Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Audit, Nonaudit, and Information Technology Fees: Some Empirical Evidence

Authors: Lawrence J. Abbott; Susan Parker; Gary F. Peters; Dasaratha V. Rama;

Audit, Nonaudit, and Information Technology Fees: Some Empirical Evidence

Abstract

This study examines the purchase of nonaudit services by SEC audit clients. Effective February 5, 2001, the SEC has required the disclosure and description of audit, nonaudit, and information technology fees paid to the incumbent auditor. The SEC enacted this rule due to concerns about auditor independence. Our study reviews these disclosed fees contained in the proxy statements of 2,795 firms since the effective date of the new SEC disclosure rules. The results indicate that the actual incidence and magnitude of nonaudit fees is much greater than the information relied upon during the SEC rule-making deliberations. Consequently, our study calls into question the data used during SEC rule-making process, as well as the clarity of the current audit and nonaudit service distinctions. Our results also suggest that the nonaudit service landscape has changed dramatically since the last period of publicly available fee data (1978–1981). Our results provide at least two public policy implications. First, the SEC should maintain, at a minimum, the current disclosure environment. Second, the SEC should strive to improve the clarity and granularity of the disclosures. Our results also indicate a clear need for additional research regarding the provision of nonaudit services.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    22
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
22
Average
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!