We find no significant association between non–audit service fees and impaired auditor independence, where auditor independence is surrogated by auditors’ propensity to issue going concern audit opinions. We also find no association between going concern opinions and either total fees or audit fees. In addition, our findings are robust to controlling for unexpected fees, to controlling for endogeneity among our variables, and to several alternative research design specifications. Our results are consistent with market–based incentives, such as loss of reputation and litigation costs, dominating the expected benefits from compromising auditor independence.

This study examines the association between audit committee characteristics and audit fees, using data gathered under the recent SEC fee disclosure rules. We hypothesize that audit fees will be positively associated with audit committee independence, financial expertise, and meeting frequency. We examine a sample of 492 nonregulated, Big 5-audited firms that filed proxy statements with the SEC in the period from February 5, 2001 to June 30, 2001. We find that audit committee independence (defined as an audit committee comprised entirely of outside, independent directors) and financial expertise (defined as an audit committee containing at least one member with financial expertise) are significantly, positively associated with audit fees. This is in contrast to the findings of Carcello et al. (2002a), who find that audit committee characteristics are not significant in the presence of board-related variables. Meeting frequency (defined as an audit committee that meets at least four times annually) was not associated with higher audit fees at conventional levels. This evidence is consistent with audit committees taking actions within their span of control to ensure a higher level of audit coverage.

In this study we investigate whether the characteristics of clients, auditors, and the auditor-client relationship simultaneously determine audit and non-audit fees. As done in prior studies, we maintain that fees proxy for the level of service provided and follow the physical flow of knowledge. Estimating single-equation models of audit and non-audit fee models, we confirm prior findings of an association between audit and non-audit fees. Studies conclude that such evidence is consistent with knowledge spillovers between the two services. However, we document empirically that audit and non-audit fees are simultaneously determined. Because the data indicate audit and non-audit fees are jointly determined, we then investigate whether previously documented associations between audit and non-audit fees are the result of biased estimation induced by using endogenous variables in single-equation models. In contrast to results from single-equation estimations, we find no association between audit and non-audit fees using a simultaneous specification of the fee system, suggesting that single-equation estimations suffer from simultaneous-equations bias. In sum, the findings are not consistent with the existence of economies of scope from the joint performance of audit and non-audit services after controlling for the joint behavior of audit and non-audit fees. Given the ongoing debate over the level of allowed non-audit services by auditors, the argument for the joint provision of audit and non-audit services is less justified than if joint-supply benefits had been documented. Copyright University of Chicago on behalf of the Institute of Professional Accounting, 2003.

Recently, the SEC has called for research regarding the relationship between audit tenure and audit failures. In this study, we address this issue by examining prior audit reports for a sample of companies entering into bankruptcy during the period 1996–1998. We use a multivariate analysis to test for the association between the type of audit opinion issued on the financial statements immediately prior to bankruptcy and the length of auditor tenure. Our results indicate that there were significantly more audit reporting failures in the earlier years of the auditor/client relationship than when auditors had served these clients for longer tenures. The results do not support the arguments of those who propose mandatory auditor rotation and suggest that, contrary to the concerns expressed by the SEC, there is an inverse relationship between auditor tenure and audit reporting failures.

No abstract