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

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

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.
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 30 May 2017
  • Revise Date: 20 November 2017
  • Accept Date: 11 November 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics