請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/28689完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 林嬋娟,劉啟群 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Chen Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林囿成 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T00:17:35Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2012-07-30 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2007-07-30 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2007-07-25 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Antle, R., E. A. Gordon, G. Narayanamoorthy, and L. Zhou. 2006. The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit gees, and abnormal accruals. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 27 (3): 235-236.
Asthana, S., S. Balsam, and S. Kim. 2004. The effect of Enron, Andersen, and Sarbanes-Oxley on the market for audit services. Working paper. (June 2004). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=560963 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.560963 Bell, T. B., W. R. Landsman, and D. A. Shackelford. 2001 Auditors’ perceived business risk and audit fees: Analysis and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 39(1):35-43. Benston G. J. 1985. The market for public accounting services: demand, supply and regulation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 4:33-79. Berdard, J. and K. Johnstone. 2004. Earnings manipulation risk, corporate governance risk, and auditors’ planning and pricing decisions. The Accounting Review 79(2): 277-304. Carney, W. J. 2006. The costs of being public after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Irony of going private. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 55, p. 141. Carson, E., R. Simnett, B. Soo, and A. M. Wright. 2005. The pricing of client risk in a competitive audit market. Working paper. Chan, L., T. Chen, S. Janakiraman, S. Radhakrishnan. 2006. A note on the joint determination of audit and non-audit fees. Working paper. Choi, J. T., R. Doogar, and A. R. Ganguly. 2004. The riskiness of large audit firm client portfolios and changes in audit liability regimes: evidence from the U.S. audit market. Contemporary Accounting Research. 21(4):747-785. Ciesielski, J. T., and T. R. Weirich. 2006. Ups and downs of audit fees since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The CPA Journal. Vol. 76 (October): 28-34. Cosgrove, S. and S. Niederjohn. 2006. The effects of Sarbanes-Oxley on the public accounting industry. Working paper. Craswell, A. T., J. R. Francis, 1999. Pricing initial audit engagements: A test of competing theories. The Accounting Review 74(April): 201–216. Davis, l., D. Ricchiute, and G. Trompeter. 1991. Audit effort, audit fees, and the provision of non-audit services to audit clients. The Accounting Review 68:135-150. DeAngelo, L. 1981a. Auditor independence “low balling” and disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3(August): 113– 127. DeAngelo, L. 1981b. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3(December): 183– 199. Dye, R. 1991. Informationally motivated auditor replacement. Journal of Accounting and Economics 14(December):347-374. Eldridge, S. W. and B. T. Kealey. 2005. SOX Costs: Auditor Attestation under Section 404. Working paper. (June 13, 2005). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=743285 Ettredge, M., and R. Greenberg. 1990. Determinants of fee cutting on initial audit engagements. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 198-210. __________, C. Li, and S. Scholz. 2005. Auditor fees and auditor realignments in the Sarbanes-Oxley era. Working paper. Francis, J. R. 1984. The effect of audit firm size on audit prices. Journal of Accounting and Economics 6(August): 133–151. _________. and D. T. Simon. 1987. A test of audit pricing in the small-client segment of the U.S. audit market. The Accounting Review 63(January): 145–157. _________. and D. J. Stokes. 1986. Audit prices, product differentiation, and scale economies: Further evidence from the Australian market. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 383-393. _________. and D. Wang. 2005. Impact of the SEC’s public fee disclosure requirement on subsequent period fees and implications for market efficiency. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 24 (Supplement) 145-160. Frankel, R. M., M. F. Johnson, and K. K. Nelson. 2002. The relation between auditors' fees for non-audit services and earnings management. The Accounting Review 77(Supplement): 71–105. General Accounting Office of the United States (GAO) 2003. Public accounting firms: mandated study on consolidation and competition. (GAO-03-864). Available at: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-864 Ghosh, A. and S. Lustgarten. 2006. Pricing of initial audit engagements by large and small audit firms. Contemporary Accounting Research 23 (2): 333-368. Griffin, P. A. and D. H. Lont. 2004. An analysis of audit fees following the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. Working paper. _______________________. 2005. The effects of auditor dismissals and resignations on audit fees: Evidence based on SEC disclosures under Sarbanes-Oxley. Working paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=669682 Hartman, T. E. 2006. The cost of being public in the era of Sarbanes-Oxley. Foley and Lardner Presentation. June 16, 2006. Hay, D. C., W. R. Knechel, and N. Wong. 2006 Audit fee: A meta-analysis of the effect of supply and demand attributes. Contemporary Accounting Research 23(1):141-191. Ho, J. L. Y. and J. Wang 2007. Examination of audit fee premiums and auditor switching pre and post the demise of Andersen and the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Working paper presented at American Accounting Association Auditing Section 2007 Midyear Conference Johnstone, K. and J. Bedard. 2004. Audit firm portfolio management decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 42(4): 659-690. Kinney, W. R. Jr. 2005. Twenty-five years of audit deregulation and re- regulation: What does it mean for 2005 and beyond? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Spring): 89-109. Landsman, W., K. K. Nelson, and B. R. Rountree. 2006. An empirical analysis of Big N auditor switches: Evidence from the pre- and post-Enron Eras. Working paper. Maher, M W., P. Tiessen, R. Colson, and A. J. Broman. 1992. Competition and audit fee. The Accounting Review 67 (January): 199-211. Markelevich, A., R. Hoitash, and C. A. Barragato. 2005. The nature and disclosure of fees paid to auditors - An analysis before and after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The CPA Journal November (Supplement): 6-11 Menon, K. and D. D. Williams. 2001. Long-term trends in audit fee. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. 20 (March):115-136. Palmrose, Z. V. 1986a. Audit fees and audit size: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 24(1):97-110. ____________. 1986b. The effect of non-audit services on the pricing of audit services: further evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 24(2):405-411. Sankaraguruswamy, S. and S. Whisenant. 2005. Pricing initial audit engagements: empirical evidence following public disclosure of audit fees. Working paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=452680 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.452680 Schloetzer, J. D. 2006 Arthur Andersen, SOX Section 404 and auditor turnover: Theory and evidence. Working paper. Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) release 33-7919. 2000. Revision of the Commission's auditor independence requirements. November 21, 2000. SEC release 33-8183. 2003. Strengthening the Commission's requirements regarding auditor independence. January 28, 2003. SEC release 33-8392. 2004. Management's report on internal control over financial reporting and certification of disclosure in Exchange Act periodic reports. February 24, 2004. SEC release 33-8545. 2004.Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting and certification of disclosure in Exchange Act periodic reports of non-accelerated filers and foreign private issuers. March 2, 2005. SEC release 33-8618. 2005. Management's report on internal control over financial reporting and certification of disclosure in Exchange Act periodic reports of companies that are not accelerated filers. September 22, 2005. SEC release 33-8760. 2006. Internal control over financial reporting in Exchange Act periodic reports of non-accelerated filers and newly public companies. December 15, 2006. SEC Report Audit No. 401. 2006. Office of Inspector General Reports: Preliminary review of filings. June. Washington, D. C.: U.S. SEC. Available at SEC: www.sec.gov/about/oig/audit/2006/401fin.pdf Simon, D. T., and J. R. Francis. 1988. The effects of auditor change on audit fees: Tests of price cutting and price recovery. The Accounting Review 63 (April): 255-269. Simunic, D. A. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 18(Spring): 161–190. ____________ 1984. Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research 22(Autumn): 679–702. ____________. and M. T. Stein. 1996. Impact of litigation risk on audit pricing: A review of the economics and the evidence. Auditing 15(Supplement): 119–134. Turner, L. E., J. P. Williams, and T. R. Weirich. 2005. An inside look at auditor changes. The CPA Journal November:12-21. Walker, P. L., and J. R. Castarella. 2000. The role of auditor profitability in pricing new engagements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. 19 (Spring):157-167. Whisenant, S., S. Sankaraguruswamy, and K. Raghunandan. 2003, Joint determination of audit and non-audit fees. Journal of Accounting Research (September): 721-744. Wooldridge, J. M. 2003. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 2E. Ohio: South-Western Inc. Zmijewski, M. 1984. Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Supplement) 59-82. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/28689 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 2002年通過的沙賓法案（SOX）對財務報導與審計環境造成重大的改變，本研究利用美國2000至2005年強制揭露的審計公費資料進行實證研究，探討沙賓法案對審計公費訂價之影響。實證結果顯示：審計訂價因為沙賓法案而產生結構性改變，此種改變對大型事務所與非大型事務所的影響不同。沙賓法案後，委任風險因子對審計公費之影響程度變大，但是證實測試風險因子的影響變小；本研究發現會計師將遵循成本（包含SOX Section 404、408、及12月忙季）轉嫁給客戶。實證結果也發現，沙賓法案後大型事務所公費溢酬增加，會計師對於在資本市場籌募資金之客戶收取更高公費。值得注意的是，沙賓法案後對客戶委任風險公費貼水調高的情形，只發生在大型事務所，這顯示大型事務所對客戶的議價能力大於小型事務所，加上更擔心客戶之委任風險，所以在SOX後收取更高的委任風險貼水。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 substantially changes the environment of financial reporting and auditing. Using the mandatory audit fees disclosure data from 2000 to 2005, this study examines the impact of SOX on audit pricing. The empirical results show that there is a structure change in audit pricing, and the change pattern differs between Big-N and Non-Big-N. Specifically, for the audit risk factors, the coefficient of engagement risk factor increases, but the coefficient of substantive testing risk decreases in the post-SOX period. As to the compliance costs, it is found that auditors pass their SOX compliance costs (including Section 404, 408, and the audit work concentration for fiscal year ended in December) to their clients. This study also documents an increase in Big-N premium, and more fees are charged to clients raising funds from the capital market. Finally, comparing the Big-N vs. Non-Big-N, the results show that only Big-N audit firms charge more engagement risk premium after SOX. This finding suggests that the Big-N firms are more care about clients’ engagement risk and they tend to charge more engagement risk premium after SOX since they have more bargaining power. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T00:17:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-D87722003-1.pdf: 353720 bytes, checksum: 2538caa3defa80e4280f4ce3cb49db43 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Contents
口試委員會審定書 i 謝辭 ii 英文摘要 iii 中文摘要 iv 1 Introduction 1 2 Regulations and literature review 6 2.1 Audit fees disclosure and SOX requirement 6 2.2 Audit service and regulation 9 2.3 Audit fees determinant model 11 2.3.1 Audit pricing trend 11 2.3.2 Audit pricing over risk and SOX 12 2.3.3 Big-N firms premium 14 2.3.4 Low-balling 15 2.3.5 Audit and non-audit fees and knowledge spillover 17 3 Hypotheses development 19 4 Data and research design 24 4.1 Data 24 4.2 Research design 24 5 Empirical results 29 5.1 Descriptive statistics 29 5.2 Audit fees model regression results 30 5.3 Factored risk variables and compliance cost variables model 33 5.4 SOX dummy interactive with factored risk variables and compliance cost variables model 35 5.5 Big-N market and Non-Big-N market 37 5.6 Robustness tests 38 6 Conclusions 41 Reference 43 Figure Figure 1 The decision process of an audit engagement 49 Tables Table 1 Sample Selection Criteria 49 Table 2 Descriptive statistics Panel A: Fees items and company size 50 Table 2 Descriptive statistics Panel B: Mean of continuous variables 51 Table 2 Descriptive statistics Panel C: Mean of nominal variables 52 Table 3 Audit pricing model Panel A: Overall sample with SOX dummy and by year sub-samples 54 Table 3 Audit pricing model Panel B: Overall sample with SOX dummy and pre-SOX vs. post-SOX sub-sample 55 Table 3 Audit pricing model Panel C: Big-N vs. Non-Big-N, pre-SOX vs. post-SOX 56 Table 4 Audit pricing model: with SOX dummy interact variables 57 Table 5 Factor analysis for risk variables 58 Table 6 Audit fees pricing model with compliance cost variables Panel A: Overall sample with SOX dummy and by year sun-samples 59 Table 6 Audit fees pricing model with compliance cost variables Panel B: Overall sample with SOX dummy and pre-SOX vs. post-SOX 60 Table 6 Audit fees pricing model with compliance cost variables Panel C: Big-N vs. Non-Big-N and pre-SOX vs. post-SOX 61 Table 7 Factored risk variables and compliance cost variables model Panel A: Overall sample, pre-, and post-SOX samples 62 Table 7 Factored risk variables and compliance cost variables model Panel B: Big-N vs. Non-Big-N and pre-SOX vs. post-SOX sample 63 Table 8 Audit pricing model with factored risk variables, compliance cost variables, and SOX interaction variables Panel A: Overall sample 64 Table 8 Audit pricing model with factored risk variables, compliance cost variables, and SOX interaction variables Panel B: Big-N vs. Non-Big-N, and by audit firm size 65 Table 9 Audit pricing model SOX dummy interactive with alternative risk measure and compliance cost variables Panel A: Overall sample 66 Table 9 Audit pricing model SOX dummy interactive with alternative risk measure and compliance cost variables Panel B: Big-N vs. Non-Big-N, and by audit firm size 67 Table 10 Audit pricing model with factored risk variables, compliance cost variables, and SOX interaction variables: sub-sample for the companies that do not change auditors from year 2000 to 2005 68 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 沙賓法案 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 審計訂價 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 遵循成本 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 審計風險 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 結構改變 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | audit pricing | en |
| dc.subject | audit risk | en |
| dc.subject | Sarbanes-Oxley Act | en |
| dc.subject | compliance cost | en |
| dc.subject | structure change | en |
| dc.title | 從審計風險與遵循成本檢視沙賓法案（SOX）對審計公費訂價之影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Impact of SOX on Audit Pricing: Audit Risk and Compliance Cost | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 95-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王泰昌,劉嘉雯,陳聖賢,戚務君,李建然 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 審計訂價,沙賓法案,審計風險,遵循成本,結構改變, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | audit pricing,Sarbanes-Oxley Act,audit risk,compliance cost,structure change, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 48 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2007-07-27 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 會計學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-96-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 345.43 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。