IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/accoun/v43y2008i2p99-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of the Multi-jurisdiction Disclosure System on audit fees of cross-listed Canadian firms

Author

Listed:
  • Callaghan, Joseph H.
  • Parkash, Mohinder
  • Singhal, Rajeev

Abstract

The Multi-jurisdiction Disclosure System (MJDS), a treaty between Canada and the United States (U.S.), was intended to facilitate the cross-listing of a firm's securities in the neighboring country. Under this system, eligible Canadian companies are allowed to use home-country documents to meet U.S. disclosure requirements and these documents are generally not reviewed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We posit that the single-reporting requirement and lower SEC scrutiny may result in lower audit fees for MJDS firms. Based on audit-fee disclosures mandated by the SEC rule-making authority granted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we find a negative association between audit fees paid by U.S. cross-listed Canadian companies and their use of the MJDS. This result suggests that the lower audit fees provide an economic incentive to use the MJDS. Thus, our study provides evidence that the implementation of the MJDS may help facilitate cross-border listings by reducing audit costs. Additionally, this study confirms, for Canadian firms, some of the audit-fee determinants reported in earlier studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Callaghan, Joseph H. & Parkash, Mohinder & Singhal, Rajeev, 2008. "The impact of the Multi-jurisdiction Disclosure System on audit fees of cross-listed Canadian firms," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 99-113.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:accoun:v:43:y:2008:i:2:p:99-113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020-7063(08)00031-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy B. Bell & Wayne R. Landsman & Douglas A. Shackelford, 2001. "Auditors' Perceived Business Risk and Audit Fees: Analysis and Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 35-43, June.
    2. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    6. Palmrose, Zoe-Vonna & Richardson, Vernon J. & Scholz, Susan, 2004. "Determinants of market reactions to restatement announcements," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-89, February.
    7. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    8. Michael Firth, 1997. "The Provision of Nonaudit Services by Accounting Firms to their Audit Clients," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 1-21, June.
    9. Rick Antle & Elizabeth A. Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2002. "The Joint Determination of Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees, and Abnormal Accruals," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm289, Yale School of Management.
    10. Simunic, Da, 1984. "Auditing, Consulting, And Auditor Independence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 679-702.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gillan, Stuart L. & Panasian, Christine A., 2014. "On Litigation Risk and Disclosure Complexity: Evidence from Canadian Firms Cross-Listed in the US," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 426-454.
    2. Elena Skouratova & John Wald, 2013. "How crosslisting affects merger and acquisition activity," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 319-339, February.
    3. Ruth O. Urhoghide Ph.D & Prof. F. O. I. Izedonmi, 2015. "An Empirical Investigation of Audit Fee Determinants in Nigeria," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 5(8), pages 48-58, August.
    4. Ruth O. Urhoghide Ph.D & Prof. F. O. I. Izedonmi, 2015. "An Empirical Investigation of Audit Fee Determinants in Nigeria," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 5(8), pages 48-58, August.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Vieru, Markku & Schadewitz, Hannu, 2010. "Impact of IFRS transition on audit and non-audit fees: evidence from small and medium-sized listed companies in Finland," MPRA Paper 44664, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    5. Mark A. Clatworthy & Michael J. Peel, 2007. "The Effect of Corporate Status on External Audit Fees: Evidence From the UK," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1‐2), pages 169-201, January.
    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. Martin G. H. Wu, 2006. "An Economic Analysis of Audit and Nonaudit Services: The Trade†off between Competition Crossovers and Knowledge Spillovers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 527-554, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Cédric Lesage & Sabine Ratzinger & Jaana Kettunen, 2012. "Struggle over joint audit: on behalf of public interest?," Post-Print hal-00935004, HAL.
    10. Ball, Ray & Jayaraman, Sudarshan & Shivakumar, Lakshmanan, 2012. "Audited financial reporting and voluntary disclosure as complements: A test of the Confirmation Hypothesis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 136-166.
    11. Elisabeth Dedman & Asad Kausar & Clive Lennox, 2014. "The Demand for Audit in Private Firms: Recent Large-Sample Evidence from the UK," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 1-23, May.
    12. Laurence Kranich & Andrés Perea & Hans Peters, 2005. "Core Concepts For Dynamic Tu Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 43-61.
    13. Atasi Basu & Randal Elder & Mohamed Onsi, 2012. "Reported earnings, auditor's opinion, and compensation: theory and evidence," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 29-48, March.
    14. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, 2019. "The Effect of Financial Constraints on Audit Fees," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 59-87.
    16. Herings, P.J.J. & Kubler, F., 2000. "Computing equilibria in finance economies," Research Memorandum 022, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    17. Chan, Lilian H. & Chen, Kevin C.W. & Chen, Tai-Yuan & Yu, Yangxin, 2012. "The effects of firm-initiated clawback provisions on earnings quality and auditor behavior," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 180-196.
    18. Lai, Kam-Wah, 2019. "Audit report lag, audit fees, and audit quality following an audit firm merger: Evidence from Hong Kong," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Ghosh, Aloke(Al) & Tang, Charles Y., 2015. "Assessing financial reporting quality of family firms: The auditors׳ perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 95-116.
    20. Chen, Yangyang & Ge, Rui & Zolotoy, Leon, 2017. "Do corporate pension plans affect audit pricing?," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 322-337.
    21. David Hay & Robert Knechel & Vivian Li, 2006. "Non‐audit Services and Auditor Independence: New Zealand Evidence," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5‐6), pages 715-734, June.

    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:eee:accoun:v:43:y:2008:i:2:p:99-113. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620179 .

    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.