بررسی رابطه انحصار بازار حسابرسی با حق الزحمه و کیفیت حسابرسی با در نظر گرفتن ماده 99 قانون برنامه پنجم توسعه

غلامی گیفان, سعیده; بذرافشان, آمنه; صالحی, مهدی

doi:10.22051/jera.2017.15728.1686

بررسی رابطه انحصار بازار حسابرسی با حق الزحمه و کیفیت حسابرسی با در نظر گرفتن ماده 99 قانون برنامه پنجم توسعه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اداری، دانشگاه بین المللی امام رضا (ع)، مشهد، ایران،

² استادیار گروه حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اداری، دانشگاه بین المللی امام رضا (ع)، مشهد، ایران،

³ دانشیار گروه حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصادی، دانشگاه فردوسی، مشهد، ایران

10.22051/jera.2017.15728.1686

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر به بررسی رابطه انحصار بازار حسابرسی با حق الزحمه حسابرس و کیفیت حسابرسی میپردازد. در این راستا، تعداد 91 شرکت پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران در بازه زمانی 10 ساله طی سالهای 1385-1394 بررسی شده است. جهت آزمون فرضیه اول و سوم از مدل رگرسیون پانلی و برای انتخاب بین مدلهای ترکیبی، آثار ثابت و آثار تصادفی از آزمون چاو و هاسمن استفاده شده است. جهت آزمون فرضیه دوم و چهارم از رگرسیون لجستیک پانلی، و برای انتخاب مدل رگرسیونی لوجستیک مناسب از آماره AIC بهره برده شده است. نتایج حاصل از پژوهش نشان میدهد که بین انحصار بازار حسابرسی با حق الزحمه حسابرسی یک رابطه مثبت و معنادار وجود دارد. درحالیکه رابطه معناداری بین انحصار بازار حسابرسی و کیفیت حسابرسی مشاهده نشد. بعلاوه یافتهها حاکی از آن است که علیرغم آنکه بعد از تصویب ماده 99 قانون برنامه پنجم توسعه، میزان انحصار افزایش یافته بااینوجود تصویب این قانون تأثیری بر رابطه میان انحصار بازار حسابرسی و حق الزحمه حسابرس و نیز رابطه میان انحصار بازار حسابرسی و کیفیت حسابرسی نداشته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

حسابرسی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Relation of Audit Market Concentration to Audit Fees and Audit Quality according to Article 99 of Fifth Development Plan Law

نویسندگان [English]

saeedeh gholami gifan ¹
ameneh bazrafshan ²
Mahdi Salehi ³

¹ MSc. Student of Accounting, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

² Assistant Prof. of Accounting, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

³ Associate Prof. of Accounting, Faculty of Administrative and Economics Sciences, Ferdosi University, Mashhad, Iran

چکیده [English]

The study is aimed to investigate the relation of audit market concentration to audit fee and audit quality. The sample consists of 91 firms listed in Tehran Stock Exchange for a period of 10 years from 2004 to 2014. The study uses panel regression model to test the first and third hypotheses and employs Chao and Hausman tests to select among hybrid, fixed effects and random effects models. Also it uses Panel logistic regression model to test the second and fourth hypotheses and applies AIC statistic to choose the appropriate logistic regression model. Results indicate that there is a significant positive relation between audit market concentration and audit fee, while there is no significant relation between audit market concentration and audit quality. In addition, findings indicate that despite of increases in market concentration after approval of Article 99 of the Fifth Development Plan, this approval has no effects on the relation of the audit market concentration to auditor fees and quality audit.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

audit fee
audit quality
audit market concentration
article 99 of law for fifth development plan

مراجع

مدرس، احمد؛ ابراهیمی، حسین و عزیزخانی، محسن. (1395). حفاظهای موثر بر استقلال حسابرس در برابر تهدید صاحبکار به جایگزینی وی، پژوهشهای تجربی حسابداری: 5 (3)، 155-180.

Asthana, S. C. , and Boone, J. P. (2012). Abnormal audit fee and audit quality, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory: 31 (3). 1-22.

Chan, K. H. , and Wu, D. (2011). Aggregate quasi rents and auditor independence: Evidence from Audit firm mergers in China, Contemporary Accounting Research: 28 (1). 175-213.

Chen, S. , Sun, S. Y. J. and Wu, D. (2010). Client importance, institutional improvements, and audit quality in China: An office and individual auditor level analysis, The Accounting Review: 85 (1). 127-159.

Chi, W. (2006). The effect of the Enron-Andersen affair on audit pricing, The ICFAI Journal of Audit Practice: 3 (2). 35-59.

Craswell, A. Stokes, D. J. and Laughton, J. (2002). Auditor independence and fee dependence, Journal of Accounting and Economics: 33. 253- 275.

Danos, P. and Eichenseher, J. W. (1986). Long-term trends toward seller concentration in the U. S. audit market, The Accounting Review: 61 (4). 633-650.

DeFond, M. , Wong, T. J. and Li, S. (2000). The impact of improved auditor independence on audit market concentration in China, Journal of Accounting and Economics: 28 (3). 269-305.

Dunn, K. ; A. Mayhew, B. W. and Morsfield, S. G. (2000). Auditor industry specialization and client disclosure quality, Contemporary Accounting Researsh: 17. 183- 198.

Firth, M. , Mo, P. L. L. and Wong, R. M. K. (2012). Auditors’ organizational form, legal liability, and reporting conservatism: Evidence from China, Contemporary Accounting Research: 29 (1). 57-93.

Francis, J. R. ; Michas, P. N. and Seavey, S. E. (2013). Does audit market concentration harm the quality of audited earnings? Evidence from audit markets in 42 countries, Contemporary Accounting Research: 30 (1). 325-355.

Gettler, L. (2004). PwC exits NAB audit race, but stays close. The Age, June5. Available online at: http: //www. theage. com. au/articles/2004/06/04/1086203633877. html.

Government Accountability Office. (2008). Audits of public companies: continued concentration in audit market for large public.

Herrbach, O. (2001). Audit quality, auditor behaviour and the psychological contract, The European Accounting Review: 10 (4). 787-802.

Hoitash, R. Markelevich, A. J. and Barragato, C. A. (2007). Auditor Fees and Audit Quality. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22, Available at SSRN: http: //ssrn. com/abstract=1025904.

Huang, T. C. ; Chang, H. and Chiou, J. (2015). Audit market concentration, audit fees, and audit quality: evidence from china.. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory: 35 ( 2). 121-145.

Kallapur, S. ; Sankaraguruswamy, S. and Zang, Y. (2010). Audit market concentration and audit quality. Working paper, Indian School of Business, National University of Singapore, and Singapore Management University.

Mayhew, B. W. ; and Wilkins, M. S.. (2003). Audit firm industry specialization as a differentiation strategy: Evidence from fees charged to firms going public, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory: 22 (2). 33-52.

Modares, Ahmad; Ebrahimi, Hossein and azizkhani, Mohsen. (2016). Safeguards to auditor independence against the displacement threat of clients, Journal of Empirical Researches in Accounting: 5 (3). 155-180. (in Persian).

Newton, N. J. ; Wang, D. and Wilkins, M. S. (2013). Does a lack of choice lead to lower quality? Evidence from auditor competition and client restatements, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory: 32 (3). 31-67.

Numan, W. and Willekens, M. (2012). An empirical test of spatial competition in the audit market, Journal of Accounting and Economics: 53 (1-2). 450-465.

Oxera, (2006). Competition and choice in the U. K. audit market: Prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry and Financial Reporting Council. Oxera Consulting, Oxford, UK.

Pearson, T. and Trompeter, G. (1994). Competition in the market for audit services: The effect of supplier concentration on audit fees, Contemporary Accounting Research: 11 (1). 115-135.

Pratt, J. and Stice, J. D. (1994). The effect of client characteristics on auditor litigation risk adjustments, required audit evidence, and recommended audit fees, The Accounting Review: 69. 639- 656.

United States Treasury. (2008). Advisory committee on the auditing profession: Final report, October 6.

Wang, Q. ; Wong, T. J. and Xia, L. J. (2008). State ownership, institutional environment and auditor choice: Evidence from China, Journal of Accounting and Economics: 46 (1). 112- 134.