Article2009

Audit fee premium and auditor change: the effect of Sarbanes‐Oxley Act

30 citations0/0 files storedManagerial Auditing Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance Corporate Finance and Governance Corporate Governance and Financial Management

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide more comprehensive analysis of the effects of Sarbanes‐Oxley (SOX) Act on both audit fee premium and auditor change in the US audit market. Design/methodology/approach The audit fee premium model is employed to track the trend in audit fee premium between 2000 and 2006 for small accelerated filers compared with large accelerated filers and non‐accelerated filers and how the change in auditor affected such trend around the enactment of SOX. Findings The results indicate a significant shift in audit fee premium during early years of SOX compliance especially for small accelerated filers compared with large accelerated filers or non‐accelerated filers. Such shift started to wind down during 2006 after the initial application of SOX requirements. Although clients who switched from big to non‐big auditors have experienced a slower increase in their audit fees, these fee savings are lower for small accelerated filers during 2004 and 2005 with the increasing demand for audit services in the US audit industry during these years. Practical implications The compliance costs of significant regulatory changes like SOX may be upfront loaded but their benefits are long‐term benefits in terms of higher quality of financial reporting and better internal controls over financial reporting. When analyzing the effects of such regulatory changes, practitioners and researchers should factor these costs and benefits over a sufficient time horizon. Originality/value More comprehensive analysis of SOX effects on the US audit industry not only in the short run during early compliance years, but also in the longer run after the initial setup process.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.

References

1981Auditor size and audit quality 1980The Pricing of Audit Services: Theory and Evidence 2003The Effects of Firm-Wide and Office-Level Industry Expertise on Audit Pricing 2008Evidence on the Audit Risk Model: Do Auditors Increase Audit Fees in the Presence of Internal Control Deficiencies?*2004Self-Selection of Auditors and Audit Pricing in Private Firms 2006SOX Section 404 Material Weakness Disclosures and Audit Fees 2004Audit Firm Portfolio Management Decisions 1999Pricing Initial Audit Engagements: A Test of Competing Theories

Cited by

2013Corporate Governance Structure and Its Relationship with Audit Fee-Evidence from Malaysian Public Listed Companies 2017The perceived motivations behind the introduction of the law on external audit in Vietnam 2011Relative audit fees and client loyalty in the audit market 2023Determining audit fees: evidence from the Egyptian stock market

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.