审计费用的公开披露与委托人与审计师的议价能力——来自中国的证据☆

Xijia Su , Xi Wu
{"title":"审计费用的公开披露与委托人与审计师的议价能力——来自中国的证据☆","authors":"Xijia Su ,&nbsp;Xi Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.intacc.2017.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Before the public disclosure of audit fees was mandated, it was unlikely for an audit client to have accurate information about how much other companies were charged by their auditors. Public fee disclosure decreases the cost of auditees' access to audit fee information for the auditor's portfolio of clients and is thus likely to increase the relative bargaining power of auditees over auditors when they negotiate audit fees. Using both proprietary and public audit fee data before and after public fee disclosure was mandated in China, we provide evidence consistent with the preceding conjecture. We find that public fee disclosure reinforces the magnitude of audit fee decreases for overcharged clients and weakens auditors' ability to raise audit fees for undercharged clients. These findings suggest the existence of unintended consequences of public fee disclosure regulation, the original rationale of which was a concern about audit pricing practices that could undermine auditor independence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101232,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Accounting","volume":"52 1","pages":"Pages 64-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.intacc.2017.01.001","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Disclosure of Audit Fees and Bargaining Power between the Client and Auditor: Evidence from China\",\"authors\":\"Xijia Su ,&nbsp;Xi Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.intacc.2017.01.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Before the public disclosure of audit fees was mandated, it was unlikely for an audit client to have accurate information about how much other companies were charged by their auditors. Public fee disclosure decreases the cost of auditees' access to audit fee information for the auditor's portfolio of clients and is thus likely to increase the relative bargaining power of auditees over auditors when they negotiate audit fees. Using both proprietary and public audit fee data before and after public fee disclosure was mandated in China, we provide evidence consistent with the preceding conjecture. We find that public fee disclosure reinforces the magnitude of audit fee decreases for overcharged clients and weakens auditors' ability to raise audit fees for undercharged clients. These findings suggest the existence of unintended consequences of public fee disclosure regulation, the original rationale of which was a concern about audit pricing practices that could undermine auditor independence.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Journal of Accounting\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 64-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.intacc.2017.01.001\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Journal of Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020706317300183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020706317300183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

在强制要求公开披露审计费用之前,审计客户不太可能获得审计机构向其他公司收取多少费用的准确信息。公开费用披露降低了被审计单位获取审计费用信息的成本,从而可能增加被审计单位在协商审计费用时相对于注册会计师的议价能力。利用中国强制要求公开费用披露之前和之后的专有和公共审计费用数据,我们提供了与上述猜想一致的证据。我们发现,公开收费披露强化了收费过高客户的审计费用下降幅度,削弱了审计师对收费过低客户提高审计费用的能力。这些发现表明,公共费用披露监管存在意想不到的后果,其最初的理由是担心审计定价做法可能损害审计师的独立性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Public Disclosure of Audit Fees and Bargaining Power between the Client and Auditor: Evidence from China

Before the public disclosure of audit fees was mandated, it was unlikely for an audit client to have accurate information about how much other companies were charged by their auditors. Public fee disclosure decreases the cost of auditees' access to audit fee information for the auditor's portfolio of clients and is thus likely to increase the relative bargaining power of auditees over auditors when they negotiate audit fees. Using both proprietary and public audit fee data before and after public fee disclosure was mandated in China, we provide evidence consistent with the preceding conjecture. We find that public fee disclosure reinforces the magnitude of audit fee decreases for overcharged clients and weakens auditors' ability to raise audit fees for undercharged clients. These findings suggest the existence of unintended consequences of public fee disclosure regulation, the original rationale of which was a concern about audit pricing practices that could undermine auditor independence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Integrated Reporting and the Informativeness of Financial Analysts’ Stock Recommendations Climate-Related Financial Risk: Insights from a Semisystematic Review of the Literature and Implications for Financial Reporting Informal Institutions and Audit Pricing: Cross-Country Evidence of National Culture and Audit Fees Discussion of “Climate-Related Financial Risk: Insights from a Semisystematic Review of the Literature and Implications for Financial Reporting” Choice of Participation Method in Setting International Accounting Standards: Evidence from EFRAG as an Intermediary for Indirect Participation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1