IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v20y2003i2p215-234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Investigation of Audit Fees, Nonaudit Fees, and Audit Committees

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence J. Abbott
  • Susan Parker
  • Gary F. Peters
  • K. Raghunandan

Abstract

This study examines the association between audit committee characteristics and the ratio of nonaudit service (NAS) fees to audit fees, using data gathered under the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) fee disclosure rules. Issues related to NAS fees have been of concern to practitioners, regulators, and academics for a number of years. Prior research suggests that audit committees possessing certain characteristics are important participants in the process of managing the client†auditor relationship. We hypothesize that audit committees that are independent and active financial monitors have incentives to limit NAS fees (relative to audit fees) paid to incumbent auditors, in an effort to enhance auditor independence in either appearance or fact. Our analysis using a sample of 538 firms indicates that audit committees comprised solely of independent directors meeting at least four times annually are significantly and negatively associated with the NAS fee ratio. This evidence is consistent with audit committee members perceiving a high level of NAS fees in a negative light and taking actions to decrease the NAS fee ratio.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence J. Abbott & Susan Parker & Gary F. Peters & K. Raghunandan, 2003. "An Empirical Investigation of Audit Fees, Nonaudit Fees, and Audit Committees," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 215-234, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:20:y:2003:i:2:p:215-234
    DOI: 10.1506/8YP9-P27G-5NW5-DJKK
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1506/8YP9-P27G-5NW5-DJKK
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1506/8YP9-P27G-5NW5-DJKK?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
    ---><---

    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:20:y:2003:i:2:p:215-234. 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: 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.