پارس پروژه پرتال خدمات دانشگاهی
این مقاله علمی ترویجی (ISI) به زبان انگلیسی از نشریه اسپرینگر مربوط به سال ۲۰۲۱ دارای ۳۵ صفحه انگلیسی با فرمت PDF می باشد در ادامه این صفحه لینک دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی و بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله موجود می باشد.
کد محصول: H705
سال نشر: ۲۰۲۱
نام ناشر (پایگاه داده): اسپرینگر
نام مجله: Management Review Quarterly
نوع مقاله: مروری (Review articles)
تعداد صفحه انگلیسی: ۳۵ صفحه PDF
عنوان کامل فارسی:
مقاله انگلیسی ۲۰۲۱ : هزینه ها چطور محاسبه می شوند؟ شواهد تجربی از مرور ادبی سیستماتیک عوامل تعیین کننده حق الزحمه حسابرسی
عنوان کامل انگلیسی:
What is it going to cost? Empirical evidence from a systematic literature review of audit fee determinants
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی بر روی دکمه ذیل کلیک نمایید
وضعیت ترجمه: این مقاله تاکنون ترجمه نشده برای سفارش ترجمه ی مقاله بر روی دکمه ذیل کلیک نمایید (کد مقاله:H705)
مقالات مرتبط با این موضوع: برای مشاهده سایر مقالات مرتبط با این موضوع (با ترجمه و بدون ترجمه) بر روی دکمه ذیل کلیک نمایید
Abstract
The audit market is subject to ongoing regulation to ensure or improve the quality of audit services. For this reason, international research on the audit market is highly popular. As part of this discussion, pricing is considered one of the most relevant aspects of audits. However, a remarkable heterogeneity of the control variables used in empirical studies can be observed. Prior meta-analyses on audit fees already summarized and categorized them for audit fee studies covering financial periods until fiscal year 2007. We contribute to the international literature with an up-to date and systematic review approach on audit fee studies published in international relevant scientific journals (JQ3 A + , A, B). In addition to prior reviews and meta-analyses, we finally suggest a standard model for the most important fee drivers that can be used for future audit fee studies. Our unique approach is based on an EBSCO keyword search with a sample of 385 papers published in international relevant scientific journals (JQ3 A + , A, B) and is using a scoring model to assess significance of audit fee control variables. On the one hand, we enrich the literature by a new state of the art paper on pricing within audit firms. On the other hand, we contribute to the international literature on audit markets from a theoretical point of view by deriving a new testable model of audit fee determinants. Therefore, our empirical results provide several fundamental insights that can be used for further empirical and theoretical research on the pricing of audit services. Thus, the results are meaningful not only for researchers within the field of auditing but also for experts in management, pricing or European legislature.
Keywords: Audit fees · Audit pricing · Auditing · Auditor tenure
۱.Introduction
The recent financial, public debt and economic crises shook the capital markets more than ten years ago (see, e.g., Fahlenbach et al. 2012). In the eyes of the European Commission, the auditing profession played a prominent role in fueling rather than preventing economic dislocations (European Commission 2011). In particular, long-term audit engagements were criticized by the media, the public and policy makers (Quick 2004). Potentially influenced by the negative experiences from the Enron case (e.g., Culpan and Trussel 2005), it was argued that the auditor becomes increasingly blind to shortcomings in company processes the longer he or she is in charge of his client, which can be explained by DeAngelo (1981). The EU Commission took this as an opportunity to publish a specific green paper in 2010. According to the title “Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis” (European Commission 2010), it appears prima facie quite clear that a political change was expected that would affect the profession and the whole structure of the audit market (e.g., Humphrey et al. 2011). That supranational initiative applied to the entire European economic area. The representatives from Brussels were starting an extensive discussion concerning the improvement of audit quality. However, it took almost 4 years until the legal decisions were agreed to on 16th June 2014, by EU Regulation No. 537/2014 and Directive 2014/56/EU (European Parliament 2014a, b). Among the changes that were introduced by these reforms (Humphrey et al. 2011), the most significant one addresses limiting the maximum duration of the auditor–client relationship (Weber et al. 2016, pp. 660–۶۶۱)…
۵.Concluding remarks
Like any empirical study, our analysis has some limitations. There are limitations with respect to the collection and evaluation of the data. With regard to data collection, it must be taken into account that we applied a keyword search with only one word. We did this because from our point of view, the marginal utility of an advanced search was considered low. Nevertheless, it is conceivable some relevant studies were not analyzed. Furthermore, it is possible that relevant studies were not examined due to the focus on VHB-JQ3 ranked A + -, A- and B-journals. With regard to data evaluation, it should be noted that each study uses slightly modified control variables and defines them differently. We did not perform aggregation and instead decided not to report variables that were used fewer than five times. However, we are aware that other variables can also have a high explanatory value, such as shareholder structure (Cassel et al. 2018) or the effect of ongoing digitalization. Furthermore, we did not check the comparability of the studies per se (legal background, country specific), and we cannot give a statement about the influence strength of different parameters…
| مقالات مرتبط با این موضوع |