the importance of examining the external environment in forming a comprehensive picture of the audit fee framework and understanding global and regional differences. Accordingly, this paper examined the role of two specific variables in the Iranian environment in determining the audit fee and the role of a variable that less attention has been paid to it. In Iran, the audit contract is signed with a determined fee prior to starting the audit project (MohammadRezaei and Faraji, 2019). However, "escape" clauses are usually included in the contract allowing the auditor to perform additional work and receive overtime payments in an unobservable situation, including the going concern issues or other factors affecting the audit risk (Palmrose, 1987: Hassanzadeh Baradaran et al., 2015). In other words, one of the essential factor in determining the audit fees of current year is the audit fees of last year, not the actual audit hours (effort) of current year. In addition, determining the audit fee before starting of the audit project raises the question of whether the current year's fee is more in line with the current characteristics of the client firm or with the last year's characteristics of the client. It is important to note that what information the auditor has about the client when determining the fee? Clearly, when the audit fee is determined, the financial statements of the client firm is not available for current year. The auditor has more access to the information of the last year's audited financial statements and the last year's audit report. Finally, we used the ‘bundle pricing strategy’ in marketing (loyd, 2016) to predict the possible relationship between the role of mid-term audit fees and end-of-period audit fees. Consistent with the bundle pricing view, it can be argued that auditors may consider the mid-term and end-of-term fees as a single bundle pricing to reap the benefits.
 Method: 1029 firm-year observations were collected from companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange for seven years, from 2011 to 2017. Two regression models are estimated using ordinary least squares and generalized method of moments to examine research hypotheses.
 Findings: The findings reveal that the audit fee of the last year is used as an essential basis for determining the audit fee of the current year. This is the case, because in Iran the audit fee is determined before starting audit project. Such a finding is also supported by both the ordinary least squares model and the generalized method of moments. In addition, the findings show that the current year's audit fee is associated with some characteristics of the client firm and the audit project in last year. Despite determining the audit fee prior to the audit project starting and the availability of the client characteristics and the audit project of the last year at the time of determining the current year’s fee, after the completing the audit project of current year, the auditors are able to adjust their audit fee by amending the contract. The results also showed that the interim audit fee is negatively correlated with the end-of-term audit fee. Such a finding provides very original evidence consistent with the bundle pricing perspective.
 Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that the factors affecting the audit fee in the Iranian audit market are different from what prior research were documented at the international era. Such evidence suggests that both legislators and researchers should consider the environmental factors in legislation and audit fee studies. In addition, it is suggested that small audit firms and the audit firms without specific guidelines for determining audit fees use the model presented in this study because only last year's fee is not the basis in determining the current year's audit fee. In addition, since last year's fee affects the current year's audit fee, it is suggested that audit fee contracts be set flexibly between the audit firm and the client. Finally, given that the importance of bundling pricing approach in a competitive audit market, it is suggested that audit firms consider mid-term and end-of-term fees as a bundle. In this case, the auditors can consider a discount for each of the mid-term or end-of-term fees, depending on the circumstances, in order to obtain the client's consent and keep the job.

Keywords

References

برادران حسن‌زاده، رسول؛ تلخابی، فاطمه؛ قجر بیگی، مهسا (1394). مروری بر عوامل مؤثر بر تعیین حق‌الزحمه حسابرسی صورت‌های مالی. فصلنامه حسابداری رسمی، 32، 100-89.
بزرگ اصل، موسی (1389). کیفیت حسابرسی و حق‌الزحمه. مجله دنیای اقتصاد. دوره فروردین ، 18-17.
حساس‌یگانه، یحیی؛ برزیده، فرخ؛ تقوی‌فرد، محمد تقی؛ فرهمندی، محمد (1396). بررسی تأثیر گردش اجباری مؤسسه‌های حسابرسی بر حق‌الزحمه حسابرسی و رقابت بازار حسابرسی. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 23(3) ،352-333.
پورزندی، محمد ابراهیم؛ هاشمی نژاد، سید محمد؛ گودرزی، ندا (1393). تکنیک‌های قیمت‌گذاری در بازار، تهران، انتشارات بورس.
زلقی، حسن، سالار سیفی؛ لاله؛ مینایی تبریزی، فاطمه‌سادات (1399). تأثیر توانایی مدیریت و ساز و کارهای حاکمیت شرکتی بر رابطه بین بیش اعتمادی مدیریتی و حق‌الزحمه حسابرسی. دانش حسابداری مالی، 7(3)، 110-85.
صدرائی، غزل‌السادات؛ محمدرضایی، فخرالدین؛ غلامی جمکرانی، رضا؛فرجی، امید (1400). تدوین الگو حق‌الزحمه حسابرسی در ایران: شواهد اولیه مبتنی بر روندهای ترتیبی روش ترکیبی. مجله پیشرفت‌های حسابداری، 13(1)، 224-191.
صهبای قرقی، المیرا؛ لاری دشت بیاض، محمود ؛ فکور ثقیه، امیر محمد (1398). گزارش حسابرس و حق‌الزحمه حسابرسی: نقش راهبردهای کسب و کار. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 26(4)، 543-517.
کردستانی، غلامرضا؛ رضازاده، جواد؛کاظمی علوم، مهدی؛ عبدی، مصطفی (1397). بررسی تأثیر تمرکز بازار حسابرسی بر حق‌الزحمه و کیفیت. پژوهش‌های حسابداری مالی، 10(2)، 84-65.
محمدرضایی، فخر الدین؛ فرجی، امید (1398). معمای سنجش کیفیت حسابرسی در پژوهش‌های آرشیوی: نقد و ارائه پیشنهادهایی برای محیط پژوهشی ایران. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 26(1)، 122-87.
مرادی، محمد؛ محقق، فاطمه (1396). رقابت بازار محصول بر حق‌الزحمه: با تأکید بر نقش حاکمیت شرکتی. پژوهش‌های تجربی حسابداری، 7(2)، 52-33.
منصوری، فردین، سعیدی گراغانی، مسلم؛ اسدی دوبانی، ناهید (1396). بررسی تأثیر تجدید ارزیابی دارایی‌ها بر حق‌الزحمه حسابرسی. مجله دانش حسابداری، 8(4)، 159-141.
نیکبخت، محمدرضا؛ تنانی، محسن (1389). آزمون عوامل مؤثر بر حق‌الزحمه حسابرسی صورت‌های مالی. مجله پژوهش‌های حسابداری مالی، 4، 132-111.
هوانسیان فر، گاروو (1389). حسابرسی با حق‌الزحمه بسیار پایین. دنیای اقتصادی، 14 اسفندماه، 13-14.
Refrences
Akono, H., Stein, M. (2014). Estimating audit fees and production models. In Hay, D., Knechel, W. R., & Willekens, M. (Ed.). The Routledge Companion to Auditing, New York, Routledge.386 pages.
Averhals, L., Caneghem, T.V., Willekens, M. (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, 40, 1-21.
Balsam, S., Krishnan, J., Yang, J.S. (2003). Audirot industry specialization and earning quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22-2, 71-97.
Baradaran Hassanzadeh, R., Talkhabi, F., Gajar-Beigi, M. (2016). Review of audit fees’ determinants. CPA Journal, 32, 89-100 [In Persian].
Bell, T.B., Doogar, R., Solomon, I. (2008). Audit labor usage and fees under business risk auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(4), 729–760.
Blokdijk, H., Drieenhuizen, F., Simunic, D.A., Stein. M.T. (2006). An Analysis of Cross-sectional in Big and Non-Big Public Accounting Firms’ Programs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 25(1), 27-48.
Bierstaker, J.L., Wright. A. (2001). The effects of fee pressure and partner pressure on audit planning decision. Advances in Accounting, 18, 25-46.
Bozorgasl, M. (2012). Audit quality and audit fee. Donya-e-Eqtesad, 5 March, 17-18 [In Persian].
Cahan, S.F., Sun, J. (2015).The effect of audit experience on audit fees and audit quality. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 30(1), 78-100.
Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, R.H., McGrath. N.T. (1992). Audit quality attributes: The perceptions of audit partners, preparers, and financial statement users. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 11(1), 1–15.
Cho, M., Kwon, S.Y., Krishnan, G.V. (2020). Audit fee lowballing: Determinants, recovery, and future audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 40(4), 1-24.
Craswell, A.T., Francis, J.R., Taylor, S.L. (1995). Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20, 297–322.
Davis, L.R., Ricchiute, D.N., Trompeter. G. (1993). Audit effort, audit fees, and the provision of nonaudit services to audit clients. The Accounting Review, 68(1), 135–150.
DeAngelo, L. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3, 297−322.
DeFond, M.L., Wong, T.J., Li, S.H. (2000). The impact of improved auditor independence on audit market concentration in China. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 28, 269–305.
Dopuch, N., King, R.R., Schwartz.R. (2001). An experimental investigation of retention & rotation requirements. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(1), 93-117.
Ding, R., Jia, Y. (2012). Auditor mergers, audit quality and audit fees: Evidence from the PricewaterhouseCoopers merger in the UK. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(1), 69-85.
Eierle, B., Hartlieb, S., Hay, D., Niemi, L., Ojala, H. (2021). External environment and the pricing of audit services: A systematic review of archival literature (March 31, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract= 3816385 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3816385.
Evans, J., Feng, M., Hoffman, V., Moser, D., Van, W. (2015). Points to consider when self-assessing your empirical accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), 1162-1204.
Francis, J. (1984). The effect of audit firm size on audit prices: a study of the Australian market. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 6(1), 133-151.
Francis, J.R., Stokes, D.J. (1986). Audit prices, product differentiation, and scale economies: Further evidence from the Australian market. Journal of Accounting Research, 24, 383-393.
Gunn, J.L., Kawada, B.S., Michas, P.N. (2019). Audit market concentration, audit fees, and audit quality: A cross-country analysis of complex audit clients. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 38(6), 106693.
Habib, A., Gong, R., Hossain, M. (2013). Overvalued equities and audit fees: A research note. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28(8), 755-776.
Hassas Yeganeh, Y., Barzideh, F., Taghavifard, M., Farahmand Seyed Abadi, M. (2016). Investigating the impact of mandatory audit firm rotation on audit fee and audit market competition. Accounting and Auditing Review, 23(3), 333-352 [In Persian].
Hay, D., Knechel, R., Wong, N. (2006). Audit fees: A meta-analysis of the effect of supply and demand attributes. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23, 141-91.
Hay, D. (2013). Further evidence from meta-analysis of audit fee research. Internatioanl Journal of Auditing, 17(2), 162-176.
Heninger, W.G. (2001). The association between auditor litigation and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review, 76(1), 111-126.
Hovansian Far, G. (2010b). Auditing with very low audit fee. Donya-e-Eqtesad, 4 April, 13-14 [In Persian].
Ireland, J.C., Lennox. C.S. (2002). The large audit fee premium: A case of selectivity bias. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 17(1), 73–91.
Knechel, W.R., Vanstraelen, A. (2007). The relationship between auditor tenure and audit quality implied by going concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 26, 113–131.
Kim, J., Liu, X., Zheng, L. (2012). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on audit fees: Theory and evidence. The Accounting Review, 87(6), 2061-2094.
Kordestani, G., Rezazadeh, J., Kazemi Olum, M., Abdi, M. (2018). The investigation of audit market concentration impact on audit fees and audit quality. Journal of Financial Accounting Research, 10(2), 65-84 [In Persian].
Loyd, C.S. (2016). Advantages of product bundle sales. The leading business magazine for HME.
Malekian, M. (2000). Investigating the effects of the issues raised in the audit report on the financial decesions of business units. Mater Thesis, Tehran Universit, Managmet Faculty [In Persian].
Mansouri, F., Saeidi Goraghani, M., Asadi Dobani, N. (2018). The effect of revaluation of assets on audit fees. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 8(4), 141-159 [In Persian].
Mashayekhi, B., Mashayekh, Sh. (2008). Developing accounting in Iran. International Journal of Accounting, 43(1), 66-86.
MohammadRezaei, F., Mohd-Saleh, N., Ahmed, K. (2018). Audit firm ranking, Audit quality and Audit fees: Examining conflicting price discrimination views. International Journal of Accounting, 54(4), 1-19.
MohammadRezaei, F., Faraji, O. (2019). The Dilemma of audit quality measuring in archival studies: Critiques and suggestions for Iran’s research setting. Accounting and Auditing Review, 26(1), 87-122 [In Persian].
Moradi, M., mohaghegh, F. (2018). Corporate governance and the relation between product market competition and audit fees. Empirical Research in Accounting, 7(4), 33-52 [In Persian].
Ng, H.Y., Tronnes, P.C., Wong, L. (2018). Audit seasonality and pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 40, 16-28.
Nikbakht, M., Tanani, M. (2010). Test of factors influencing financial audit fees. Journal of Financial Accounting Research, 2(2), 111-132 [In Persian].
Newton, G.W. (1998). Bankruptcy Insolvency Accounting Practice and Procedure 1: Wiley, pp21. 41.
O'keef, T.B., King, R.D., Gaver, K.M. (1994). Audit fees, industry, specialization and compliance with GAAS reporting standards. Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 13(2), 41-55.
Palmrose, Z.V. (1987). Litigation and independent auditors; the role of business failures and management fraud. Auditing: A journal of Practice and Theory, 6, 90-102.
Pearson, T., Trompeter, G. (1994). Competition in the market for audit services: The effect of supplier concentration on audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(1), 91–114.
Pourzandi, M.E., Hasheminejad, SM., Goodarzi, N. (2014). Pricing techniques in market. Tehran, Exchange Publications [In Persian].
Sadraei, G.S., MohammadRezaei, F., Gholamo-Jamkarani, R., Faraji, O. (2021). Audit fee model in Iran: Early evidence from a mixed method. Journal of Accounting Advances, 13(1), 191-224 [In Persian].
Sahbay Ghorghi, E., Lari Dashtebayazi, M., Fakoor Saghih, A. (2020). Auditor reporting and audit fees: The role of business strategies. Accounting and Auditing Review, 26(4), 517-543 [In Persian].
Simon, D.T. (1985). The audit services market: Additional empirical evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 5(1), 71–78.
Simunic, D., Stein, M. (1996). The impact of litigation risk on audit pricing: a review of the economics & the evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 15, 134-199.
Simunic, D. (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 161-190
Su, X., Wu, X. (2017). Public disclosure of audit fees and bargaining power between the client and auditor: Evidence from China. The International Journal of Accounting, 52, 64-76.
Zalaghi, H., Saifi Laleh, S., Minaei Ttabrizi, F. (2020). Effect of management ability and corporate governance mechanisms on the relationship between managerial overconfidence and audit fees. Financial Accounting Knowledge, 7(3), 85-110 [In Persian].

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 July 2021
  • Revise Date: 15 August 2021
  • Accept Date: 26 September 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics