IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jbfnac/v45y2018i5-6p714-727.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the persistence and dynamics of Big 4 real audit fees: Evidence from the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Marek Kacer
  • David A. Peel
  • Michael J. Peel
  • Nicholas Wilson

Abstract

Despite the huge audit pricing literature, there is a dearth of evidence on the temporal dynamics of audit fee adjustments and the persistence of audit fees. Based on a sample of 76,867 panel observations for a sample of UK companies audited by the Big 4 over the period 1998 to 2012, we employ consistent lagged dependent variable panel estimators to provide new evidence on the persistence and dynamics of real Big 4 audit fees. Contrary to extant research, which assumes that audit fees adjust immediately in a single period, our empirical results indicate that Big 4 real audit fees are persistent, being partly dependent on their previous realisations. We conclude that static audit fee models omit a potentially important temporal dimension of audit pricing behaviour and that further research is warranted into dynamic audit fee models across other jurisdictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Marek Kacer & David A. Peel & Michael J. Peel & Nicholas Wilson, 2018. "On the persistence and dynamics of Big 4 real audit fees: Evidence from the UK," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5-6), pages 714-727, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jbfnac:v:45:y:2018:i:5-6:p:714-727
    DOI: 10.1111/jbfa.12310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12310
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jbfa.12310?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreea Georgiana PASCARU & Camelia-Daniela HATEGAN, 2024. "Audit Quality and Audit Market at European Level," The Audit Financiar journal, Chamber of Financial Auditors of Romania, vol. 22(176), pages 758-768, October.
    2. Yan Luo & Steven E. Salterio, 2021. "Toward an Archival Measure of the Likelihood of Auditor‐Client Management Negotiation: An Exploration of the Audit Lag Measures Conjecture†," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 109-143, March.
    3. Hsihui Chang & Charles Hsu & Zhiming Ma, 2022. "Does product similarity of audit clients influence audit efficiency and pricing decisions?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5-6), pages 807-840, May.
    4. Anh Viet Pham & Mia Hang Pham & Cameron Truong, 2022. "CEO cultural heritage and the pricing of audit services," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1-2), pages 181-214, January.
    5. Wenxia Ge & Jeong‐Bon Kim, 2020. "How does the executive pay gap influence audit fees? The roles of R&D investment and institutional ownership," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(5-6), pages 677-707, May.
    6. Ammar Ali Gull & Ammar Abid & Rashid Latief & Muhammad Usman, 2021. "Women on board and auditors’ assessment of the risk of material misstatement," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(4), pages 679-708, December.
    7. Hu, Juncheng & Li, Xiaorong & Wan, Zhong, 2023. "Corporate corruption and future audit fees: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3).
    8. Markus Widmann & Florian Follert & Matthias Wolz, 2021. "What is it going to cost? Empirical evidence from a systematic literature review of audit fee determinants," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 455-489, April.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jbfnac:v:45:y:2018:i:5-6:p:714-727. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0306-686X .

    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.