IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijoais/v29y2018icp59-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of client information technology capability on audit pricing

Author

Listed:
  • Hoffman, Benjamin W.
  • Sellers, R. Drew
  • Skomra, Justyna

Abstract

This paper explores the question: “How does a client's information technology (IT) capability influence audit pricing?” Company data for the years 2004 through 2012 are employed. Firms appearing on the InformationWeek 500 (IW500) annual list of U.S. organizations with superior IT functions serve as a proxy for companies with superior IT capability. Our findings suggest that companies with superior IT capabilities incur higher levels of audit fees. In addition, as client size increases, the audit fees of firms with advanced IT capabilities increase at a greater rate than firms without such capabilities. These findings contrast with prior research by Chen et al. (2014) that found in the immediate post-Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) period for the years 2004 through 2007, client IT capability reduced audit fee increases. In addition, we replicate the Chen et al. (2014) results and find that IT capability did not influence audit fee increases during the subsequent recession and recovery periods. Further, superior capability clients see smaller audit fee increases when exogenous shocks such as SOX regulations occur. These results suggest a revised interpretation of Chen et al. (2014) may be warranted. This study contributes to the literature by providing a more complete picture of how a client's IT capability affects audit fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoffman, Benjamin W. & Sellers, R. Drew & Skomra, Justyna, 2018. "The impact of client information technology capability on audit pricing," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 59-75.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijoais:v:29:y:2018:i:c:p:59-75
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2018.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089516301403
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accinf.2018.03.002?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
    ---><---

    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. Chris E. Hogan & Michael S. Wilkins, 2008. "Evidence on the Audit Risk Model: Do Auditors Increase Audit Fees in the Presence of Internal Control Deficiencies?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 219-242, March.
    2. Joseph V. Carcello & Dana R. Hermanson & Terry L. Neal & Richard A. Riley, 2002. "Board Characteristics and Audit Fees," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 365-384, September.
    3. Axelsen, Micheal & Green, Peter & Ridley, Gail, 2017. "Explaining the information systems auditor role in the public sector financial audit," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 15-31.
    4. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    5. Fischer, Michael J., 1996. ""Real-izing" the benefits of new technologies as a source of audit evidence: An interpretive field study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 219-242.
    6. Abernathy, John L. & Barnes, Michael & Stefaniak, Chad, 2013. "A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned?," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 30-60.
    7. Kathleen A. Bentley & Thomas C. Omer & Nathan Y. Sharp, 2013. "Business Strategy, Financial Reporting Irregularities, and Audit Effort," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 780-817, June.
    8. Zhan Shu, Susan, 2000. "Auditor resignations: clientele effects and legal liability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 173-205, April.
    9. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
    10. Steven E. Salterio, 2014. "We Don't Replicate Accounting Research—Or Do We?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 1134-1142, December.
    11. Doyle, Jeffrey & Ge, Weili & McVay, Sarah, 2007. "Determinants of weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 193-223, September.
    12. Joseph F. Brazel & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2007. "An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1059-1083, December.
    13. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    14. Carlin Dowling & Stewart a. Leech, 2014. "A Big 4 Firm's Use of Information Technology to Control the Audit Process: How an Audit Support System is Changing Auditor Behavior," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 230-252, March.
    15. Stoel, Dale & Havelka, Douglas & Merhout, Jeffrey W., 2012. "An analysis of attributes that impact information technology audit quality: A study of IT and financial audit practitioners," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 60-79.
    16. 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.
    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. Adrian-Cosmin Caraiman, 2020. "Responsibility for Internal Control in Corporate Governance," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 612-618, December.
    2. Huh, Bong Gu & Lee, Sunhwa & Kim, Wonsin, 2021. "The impact of the input level of information system audit on the audit quality: Korean evidence," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    3. Shaojun Yan & Yiyang Xi & Zhaoxiang Wu, 2024. "Enterprise Digital Transformation and Compliance in Cross-Regional Development: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-50, January.
    4. Navarro, Patricia & Robb, Sean W.G. & Sutton, Steve G. & Weisner, Martin M., 2020. "The cost stickiness of information technology material weaknesses: An intertemporal comparison between it-related and other material weaknesses," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).

    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. Chen, Huimin (Amy) & Francis, Bill B. & Shen, Yinjie (Victor) & Wu, Qiang, 2024. "The impact of hedge fund activism on audit pricing," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    2. Huh, Bong Gu & Lee, Sunhwa & Kim, Wonsin, 2021. "The impact of the input level of information system audit on the audit quality: Korean evidence," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    3. Navarro, Patricia & Robb, Sean W.G. & Sutton, Steve G. & Weisner, Martin M., 2020. "The cost stickiness of information technology material weaknesses: An intertemporal comparison between it-related and other material weaknesses," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    4. Chang, Hsihui & Ho, L.C. Jennifer & Liu, Zenghui & Ouyang, Bo, 2021. "Income smoothing and audit fees," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    5. Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin & Rahman, Asheq & Sultana, Nigar, 2020. "Female tainted directors, financial reporting quality and audit fees," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    6. Ji, Xu-dong & Lu, Wei & Qu, Wen, 2018. "Internal control risk and audit fees: Evidence from China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 266-287.
    7. Chantziaras, Antonios & Dedoulis, Emmanouil & Leventis, Stergios, 2020. "The impact of labor unionization on monitoring costs," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 288-307.
    8. Li, Xuelian & Liu, Ming, 2024. "Abnormal audit fees and financial reporting quality: A meta-analysis," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Ferdinand A Gul & Arifur Khan & Karen Lai & Getie Dessalegn & Mohammad Badrul Muttakin, 2023. "Corporate political donations and audit fees: Some evidence from Australian audit pricing," Post-Print hal-04511816, HAL.
    12. Aditya Aji Prabhawa & Iman Harymawan, 2022. "Readability of Financial Footnotes, Audit Fees, and Risk Management Committee," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Feng, Mei & Li, Chan & McVay, Sarah, 2009. "Internal control and management guidance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2-3), pages 190-209, December.
    14. John Ziyang Zhang & Yangxin Yu, 2016. "Does Board Independence Affect Audit Fees? Evidence from Recent Regulatory Reforms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 793-814, October.
    15. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    16. Jinghui Sun & Liuchuang Li & Baolei Qi, 2022. "Financial statement comparability and audit pricing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(5), pages 4631-4661, December.
    17. Duellman, Scott & Hurwitz, Helen & Sun, Yan, 2015. "Managerial overconfidence and audit fees," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 148-165.
    18. Fernández Méndez, Carlos & Pathan, Shams & Arrondo García, Rubén, 2015. "Monitoring capabilities of busy and overlap directors: Evidence from Australia," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(PA), pages 444-469.
    19. Carey, Peter & Liu, Li & Qu, Wen, 2017. "Voluntary corporate social responsibility reporting and financial statement auditing in China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 244-262.
    20. 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.

    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:ijoais:v:29:y:2018:i:c:p:59-75. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-accounting-information-systems/ .

    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.