IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v28y2023i2d10.1007_s11142-021-09665-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do auditors charge a client business risk premium? Evidence from audit fees and derivative hedging in the U.S. oil and gas industry

Author

Listed:
  • Tharindra Ranasinghe

    (American University)

  • Lin Yi

    (University of Houston–Clear Lake)

  • Ling Zhou

    (University of New Mexico)

Abstract

The literature finds that auditors charge higher fees for riskier clients. One reason for this is that auditors expend greater effort on riskier clients. However, it is unclear whether they also charge an additional client business risk premium. We investigate this issue employing a detailed, hand-collected dataset of hedging derivative usage by U.S. oil and gas exploration and production firms. Even though the auditing of derivative instruments requires greater effort, hedging significantly reduces client business risk. Consistent with the presence of a client business risk premium in audit fees that gets attenuated when clients reduce their risks, we find a negative association between audit fees and the extent of derivative hedging by clients. Further underscoring the role of risk reduction in this relationship, we find the above negative association to be weaker when the risk management efficacy of derivative instruments is comparatively lower. This negative association is also weaker when effort expended in auditing derivatives is likely to be especially high. We contribute to the literature by providing strong evidence for the presence of a client business risk premium in audit fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Tharindra Ranasinghe & Lin Yi & Ling Zhou, 2023. "Do auditors charge a client business risk premium? Evidence from audit fees and derivative hedging in the U.S. oil and gas industry," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 1107-1139, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:28:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s11142-021-09665-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-021-09665-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-021-09665-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-021-09665-x?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. 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. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.
    3. Yanbo Jin & Philippe Jorion, 2006. "Firm Value and Hedging: Evidence from U.S. Oil and Gas Producers," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 893-919, April.
    4. Clive S. Lennox, 1999. "Audit Quality and Auditor Size: An Evaluation of Reputation and Deep Pockets Hypotheses," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7&8), pages 779-805.
    5. Ferdinand A. Gul, 2006. "Auditors' Response to Political Connections and Cronyism in Malaysia," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(5), pages 931-963, December.
    6. Jones, Jj, 1991. "Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigations," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 193-228.
    7. Okeefe, Tb & Simunic, Da & Stein, Mt, 1994. "The Production Of Audit Services - Evidence From A Major Public Accounting Firm," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 241-261.
    8. Rajgopal, Shivaram & Shevlin, Terry, 2002. "Empirical evidence on the relation between stock option compensation and risk taking," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 145-171, June.
    9. G. David Haushalter, 2000. "Financing Policy, Basis Risk, and Corporate Hedging: Evidence from Oil and Gas Producers," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(1), pages 107-152, February.
    10. John D. Lyon & Michael W. Maher, 2005. "The Importance of Business Risk in Setting Audit Fees: Evidence from Cases of Client Misconduct," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 133-151, March.
    11. Kumar, Praveen & Rabinovitch, Ramon, 2013. "CEO Entrenchment and Corporate Hedging: Evidence from the Oil and Gas Industry," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 887-917, June.
    12. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Guay, Wayne R., 1999. "The impact of derivatives on firm risk: An empirical examination of new derivative users1," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1-3), pages 319-351, January.
    15. Dye, Ronald A, 1993. "Auditing Standards, Legal Liability, and Auditor Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(5), pages 887-914, October.
    16. Clive S. Lennox, 1999. "Audit Quality and Auditor Size: An Evaluation of Reputation and Deep Pockets Hypotheses," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7‐8), pages 779-805, September.
    17. Gil S. Bae & Seung UK Choi & Phillip T. Lamoreaux & Jae Eun Lee, 2021. "Auditors' Fee Premiums and Low‐Quality Internal Controls," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 586-620, March.
    18. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    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. Cook, Jonathan & Kowaleski, Zachary T. & Minnis, Michael & Sutherland, Andrew & Zehms, Karla M., 2020. "Auditors are known by the companies they keep," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1).
    2. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    3. Chy, Mahfuz & De Franco, Gus & Su, Barbara, 2021. "The effect of auditor litigation risk on clients' access to bank debt: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    4. Jeffrey Pittman & Baolei Qi & Yi Si & Zi-Tian Wang & Chongwu Xia, 2024. "Individual Auditor Social Responsibility and Audit Quality: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 194(1), pages 119-144, September.
    5. Christine Gimbar & Molly Mercer, 2021. "Do Auditors Accurately Predict Litigation and Reputation Consequences of Inaccurate Accounting Estimates?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 276-301, March.
    6. Jiyeon Yun & James M. Carson & David L. Eckles, 2023. "Executive compensation and corporate risk management," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 90(2), pages 521-557, June.
    7. Rajib Doogar & Padmakumar Sivadasan & Ira Solomon, 2010. "The Regulation of Public Company Auditing: Evidence from the Transition to AS5," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 795-814, September.
    8. Wu, Bin & Wu, Yaqian & Zhang, Min & Li, Jiyuan, 2024. "Opening the black box of human resource allocations in audit firms: The assignment of audit partners to audit engagements," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    9. Wen, Fenghua & Chen, Meng & Zhang, Yun & Miao, Xiao, 2023. "Oil price uncertainty and audit fees: Evidence from the energy industry," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    10. Gil S. Bae & Seung UK Choi & Phillip T. Lamoreaux & Jae Eun Lee, 2021. "Auditors' Fee Premiums and Low‐Quality Internal Controls," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 586-620, March.
    11. Athavale, Manoj & Guo, Zhaorui & Meng, Yun & Zhang, Tianshu, 2022. "Diversity of signing auditors and audit quality: Evidence from capital market in China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 554-571.
    12. Katsuhiko Muramiya & Tomomi Takada, 2010. "Auditor Conservatism, Abnormal Accruals, and Going Concern Opinions," Discussion Papers 2010-64, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    13. Gunratan Lonare & Ahmet Nart & Ahmet M. Tuncez, 2022. "Industry tournament incentives and corporate hedging policies," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 51(2), pages 399-453, June.
    14. Curtis Hall & J. Scott Judd & Jayanthi Sunder, 2023. "Auditor conservatism, audit quality, and real consequences for clients," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 689-725, June.
    15. Jeroen van Raak & Erik Peek & Roger Meuwissen & Caren Schelleman, 2020. "The effect of audit market structure on audit quality and audit pricing in the private‐client market," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3-4), pages 456-488, March.
    16. Sharad Asthana & Inder Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2019. "Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 403-438, February.
    17. Shivaram Rajgopal & Suraj Srinivasan & Xin Zheng, 2021. "Measuring audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 559-619, June.
    18. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    19. Dionne, Georges & Mnasri, Mohamed, 2018. "Real implications of corporate risk management: Evidence from U.S. oil producers," Working Papers 18-5, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    20. Kevin Koh & Li Li & Xuejiao Liu & Chunfei Wang, 2023. "The Effect of Audit Partner Diversity on Audit Quality: Evidence from China," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(1), pages 340-380, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Audit fees; Economics of auditing; Client business risk; Derivatives; Hedging; Risk management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • L71 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Primary Products and Construction - - - Mining, Extraction, and Refining: Hydrocarbon Fuels
    • L84 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Personal, Professional, and Business Services
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:spr:reaccs:v:28:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s11142-021-09665-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.