IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v11y1994i1p175-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modèle à périodes multiples et conclusions empiriques relatives à l'objectivité et à la pratique du ≪ leurre†prix ≫

Author

Listed:
  • JEFFREY W. SCHATZBERG
  • GALEN R. SEVCIK

Abstract

Résumé. Les vérificateurs, les responsables de la réglementation et les universitaires s'intéressent à la pratique du ≪ leurre†prix ≫ et à sa relation avec l'objectivité du vérificateur. Cette question a même fait l'objet de plusieurs modèles analytiques. Ces théories n'ont cependant jamais été testées, principalement à cause de l'absence de données concrètes relatives à d'importantes variables contextuelles. Les auteurs de la présente étude élaborent un modèle à périodes multiples s'appliquant à la pratique du leurre†prix et à l'objectivité du vérificateur et l'expérimentent dans des marchés de laboratoire en recourant à la méthodologie de l'économique expérimentale. Leur étude vient enrichir la documentation existante sous deux rapports. D'abord, il s'agit de l'une des premières études à produire une argumentation empirique et à expérimenter la théorie de la relation entre la pratique du leurre†prix et l'objectivité. Ensuite, le modèle repose sur un raisonnement nouveau relatif à la pratique du leurre†prix et à sa relation avec l'objectivité du vérificateur. La pratique du leurre†prix et l'atteinte à l'objectivité, qui se manifestent indépendamment des coûts exogènes des opérations, sont le résultat de la prémisse d'une variation transversale dans les coûts et la qualité de la vérification et d'un avantage relatif à l'information qui échoit à un couple vérificateur attitré†client en ce qui a trait à l'évolution de ces dimensions de la vérification. Les auteurs ont appliqué le modèle pendant un certain nombre de périodes à des marchés de laboratoire réunissant plusieurs acheteurs et plusieurs vendeurs. Ils ont observé seize de ces marchés dans le but de vérifier la valeur prédictive du modèle en ce qui a trait aux prix et à l'information communiquée. L'expérience est concluante quant à la pratique du leurre†prix, mais elle n'est pas convaincante en ce qui a trait à la prévision exacte des prix. L'expérience confirme également la validité des prévisions relatives à l'information communiquée, les vendeurs ne s'éloignant de la vérité (et faisant une entorse à l'objectivité) que lorsque les profits supplémentaires qu'ils sont susceptibles d'en retirer sont supérieurs aux coûts supplémentaires que risque d'entraîner la communication d'information inexacte. L'on peut obtenir les données relatives aux marchés de laboratoire utilisées dans le présent document en en faisant la demande aux auteurs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey W. Schatzberg & Galen R. Sevcik, 1994. "Modèle à périodes multiples et conclusions empiriques relatives à l'objectivité et à la pratique du ≪ leurre†prix ≫," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 175-221, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:11:y:1994:i:1:p:175-221
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1994.tb00441.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1994.tb00441.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1994.tb00441.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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palmrose, Zv, 1986. "Audit Fees And Auditor Size - Further Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 97-110.
    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. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith, 1978. "An Experimental Examination of Two Exchange Institutions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(1), pages 133-153.
    4. Baiman, S & Evans, Jh & Noel, J, 1987. "Optimal-Contracts With A Utility-Maximizing Auditor," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 217-244.
    5. Isaac, R. Mark & Reynolds, Stanley S., 1992. "Schumpeterian competition in experimental markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 59-100, January.
    6. Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-279, May.
    7. Johnson, W. Bruce & Lys, Thomas, 1990. "The market for audit services : Evidence from voluntary auditor changes," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1-3), pages 281-308, January.
    8. Baber, Wr & Brooks, Eh & Ricks, We, 1987. "An Empirical-Investigation Of The Market For Audit Services In The Public-Sector," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 293-305.
    9. Dye, Ronald A., 1991. "Informationally motivated auditor replacement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 347-374, December.
    10. Francis, Jere R., 1984. "The effect of audit firm size on audit prices : A study of the Australian Market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 133-151, August.
    11. Plott, Charles R, 1982. "Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1485-1527, December.
    12. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor independence, `low balling', and disclosure regulation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 113-127, August.
    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. Jeffrey W. Schatzberg & Galen R. Sevcik, 1994. "A Multiperiod Model and Experimental Evidence of Independence and “Lowballing†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 137-174, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Derek K. Chan, 1999. "“Low†Balling†and Efficiency in a Two†Period Specialization Model of Auditing Competition," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 609-642, December.
    5. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    6. James Ross Booth & Lena Chua Booth & Daniel Deli, 2012. "Managerial Incentives and Audit Fees: Evidence from the Mutual Fund Industry," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-76, May.
    7. Arrunada, Benito & Paz-Ares, Candido, 1997. "Mandatory rotation of company auditors: A critical examination," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-61, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Michael Peel & Roydon Roberts, 2003. "Audit fee determinants and auditor premiums: evidence from the micro-firm sub-market," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(3), pages 207-233.
    10. 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.
    11. Ilias G. Basioudis, 2007. "Auditor's Engagement Risk and Audit Fees: The Role of Audit Firm Alumni," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(9‐10), pages 1393-1422, November.
    12. Stergios Leventis & Emmanouil Dedoulis & Omneya Abdelsalam, 2018. "The Impact of Religiosity on Audit Pricing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 53-78, March.
    13. Numan, Wieteke & Willekens, Marleen, 2012. "An empirical test of spatial competition in the audit market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 450-465.
    14. Kwang Wuk Oh & Seok Woo Jeong & Seon Mi Kim & Seung Weon Yoo, 2017. "The Effect of IPO Risks on Auditors’ Decisions: Auditor Designation Case," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 27(4), pages 421-441, December.
    15. Fleischer, Rouven & Goettsche, Max & Schauer, Maximilian, 2017. "The Big 4 premium: Does it survive an auditor change? Evidence from Europe," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 103-117.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. Brad Badertscher & Bjorn Jorgensen & Sharon Katz & William Kinney, 2014. "Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 303-339, May.
    19. Aloke Ghosh & Steven Lustgarten, 2006. "Pricing of Initial Audit Engagements by Large and Small Audit Firms," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 333-368, June.
    20. Schelleman, C.C.M. & Maijoor, S.J., 2000. "Benchmarking the production of audit services: an efficiency frontier approach," Research Memorandum 055, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).

    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:wly:coacre:v:11:y:1994:i:1:p:175-221. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.