Nancy M. FAN, Jiuzhou WANG

6018

Examination of self-selection bias and big $N^{1}$ audit fee premiums-evidence from norway2

Firth (1997) denetçi ücretinin belirlenmesi modeline, büyük denetçi belirleyici değişkeninieklemek suretiyle Big N denetçi ücreti primlerini incelemektedir. Ancak bu kukla değişken içselolabilmekte ve kişisel seçim hatalarına yol açabilmektedir. Çünkü müşteriler Big N ve Big N olmayandenetçiler arasında tesadüfi olarak tahsis edilmiş olmayabilmektedir (Ireland and Lennox 2002;Chaney et al. 2004). Bu çalışmada, öncelikle denetçi ücretinin belirlenmesi modelinde en küçükkareler yöntemi uygulanmaktadır ve Big N denetçi ücret primleri yıllar boyunca tanımlanmaktadır.Kişisel seçim hatalarını incelemek için, Heckman modeli ve düzeltme etkisi modeli uygulanmıştır.Sonuçlar Norveç denetim piyasasında yıllar arasındaki Big N denetçi ücreti primlerini göstermektedir.

Prior study (Firth 1997) examines Big N audit fee premiums by adding a big auditor indicator variable in the audit fee determination model. But this dummy variable may be endogenousand cause self-selection bias because clients may not be randomly assigned across Big N and non-BigN auditors (Ireland and Lennox 2002; Chaney et al. 2004). In this paper we first run the ordinaryleast square (OLS) regression of the audit fee determination model, and Big N audit fee premiums areidentified across years. To examine self-selection bias, we employ a Heckman model and a treatmenteffects model, estimated by both two-step and full maximum likelihood approaches. Results show BigN audit fee premiums across years for Norwegian audit market.
PDF

___

  • Balachandran, B. - Ramakrishnan, R. (1987), ‘A Theory of Audit Partnerships: Audit Firm Size and Fees’, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 25, No.1, p.111-26.
  • Beattie, V.- Goodacre, A.- Pratt, K. & Stevenson, J. (2001), ‘The Determinants of Audit Fees- Evidence from the Voluntary Sector’, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, p. 243-74.
  • Herman, B. J. (2002), ‘Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Heckman's Sample Selection Model’, Working Paper.
  • Chan, P.- Ezzamel, M. - Gwilliam, D. (1993), ‘Determinants of Audit Fees for Quoted UK Companies’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 20, No. 6, p. 765-86.
  • Chaney P.- Jeter, D. - Shivakumar, L. (2004), ‘Self-Selection of Auditors and Audit Pricing in Private Firms’, The Accounting Review, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 51-72.
  • Chung, D. - Lindsay, W. (1988), ‘The Pricing of Audit Services: The Canadian Perspective.’ Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 5, Fall, p. 19-46.
  • DeAngelo, L. (1981), ‘Auditor Size and Audit Quality’, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 183-99.
  • Firth, M. (1985), ‘An Analysis of Audit Fees and Their Determinants in New Zealand’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 4, Spring, p. 23-37.
  • Firth, M. (1997), ‘The Provision of Non-audit Services and the Pricing of Audit Fees’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 24, No. 3 & 4, p. 511-25.
  • Francis, J. R. (1984), ‘The Effect of Audit Firm Size on Audit Prices’. Journal of Accounting & Economics 6, Vol. 84, No. 6, August, p.133-151
  • Francis, J. - Simon, D. (1987), ‘A Test of Audit Pricing in the Small-Client Segment of the U.S. Audit Market’, The Accounting Review, Vol. 62, No.1, p. 145-57.
  • Francis, J. - Stokes, D. (1986), ‘Audit Prices, Product Differentiation and Scale Economies: Further Evidence from the Australian Market’. Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn, 1986, p.383-393
  • Francis, J. - Wilson, E. (1988), ‘Auditor Changes: A Joint Test of Theories Relating to Agency Cost and Auditor Differentiation’, The Accounting Review. Vol. 63, No. 4, p. 663-82.
  • Ferguson, A. - Strokes, D. (2002), ‘Brand Name Audit Pricing, Industry Specialization, and Leadership Premiums Post-Big 8 and Big 6 Mergers’, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 19, Spring, p. 77-110.
  • Greene, W. H., Econometric Analysis, 5 th International Edition, Prentice Hall Heckman, J. J., (1979), Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error, Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 1, p. 153-62.
  • Ireland, Jen C. - Lennox, C. S. (2002), ‘The Large Audit Firms Fee Premium: A Case of Selectivity Bias?’, Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, Vol.17, No. 1, p. 73- 91.
  • Johnson, N. - Kotz, S. (1970), ‘Continuous Univariate Distribution-1’, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
  • Johnson, W. B. - Lys, T. (1990), ‘The Market for Audit Services, Evidence from Voluntary Auditor Changes’, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol.12, No. 1-3, p. 281-308.
  • Klein B.- Crowford, R., - Alchian, A. (1978), ‘Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents, and The Competitive Contracting Process’, Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 297-326.
  • Lee, L. (1979), ‘Identification and estimation in binary choice models with limited (censored) dependent variables’, Econometrica, Vol. 47, July, p. 977-96. Lee, L. (1982), ‘Some Approaches to the Correction of Selectivity Bias’, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 49, No.2, p. 355-72.
  • Lee, D. S. (1996), ‘Auditor Market Share, Product Differentiation and Audit Fees’, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, p. 315-324.
  • Maddala, G. S. (1983), ‘Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics’, Cambridge University Press.
  • Menon, K. - Williams, D. (2001), ‘Long-Term Trends in Audit Fees’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 20, No.1.
  • Palmrose, Z. (1986a), ‘Audit Fees and Auditor Size: Further Evidence’, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 97-110.
  • Pong, C. M. - Whittington, G. (1994), ‘The Determinants of Audit Fees: Some Empirical Models’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 21, No. 8, p. 1071-95.
  • Rubin, M. A., (1988), Municipal Audit Fee Determinants. The Accounting Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, p. 219-236.
  • Simon, D. T. - Francis, J.R., (1988), ‘The Effect of Auditor Change on Audit Fees: Test of Price Cutting and Price Recovery’, The Accounting Review, Vol. 63, April, p. 255- 269.
  • Simunic, D. A. (1980), ‘The Pricing of Audit Services: Theory and Evidence’, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 18, No.1, p. 161-90.
  • Titman, S. - Trueman, B. (1986), ‘Information Quality and the Value of New Issues’, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 159-72.
  • Tonge, D. S. - Wooton, W. C. (1991), ‘Auditor Concentration and Competition among the Large Public Accounting Firms: Post-Merger Status and Future Implications’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 157-72.
  • Willekens, M. - Achmadi, C. (2003), ‘Pricing and Supplier Concentration in the Private Client Segment of the Audit Market: Market Power or Competition?’ The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 38, p. 431-55.
  • Wootton, W. C.- Tonge, D. S. - Wolk, M. W. (1994), ‘Pre and Post Big 8 Mergers: Comparison of Auditor Concentration’, Accounting Horizons, Vol.8, No.3, p. 58-74.
Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2146-3042
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2005
  • Yayıncı: Muhasebe ve Finansman Öğretim Üyeleri Derneği (MUFAD)
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Examination of self-selection bias and big $N^{1}$ audit fee premiums-evidence from norway2

Nancy M. FAN, Jiuzhou WANG

Türkiye'de ve dünyada organize türev piyasaların gelişimi

Ersan ERSOY

The forecasting of stock prices in ıse ınsurance ındex with artificial neural networks

Cem KARTAL, Ahmet AKCAN

Konut finansmanı sistemi ve Türkiye'de Toki uygulamalarının analizi

Ebubekir AYAN

Sistematik riskin belirleyicileri: İmkb'de sektörel karşılaştırma

Emine Ebru AKSOY, Cihan TANRIÖVEN

Menkul kıymetleştirme şirketleri fannie mae ve freddiemac nasıl kurtarılabilir? 1

Hüseyin YILMAZ