IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00481517.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conséquences De L'Adoption Des Normes Internationales «Ifrs» Sur Le Coût D'Audit Financier

Author

Listed:
  • Lobna Loukil

    (ESC Sfax - Ecole Supérieure de Commerce Sfax)

Abstract

This study has as purpose to search, in a French context, the consequences of the adoption of international financial standards "IFRS" on mission and cost of statutory audit. In effect, the European Union requires on January 1st, 2005, the application of a common international accounting frame of reference for all EU listed companies. Inquiries and studies which were accomplished show that this operation was not easy, either without expense or for the concerned business company or for the statutory auditor. For a sample of 106 French firms of SBF 250 covering period 2002-2007, the results show an increase in audit fees the period of adoption of "IFRS"(2004 and 2005). For other determinants (size of the firm, level of debt, % of the capital detained by the reference stockholders, number of auditors Big and length of relation between auditor and audetee) all seem to have significant effect on the audit fees. In contrast, we find inherent risk and managerial ownership haven't significant effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Lobna Loukil, 2010. "Conséquences De L'Adoption Des Normes Internationales «Ifrs» Sur Le Coût D'Audit Financier," Post-Print hal-00481517, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00481517
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00481517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00481517/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    3. Clive Lennox, 2005. "Management Ownership and Audit Firm Size," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 205-227, March.
    4. Mehdi Nekhili & Wafa Masmoudi & Dhikra Chebbi Nehkili, 2009. "Choix de l’auditeur externe, honoraires d’audit et gouvernance des entreprises françaises," Working Papers CREGO 1090501, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    5. 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.
    6. Santanu Mitra & Mahmud Hossain & Donald Deis, 2007. "The empirical relationship between ownership characteristics and audit fees," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 257-285, April.
    7. Niemi, Lasse, 2005. "Audit effort and fees under concentrated client ownership: Evidence from four international audit firms," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 303-323.
    8. Charles Piot, 2008. "Les déterminants du délai de signature du rapport d'audit en France," ACCRA, Association francophone de comptabilité, vol. 14(2), pages 43-73.
    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. Shan, Yuan George & Troshani, Indrit & Tarca, Ann, 2019. "Managerial ownership, audit firm size, and audit fees: Australian evidence," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 18-36.
    2. Griffin, Paul A. & Lont, David H. & Sun, Yuan, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Audit Fees: Evidence of Countervailing Relations," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 18-49.
    3. Ben Ali Chiraz & Cédric Lesage, 2010. "Ownership concentration and audit fees: do auditors matter most when investors are protected least?," Post-Print hal-00476923, HAL.
    4. Raúl Barroso & Chiraz Ben Ali & Cédric Lesage, 2018. "Blockholders’ Ownership and Audit Fees: The Impact of the Corporate Governance Model," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 149-172, January.
    5. Khan, Arifur & Muttakin, Mohammad Badrul & Siddiqui, Javed, 2015. "Audit fees, auditor choice and stakeholder influence: Evidence from a family-firm dominated economy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 304-320.
    6. Alhababsah, Salem, 2019. "Ownership structure and audit quality: An empirical analysis considering ownership types in Jordan," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 71-84.
    7. Owusu-Ansah, Stephen & Leventis, Stergios & Caramanis, Constantinos, 2010. "The pricing of statutory audit services in Greece," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 139-152.
    8. Mary Kehinde Salawu, 2017. "Factors Influencing Auditor Independence among Listed Companies in Nigeria: Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) Approach," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(8), pages 191-203, August.
    9. Habib, Ahsan, 2011. "Audit firm industry specialization and audit outcomes: Insights from academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 114-129.
    10. George Drogalas & Michail Nerantzidis & Dimitrios Mitskinis & Ioannis Tampakoudis, 2021. "The relationship between audit fees and audit committee characteristics: evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 24-41, March.
    11. Sarhan, Ahmed A. & Ntim, Collins G. & Al-Najjar, Basil, 2019. "Antecedents of audit quality in MENA countries: The effect of firm- and country-level governance quality," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 85-107.
    12. Myung-In Kim & Catherine Heyjung Sonu & Jong-Hag Choi, 2015. "Separation of corporate ownership and control and accounting conservatism: evidence from Korea," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 103-136, June.
    13. Dafydd Mali & Hyoung‐joo Lim, 2021. "Do Relatively More Efficient Firms Demand Additional Audit Effort (Hours)?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(2), pages 108-127, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Sharad Asthana & Rachana Kalelkar, 2011. "The Market For Audit Services And S&P 500 Index Clients," Working Papers 0022, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    16. Miguel Minutti‐Meza, 2013. "Does Auditor Industry Specialization Improve Audit Quality?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 779-817, September.
    17. 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).
    18. Akihiro Yamada & Kento Fujita, 2022. "Impact of Parent Companies and Multiple Large Shareholders on Audit Fees in Stakeholder-Oriented Corporate Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    19. Riyadh Jassim AL Abdullah & Mawih Kareem AL Ani, 2021. "The impacts of interaction of audit litigation and ownership structure on audit quality," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Chahine, Salim & Filatotchev, Igor, 2011. "The effects of corporate governance and audit and non-audit fees on IPO Value," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 155-172.

    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:hal:journl:hal-00481517. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.