The impact of regulation on auditor fees: Evidence from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Auditing

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 171-197

  Ghosh, Aloke ^a   Pawlewicz, Robert ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit pricing; Auditor fees; Big 4 premium; Fee discounting; Lowballing; Sarbanes Oxley Act

Indexed keywords

EID: 77249145570     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: 15587991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.171     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ashbaugh, H., R. LaFond, and B. Mayhew. 2003. Do nonaudit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. The Accounting Review 78 (3): 611-639.
2. Asthana, S., S. Balsam, and S. Kim. 2004. The effect of Enron, Andersen and Sarbanes-Oxley on the market for audit services. Working paper, Temple University.
3. Bell, T., W. Landsman, and D. Shackelford. 2001. Auditors' perceived business risk and audit fees: Analysis and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 39 (1): 35-43.
4. Burns, J. 2007. SEC's top accountant favors limiting auditors' liability, reduce complexity of rules. Associated Press, January 25, San Diego, CA.
5. Chan, D. 1999. Lowballing and efficiency in a two-period specialization model of auditing competition. Contemporary Accounting Research 16 (4): 51-72.
6. Chaney, P., D. Jeter, and L. Shivakumar. 2004. Self-selection of auditors and audit pricing in private firms. The Accounting Review 79 (1): 51.
7. Choi, J., J. Kim, X. Liu, and D. Simunic. 2008. Audit pricing, legal liability regimes, and Big 4 premiums: Theory and cross-country evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research 25 (1): 55-99.
8. Ciesielski, J., and T. Weirich. 2006. Ups and downs of audit fees since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The CPA Journal 76 (10): 28-35.
9. Craswell, A., J. Francis, and S. Taylor. 1995. Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20: 297-322.
10. Ciesielski, J., and T. Weirich. 1999. Pricing initial audit engagements: A test of competing theories. The Accounting Review 74 (2): 201-216.
11. Cummings, J. 2005. Sarbanes-Oxley fails to slow fraud. Business Finance 11: 9.
12. DeAngelo, L. 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3: 183-199.
13. Fields, L., D. Fraser, and M. Wilkins. 2004. An investigation of the pricing of audit services for financial institutions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 23 (1): 53-77.
14. Financial Executives International (FEI) 2004. FEI Special Survey on Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 Implementation Executive Summary. Available at: http://www.404institute.com/docs/SOXSurveyJuly.pdf.
15. Francis, J., D. Philbrick, and K. Schipper. 1994. Shareholder litigation and corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (2): 137-164.
16. Frankel, R., M. Johnson, and K. Nelson. 2002. The relation between auditors' fees for nonaudit services and earnings management. The Accounting Review 77 (Supplement): 71-105.
17. Ghosh, A., and S. Lustgarten. 2006. Pricing of initial audit engagements by large and small audit firms. Contemporary Accounting Research 23 (2): 333-368.
18. Griffin, P., and D. Lont. 2007. An analysis of audit fees following the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics 14: 161-192.
19. Heffes, E. M. 2005. SEC enforcement division: Ratcheting up. Financial Executive 21: 14-16.
20. Iliev, P. 2007. The effect of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 404) on audit fees, accruals and stock returns. Working paper, Brown University.
21. Kennedy, P. 1992. A Guide to Econometrics. 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Menon, K., and D. Williams. 2001. Long-term trends in audit fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (1): 115-136.
23. Palmrose, Z.-V. 1986. Audit fees and auditor size: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 24 (1): 97-110.
24. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC). 2008. 2007 Securities Litigation Study. New York, NY: PwC Advisory Crisis Management.
25. Rashkover, B., and C. Winter. 2005. The impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on SEC enforcement in public company disclosure cases. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 2: 312-324.
26. Reilly, D. 2007. Audit watchdog report raps Ernst, KPMG. The Wall Street Journal (January 12): C3. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2003. Final Rule: Strengthening the Commission's Requirements Regarding Auditor Independence Requirements. Release No. 33-7919. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
27. Seetharaman, A., F. Gul, and S. Lynn. 2002. Litigation risk and audit fees: Evidence from U.K. firms cross-listed on U.S. markets. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33: 91-115.
28. Simon, D., and J. Francis. 1988. The effects of auditor change on audit fees: Tests of price cutting and price recovery. The Accounting Review 63 (2): 255-269.
29. Simunic, D. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 18 (1): 161-190.
30. Simunic, D., and M. Stein. 1996. The impact of litigation risk on audit pricing: A review of the economics and the evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 15 (Supplement): 119-134.
31. 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.
32. White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48: 817-838.
33. Wilcox, K. 2007. Dealing with Sarbox. The Wall Street Journal (June 1): A13.