Impact of regulators pressure on auditing timeframe and risk: evidence from the us energy industry

• Autorzy: Kochański M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study examines the impact of regulatory pressure in the U.S. energy industry on auditing timeframe and risk based on a sample of 150 audit fee disclosures from proxy statements, as well as 150 audit reports filed in 2012/2013 with Securities and Exchange Commission. It was found that in economic terms, the impact of moving from a non-regulated to a regulated industry on audit fees is a decrease of those fees by 15%. While the study results indicate that audit fees significantly decrease (increase) when the client firm operates in the regulated energy industry (non-regulated industry), no impact of regulations on audit timeframe is reported.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

regulatory pressure; energy industry; audit risk; audit lag; energy sector; audit timeframes; audit duration

PL

presja regulacyjna; przemysł energetyczny; ryzyko audytu; sektor energetyczny; ramy czasowe audytu

• Wydawca: Centrum Badań i Innowacji Pro-Akademia ; Ukrainian Academy of Sciences - Research and Development Centre for Industrial Problems of Development
• Czasopismo: Acta Innovations
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: no. 11
• Strony: 5--13
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 23 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Kochański M.

• Research and Innovation Centre Pro-Akademia, 238 Piotrkowska Street, 90-360 Lodz, Poland
• Northeastern Illinois University, 5500 N St Louis Ave, Chicago, IL 60625, United States

Bibliografia

• [1] KPMG. (2013). KPMG Survey: Growing Regulatory Pressure, Geopolitical Unrest And A Global Economic Crisis Top C-Suite Worries. Retrieved from https://www.kpmg.com/us/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/press-releases/pages/kpmg-surveygrowing-regulatory-pressure,-geopolitical-unrest-and-a-global-economic-crisis-top-c-suite-worries.aspx.
• [2] Niemi, L. (2002). Do firms pay for audit risk? Evidence on risk premiums in audit fees after direct control for audit effort. Intl Journal of Auditing, 6.
• [3] Abbot, L. J., Parker, S., & Peters, G. F. (2006). Earnings Management, Litigation Risk, and Assymetric Audit Fee Responses. Auditing: A Journal Of Practice And Theory, 25 (1), pp. 85-98.
• [4] Budescu, D. V., Peecher, M. E., & Solomon, I. (2012). The joint influence of the extent and nature of audit evidence, materiality thresholds, and misstatement type on achieved audit risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31, pp. 19-41.
• [5] Contessotto, C., & Moroney, R. (2013). The association between audit committee effectiveness and audit risk. Accounting and Finance.
• [6] Bonsón-Ponte, E., Escobar-Rodríguez, T., & Borrero-Domínguez, C. (2008). Empirical Analysis of Delays in the Signing of Audit Reports in Spain. International Journal of Auditing, 12, pp. 129–140.
• [7] Yongtae, K., Li, H., & Li, S. (2011). CEO equity incentives and audit fees. Working paper of Santa Clara University.
• [8] Houston, R. W., Peters, M. F., & Pratt, J. H. (1999). The Audit Risk Model, Business Risk and Audit-Planning Decisions. The Accounting Review, Vol. 74 (3), pp. 281-298.
• [9] Gerrard, I., Houghton, K., & Woodliff, D. (1994). Audit Fees: The Effects of Auditee, Auditor and Industry Differences. Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 9 (7), pp. 3-11.
• [10] Johnstone, K. M. (2000). Client-Acceptance Decisions: Simultaneous Effects of Client Business Risk, Audit Risk, Auditor Business Risk, and Risk Adaptation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, vol. 19 (1), pp. 1-25.
• [11] Chang, S. I., Tsai, C. F., Shih, D. H., & Hwang, C. (2008). The Development of Audit Detection Risk Assessment System: Using the Fuzzy Theory and Audit Risk Model. Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 35 (3).
• [12] FERC. (2011). FERC comments on work plan for the consideration of incorporating International Financial Reporting System for U.S. issuers - Exploring a possible method of incorporation. Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-600/4600-55.pdf.
• [13] Leventis, S. l., Weetman, P., & Caramanis, C. (2005). Determinants of audit report lag: Some evidence from Athens Stock Exchange. International Journal of Auditing, vol. 9 (1), pp. 45-58.
• [14] Elliott, J. A. (1982). Subject to audit opinions and abnormal security returns – Outcomes and ambiguities’. Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 20, pp. 617–38.
• [15] Ashton, R. H., Graul, P. R., & Newton, J. D. (1989). Audit delay and the timeliness of corporate reporting. Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 5 (2), pp. 657-73.
• [16] Atiase, K. R., Bamber, L. S., & Tse, S. (1989). Timeliness of Financial Reporting, the Firm Size Effect, and Stock Price Reactions to Annual Earnings Announcement. Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 5 (2), pp. 526-552.
• [17] Kinney Jr., W. R., & McDaniel, L. S. (1993). Audit delay for firms correcting quarterly earnings. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, vol. 12, pp. 135-42.
• [18] Abdullah, S. N. (2006). Board Composition, Audit Committee and Timeliness of Corporate Financial Report in Malaysia. Corporate Ownership and Control, vol. 4 (2), pp. 33-45.
• [19] Owusu-Ansah, S., & Leventis, S. (2006). Timeliness of Corporate Annual Reporting in Greece. European Accounting Review, vol. 15 (2), pp. 273-287.
• [20] Simunic, D. A. (1984). Auditing, Consulting and Auditor Independence. Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 22 (2), pp. 679-702.
• [21] Carson, E., Simnett, R., Soo, B., & Wright, A. M. (2003). A longitudinal investigation of the audit and nonaudit service fee markets (1984 to 1999). Working paper, The University of New South Wales.
• [22] Palmrose, Z. V. (1986). Audit fees and auditor size: Further evidence. Journal of accounting research, pp. 97-110.
• [23] Hauke, J., & Kossowski, T. (2011). Comparison of values of Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones Geographicae, vol. 30 (2), pp. 87-93.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2018).