Auditor choice and nonaudit fees: Evidence from group-affiliated Indian firms

被引:0
|
作者
Parkash, Mohinder [1 ]
Singhal, Rajeev [1 ]
Zhu, Yun [1 ]
机构
[1] Oakland Univ, Sch Business Adm, Dept Accounting & Finance, Rochester, MI 48309 USA
来源
关键词
agency conflicts; group-affiliated firms; nonaudit fees; CORPORATE GOVERNANCE; BUSINESS GROUPS; FAMILY OWNERSHIP; EMERGING MARKETS; SELECTION BIAS; PERFORMANCE; INDEPENDENCE; MANAGEMENT; SERVICES; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1002/jcaf.22593
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
We study the interplay between auditor as an instrument of corporate governance and the ownership structure of firms in the Indian context. Our study is motivated by the literature on agency problems occurring from both the conflicts of interests between owners and managers (Type I problem) and those between dominant and passive stockholders (Type II problems). Investors controlling Group-affiliated firms have incentives and influence to monitor their firms, resulting in amelioration of Type I problems, which is expected to result in lower demand for high-quality auditors. However, in situations where Type II problems dominate, the Group-affiliated firms have incentives to, (i) mitigate conflicts with minority shareholders by using high-quality auditors, and (ii) strengthen the perception that their auditors are independent. We find that Indian group-affiliated firms tend to choose BigN auditing firms and that upon selection of a BigN auditor, there is no difference in the magnitude of nonaudit services purchased by both the Group-affiliated and non-Group-affiliated firms, but when a non-BigN auditor is chosen, the Group-affiliated firms purchase significantly higher nonaudit services as compared to firms not affiliated to groups, suggesting that when Group-affiliated firms select reputed auditors they also strive to maintain the perception that auditors are independent.
引用
收藏
页码:23 / 36
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Does sharing the same network auditor in group affiliated firms affect audit quality?
    Sun, Jinghui
    Wang, Jianling
    Kent, Pamela
    Qi, Baolei
    JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2020, 39 (01)
  • [32] Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions
    Blay, Allen D.
    Geiger, Marshall A.
    CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, 2013, 30 (02) : 579 - 606
  • [33] The choice between bank loans, affiliated loans, and non-affiliated loans: evidence from Chinese listed firms
    Yin, Wei
    Liu, Xiaoxing
    APPLIED ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2019, 26 (15) : 1224 - 1227
  • [34] Audit fees, auditor choice and stakeholder influence: Evidence from a family-firm dominated economy
    Khan, Arifur
    Muttakin, Mohammad Badrul
    Siddiqui, Javed
    BRITISH ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2015, 47 (03): : 304 - 320
  • [35] The effect of political connections on firms' auditor choice decisions and audit opinions: evidence from Egypt
    Tantawy, Soad Moussa
    Moussa, Tantawy
    ASIAN REVIEW OF ACCOUNTING, 2023, 31 (03) : 414 - 436
  • [36] Auditor choice in privatized firms: Empirical evidence on the role of state and foreign owners
    Guedhami, Omrane
    Pittman, Jeffrey A.
    Saffar, Walid
    JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 2009, 48 (2-3): : 151 - 171
  • [37] Auditor choice, retained ownership, and earnings disclosure for IPO firms Further evidence
    Wang, Kun
    Iqbal, Zahid
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL FINANCE, 2006, 2 (03) : 220 - +
  • [38] Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence-Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions in Germany
    Ratzinger-Sakel, Nicole V. S.
    AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY, 2013, 32 (04): : 129 - 168
  • [39] Political connections, auditor choice and corporate accounting transparency: evidence from private sector firms in China
    Liu, Ye
    Li, Xindan
    Zeng, Haijian
    An, Yunbi
    ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE, 2017, 57 (04): : 1071 - 1099
  • [40] Industry dynamics and capital structure choice: Evidence from Indian manufacturing firms
    Saxena, Mohina
    Bhattacharyya, Surajit
    MANAGERIAL AND DECISION ECONOMICS, 2022, 43 (03) : 829 - 845