IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/alu/journl/v2y2013i15p14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Particularities Concerning The Beneficiaries Of Audit Services Provided By The Big 4 Companies: Evidence From Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Sorin Romulus Berinde
  • Adrian GroÅŸanu

Abstract

This study aims to explore some particularities concerning the Romanian audited entities which are oriented mainly towards contracting audit services from the largest companies providing auditing services (Big 4 companies). The assessment criteria taken into consideration for the differentiation of the beneficiaries of the audit services, at Romanian level are related to competitiveness, to the structure of share capital and to the nature of the audited entities' management. There was taken into consideration the impact differentiation of each indicator, by coefficients of importance. If at international level, previous results show a supremacy for the Big 4 audit services providers, not the same situation confirms at Romanian level. The results show that only 18% of the sampled audited entities benefit from audit services provided by the Big 4, irrespective of their level of competitiveness, the structure of share capital or the structure of management.

Suggested Citation

  • Sorin Romulus Berinde & Adrian GroÅŸanu, 2013. "Particularities Concerning The Beneficiaries Of Audit Services Provided By The Big 4 Companies: Evidence From Romania," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 2(15), pages 1-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:alu:journl:v:2:y:2013:i:15:p:14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://oeconomica.uab.ro/upload/lucrari/1520132/14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan Topor & Ioana Dorin & Alina Puţan, 2011. "The Role Of Cost Information In Decision-Making. Case Study," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 2(13), pages 1-15.
    2. Palmrose, Zv, 1986. "Audit Fees And Auditor Size - Further Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 97-110.
    3. Boone, Jeff P. & Khurana, Inder K. & Raman, K.K., 2010. "Do the Big 4 and the Second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality?," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 330-352, July.
    4. Scott Whisenant & Srinivasan Sankaraguruswamy & K. Raghunandan, 2003. "Evidence on the Joint Determination of Audit and Non‐Audit Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 721-744, September.
    5. Dopuch, Nicholas & Holthausen, Robert W. & Leftwich, Richard W., 1986. "Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of `subject to' qualified audit opinions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 93-117, June.
    6. Dennis Y. Chung & W. Daryl Lindsay, 1988. "The pricing of audit services: The Canadian perspective," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 19-46, September.
    7. Craswell, Allen T. & Francis, Jere R. & Taylor, Stephen L., 1995. "Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 297-322, December.
    8. Tom Van Caneghem, 2010. "Audit pricing and the Big4 fee premium: evidence from Belgium," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(2), pages 122-139, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miguel Minutti‐Meza, 2013. "Does Auditor Industry Specialization Improve Audit Quality?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 779-817, September.
    2. David C. Hay & W. Robert Knechel & Norman Wong, 2006. "Audit Fees: A Meta†analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 141-191, March.
    3. MohammadRezaei, Fakhroddin & Mohd-Saleh, Norman & Ahmed, Kamran, 2018. "Audit Firm Ranking, Audit Quality and Audit Fees: Examining Conflicting Price Discrimination Views," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 295-313.
    4. Magdy S. Farag & Rafik Z. Elias, 2012. "Public accounting firms' mix of service revenue and average productivity: Evidence using revenue per partner," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(8), pages 712-727, August.
    5. Chahine, Salim & Filatotchev, Igor, 2011. "The effects of corporate governance and audit and non-audit fees on IPO Value," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 155-172.
    6. Vivien Beattie & Alan Goodacre & Ken Pratt & Joanna Stevenson, 2001. "The determinants of audit fees—evidence from the voluntary sector," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 243-274.
    7. Mohd Kharuddin, Khairul Ayuni & Basioudis, Ilias G. & Hay, David, 2019. "Partner industry specialization and audit pricing in the United Kingdom," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 57-70.
    8. Sang Cheol Lee & Jaewan Park & Mooweon Rhee & Yunkeun Lee, 2018. "Moderating Effects of Agency Problems and Monitoring Systems on the Relationship between Executive Stock Option and Audit Fees: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    9. Ho, Nam, 2023. "Local competition and auditors' provision of non-audit services," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    10. Timothy B. Bell & Rajib Doogar & Ira Solomon, 2008. "Audit Labor Usage and Fees under Business Risk Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 729-760, September.
    11. Verbruggen, Sandra & Christiaens, Johan & Reheul, Anne-Mie & Van Caneghem, Tom, 2011. "Audit pricing in a reformed nonprofit market," Working Papers 2011/29, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    12. Dang, Man & Puwanenthiren, Premkanth & Truong, Cameron & Henry, Darren & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2022. "Audit quality and seasoned equity offerings methods," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    13. Griffin, Paul A. & Lont, David H., 2011. "Audit fees around dismissals and resignations: Additional evidence," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 65-81.
    14. Cahan, Steven & Hay, David & Li, Lina Z., 2021. "Audit firm merger and the strategic response by large audit firms," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    15. Minjung Kang & Jung‐wha Lee & Mihye Ha & Moon‐Kyung Cho, 2021. "Impact of IFRS adoption on audit pricing: evidence from audit hours and unit audit price in the Korean audit market," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(2), pages 3517-3564, June.
    16. Schelleman, C.C.M., 2001. "Determinants of the profitability of audit engagements : an empirical study," Research Memorandum 037, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    17. Taylor, Mark H. & Simon, Daniel T., 1999. "Determinants of audit fees: the importance of litigation, disclosure, and regulatory burdens in audit engagements in 20 countries," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 375-388, August.
    18. Reheul, Anne-Mie & Van Caneghem, Tom & Verbruggen, Sandra, 2011. "Auditor choice in the Belgian nonprofit sector: a behavioral perspective," Working Papers 2011/36, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    19. Willekens, Marleen & Achmadi, Christina, 2003. "Pricing and supplier concentration in the private client segment of the audit market: Market power or competition?," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 431-455.
    20. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    audited entities; audit services provider; structure of share capital; structure of management; statistical methods;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M48 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:alu:journl:v:2:y:2013:i:15:p:14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dan-Constantin Danuletiu (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.