|
Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
New York, USA
Processing request.
|
Illinois, USA
Processing request.
|
Brussels, Belgium
Processing request.
|
Seoul, Korea
Processing request.
|
California, USA
Processing request.
|
If you have any problems downloading this paper, please click on another Download Location above, or
File name: SSRN-id1943124. ; Size: 287K
|
|
Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions
Marshall A. Geiger University of Richmond - E. Claiborne Robins School of Business - Economics
Allen D. Blay Florida State University
October 12, 2011
Abstract:
In this study we examine the association between audit service fees and non-audit service (NAS) fees and the auditor’s final decision regarding the type of opinion to render to a financially distressed client. Along with examining current fee levels and reporting decisions we also test the DeAngelo (1981) auditor independence model by examining the association between future fee receipts and current reporting decisions. Using data from the post-SOX reporting period of 2004-2006 and a stringent control sample, we find that the magnitude of NAS fees received in the current year is negatively related to the likelihood of the auditor modifying the audit opinion for going-concern uncertainty. We also find that current going-concern modification decisions are negatively related to total fees received by auditors in subsequent years. Our findings suggest that concerns over the relation between auditor fees and the possible impairment of auditor independence, as reflected in going-concern modification decisions, are supported in the more recent years for highly distressed clients.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 53
Keywords: going-concern, auditor reporting, auditor independence, NAS fees
JEL Classification: M4
working papers series
Download This Paper
Date posted: October 13, 2011
Suggested CitationGeiger, Marshall A. and Blay, Allen D., Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions (October 12, 2011). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1943124 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1943124
|
| Feedback to SSRN (Beta) |
|
|
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1.
Does Audit Market Concentration Harm the Quality of Audited Earnings? Evidence from Audit Markets in 42 Countries
By
Jere Francis,
Paul Michas, ...
2.
The Effects of Auditor Rotation, Professional Skepticism, and Interactions with Managers on Audit Quality
By
Kendall Bowlin,
Jessen Hobson, ...
3.
Audit Quality and Auditor Reputation: Evidence from Japan
By
Douglas Skinner
and
Suraj Srinivasan
4.
Non‐Audit Fees and Auditor Independence: New Evidence Based on Going Concern Opinions for U.S. Companies Under Stress
By
Paul Griffin
and
David Lont
5.
Triennially Inspected Audit Firms that Fail to Address PCAOB Quality Control Criticisms Satisfactorily: Do Quality Control Criticisms Really Matter?
By
William Buslepp
and
Lisa Victoravich
6.
Audit Quality: The Role of Board Structure in Family Firms
By
Mervi Niskanen,
Jukka Karjalainen, ...
7.
Auditor Reporting Under Section 404: The Association between the Internal Control and Going Concern Audit Opinions
By
Beng Wee Goh,
Jayanthi Krishnan, ...
8.
Can Accruals Quality Explain Auditors' Decision Making? The Impact of Accruals Quality on Audit Fees, Going Concern Opinions and Auditor Change
By
Partha Sengupta
and
Min Shen
9.
Fee Pressure and Audit Quality
By
Michael Ettredge,
Chan Li, ...
10.
Going-concern Opinions in Failing Companies: Auditor Dependence and Opinion Shopping
By
Clive Lennox
|
|
|
|