Audit fees for initial audit engagements before and after sox

Auditing

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 171-190

  Huang, Hua Wei ^a   Raghunandan, K ^b   Rama, Dasaratha ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77249115661     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: 15587991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2009.28.1.171     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Banham, R. 2003. Period of adjustment. Journal of Accountancy (February): 43-49.
2. Brown, K. 2002. Auditors' methods make it hard to catch fraud by executives. Wall Street Journal (July 8): C1.
3. Bryan-Low, C. 2003. Accounting firms aim to dispel cloud of corporate fraud. Wall Street Journal (May 27): C1.
4. Byrnes, N. 2003. Reform: Who's making the grade. Business Week (September 22): 86.
5. Craswell, A., and J. Francis. 1999. Pricing of initial audit engagements. The Accounting Review (April): 201-216.
6. Danos, P., and J. Eichenseher. 1986. Long-term trends toward seller concentration in the U.S. audit market. The Accounting Review (October): 633-650.
7. DeAngelo, L. 1981. Auditor independence, 'low balling,' and disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics (August): 113-127.
8. Ernst & Young. 2005. Comments-Securities and Exchange Commission Roundtable on Implementation of Internal Control Reporting Provisions. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
9. Ettredge, M., and R. Greenberg. 1990. Determinants of fee cutting on initial audit engagements. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 198-210.
10. Ferguson, A., C. Lennox, and S. Taylor. 2006. Audit fee rigidities in the presence of market frictions: Evidence and explanations. Paper presented at the Midyear Meeting of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association.
11. Financial Executives Institute (FEI). 2005. Comments of the Committee on Corporate Reporting submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission Roundtable on Implementation of Internal Control Reporting Provisions. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
12. Flanigan, J. 2002. Andersen's pain will strengthen system. Los Angeles Times (March 24): C1.
13. Francis, J., and D. Wang. 2005. Impact of the SEC's public fee disclosure requirement on subsequent period fees and implications for market efficiency. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Supplement): 145-160.
14. Geiger, M., and K. Raghunandan. 2002. Auditor tenure and audit reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (March): 67-78.
15. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2003. Public Accounting Firms: Mandated Study on Consolidation and Competition (GAO-03-864). Washington, D.C.: GAO.
16. Ghosh, A., and S. Lustgarten. 2006. Pricing of initial audit engagements by large and small audit firms. Contemporary Accounting Research (Summer): 333-368.
17. Glater, J. 2002. Audit firms await fallout and windfall. The New York Times (March 14): C1.
18. Gullapalli, D. 2005. Audit fees are on rise as companies pony up. Wall Street Journal (March 25): C3.
19. Healy, P. 2005. The challenges facing auditors and analysts in U.S. capital markets. The Saxe Lecture in Accounting. Delivered at Baruch College, New York, NY, April 4. Available at: http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/DIGITAL/saxe/saxe2005/healy 05.html.
20. Hirsch, J. 2002. Enron audit fee raises some brows. Los Angeles Times (January 23): A1.
21. Huang, H., L. Liu, K. Raghunandan, and D. Rama. 2007. Auditor industry specialization, client bargaining power, and audit fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (May): 147-158.
22. KPMG. 2005. Comments-Roundtable on Implementation of Internal Control Reporting Provisions. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
23. Krantz, M. 2002. With Andersen out, fees may rise. USA Today (June 20): C1.
24. Krishnan, J., and J. Krishnan. 1997. Litigation risk and auditor resignations. The Accounting Review (October): 539-560.
25. Levin, C. 2002. Stock Options Amendment. Congressional Record 107th Congress Second Session. (July 10). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Senate.
26. Plitch, P., and L. Wei. 2004. Auditor-client breakups rise, while disclosure often lags. Wall Street Journal (August 3): C3.
27. Raghunandan, K., and D. Rama. 1999. Auditor resignations and the market for audit services. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 124-134.
28. Raghunandan, K. and D. Rama. 2006. SOX Section 404 material weakness disclosures and audit fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (May): 99-114.
29. Rama, D., and W. Read. 2006. Resignations by the Big 4 and the market for audit services. Accounting Horizons (June): 97-109.
30. Sankaraguruswamy, S. and S. Whisenant. 2005. Pricing initial audit engagements: Empirical evidence following public disclosure of audit fees. Working paper, National University of Singapore.
31. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2000. Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements. Financial Reporting Release No. 56. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
32. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2003. Strengthening the Commission's Requirements Regarding Auditor Independence. Financial Reporting Release No. 68. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
33. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2005. List of Participants and Comments for the SEC Roundtable on Implementation of Internal Control Reporting Provisions. Washington, D.C.: SEC.
34. Shu, S. 2000. Auditor resignations: Clientele effects and legal liability. Journal of Accounting and Economics 29 (April): 173-206.
35. Simon, D., and J. Francis. 1988. The effects of auditor change on audit fees: Tests of price cutting and price recovery. The Accounting Review (April): 255-269.
36. Simunic, D. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 18 (1): 161-190.
37. Simunic, D. 2005. Comments delivered at a panel session of Midyear Meeting of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association, New Orleans, LA.
38. Staw, B. 1976. Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16: 27-44.
39. Staw, B. and J. Ross. 1987. Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. Research in Organizational Behavior 9: 39-78.
40. Turner, L. 2002a. Oversight Hearing on Accounting and Investor Protection Issues Raised by Enron and Other Public Companies. U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. (February 26). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
41. Turner, L. 2002b. Hearings on H.R. 3763-The Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services. (March 13, 20; April 9). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
42. U.S. House of Representatives. 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law 107-204 [H. R. 3763]. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
43. U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Reports, Accounting and Management. 1977. Improving the Accountability of Publicly Owned Corporations and Their Auditors. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
44. U.S. Senate. 2002. Hearings on accounting reform and investor protection. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. S.107-948. (February 12, 14, 26, 27). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
45. Whisenant, S., S. Sankaraguruswamy, and K. Raghunandan. 2003. Market reactions to disclosures of reportable events. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (March): 181-194.
46. Williams, P. 2007. Accounting: Playing lowball. Accountancy Age (July 12). Available at http://www.accountancyage.com/articles/print/2193827.