Influência do Risco de Litígio do Auditor nos Honorários de Auditoria e não Auditoria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v14i4.2574Keywords:
Risco de Litígio, Honorários de Auditoria, Honorários de Não Auditoria.Abstract
Objetivo: Analisar o impacto do risco de litígio do auditor nos honorários de auditoria e não auditoria.
Método: Realizou-se pesquisa descritiva, documental e com abordagem quantitativa. A população compreendeu as empresas listadas no Estados Unidos da América e a amostra correspondeu a 1.298 empresas para cada ano de análise, que abrangeu o período de 2013 a 2017. Os dados foram coletados e da base de dados da Thomson Reuters Eikon® e analisados por meio da estatística descritiva e de regressão linear múltipla.
Resultados: Os resultados do estudo demonstram que o risco de litígio influencia os honorários de auditoria e os honorários de não auditoria. As variáveis de controle, alavancagem, lucratividade, empresa de auditoria, endividamento, tamanho e Market-to-Book apresentaram relação significativa com ambos os honorários, entretanto, a variável alavancagem apresentou relação negativa. Na prática os resultados indicam, que a partir do momento em que o auditor percebe um alto risco de litígio da empresa auditada, estes são persuadidos a despender um maior esforço e tempo na aplicação de testes para realizar o trabalho de auditoria. Além disso, perante um alto risco de litígio, os auditores são motivados a realizar um trabalho especializado, como por exemplo, auditoria especial e verificação fiscal.
Contribuições: Este estudo contribui ao fornecer evidências explícitas sobre o risco de litígio específico do cliente, o qual afeta mais explicitamente a responsabilidade legal do auditor pela auditoria de um cliente específico, fato que consequentemente impacta nos honorários de auditoria e honorários de não auditoria, conforme evidenciado neste estudo.
References
Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., Peters, G. F., & Raghunandan, K. (2003). An empirical investigation of audit fees, nonaudit fees, and audit committees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(2), 215-234.
Adelopo, I., Jallow, K., & Scott, P. (2012). Multiple large ownership structure, audit committee activity and audit fees: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 13(2), 100-121.
Badertscher, B., Jorgensen, B., Katz, S., & Kinney, W. (2014). Public equity and audit pricing in the United States. Journal of Accounting Research, 52(2), 303-339.
Bronson, S. N., Ghosh, A. A., & Hogan, C. E. (2017). Audit Fee Differential, Audit Effort, and Litigation Risk: An Examination of ADR Firms. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(1), 83-117.
Carson, E., Fargher, N., Simon, D. T., & Taylor, M. H. (2004). Audit fees and market segmentation–further evidence on how client size matters within the context of audit fee models. International Journal of Auditing, 8(1), 79-91.
Choi, J. H., Kim, J. B., Liu, X., & Simunic, D. A. (2009). Cross-listing audit fee premiums: Theory and evidence. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1429-1463.
DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of accounting and economics, 3(3), 183-199.
DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3), 275-326.
Elder, R., Zhang, Y., Zhou, J., & Zhou, N. (2009). Internal control weaknesses and client risk management. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 24(4), 543-579.
Fávero, L. P. (2015). Análise de Dados: Modelos de Regressão com Excel®, STATA® e SPSS®. 1. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Hay, D., Knechel, W. R., & Ling, H. (2008). Evidence on the impact of internal control and corporate governance on audit fees. International Journal of Auditing, 12(1), 9-24.
Hay, D. C., Knechel, W. R., & Wong, N. (2006). Audit fees: A meta‐analysis of the effect of supply and demand attributes. Contemporary accounting research, 23(1), 141-191.
Hoitash, R., Markelevich, A., & Barragato, C. A. (2007). Auditor fees and audit quality. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(8), 761-786.
Hope, O. K., & Langli, J. C. (2010). Auditor independence in a private firm and low litigation risk setting. The Accounting Review, 85(2), 573-605.
Joshi, P. L., & Bastaki, H. A. (2000). Determinants of audit fees: evidence from the companies listed in Bahrain. International journal of auditing, 4(2), 129-138.
Kaplan, S. E., & Williams, D. D. (2013). Do going concern audit reports protect auditors from litigation? A simultaneous equations approach. The Accounting Review, 88(1), 199-232.
Khan, A. R., Hossain, D. M., & Siddiqui, J. (2011). Corporate ownership concentration and audit fees: The case of an emerging economy. Advances in Accounting, 27(1), 125-131.
Kikhia, H. Y. (2015). Determinants of audit fees: evidence from Jordan. Accounting and finance Research, 4(1), 42.
Kim, Y., & Park, M. S. (2013). Real activities manipulation and auditors' client-retention decisions. The Accounting Review, 89(1), 367-401.
Krishnan, J., & Krishnan, J. (1997). Litigation risk and auditor resignations. Accounting Review, 539-560.
Krishnan, J., & Zhang, Y. (2005). Auditor litigation risk and corporate disclosure of quarterly review report. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(s-1), 115-138.
Krishnan, G. V., Sun, L., Wang, Q., & Yang, R. (2013). Client risk management: A pecking order analysis of auditor response to upward earnings management risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(2), 147-169.
Lim, C. Y., Ding, D. K., & Charoenwong, C. (2013). Non-audit fees, institutional monitoring, and audit quality. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 41(2), 343-384.
Lim, C. Y., & Tan, H. T. (2008). Non‐audit service fees and audit quality: The impact of auditor specialization. Journal of accounting research, 46(1), 199-246.
Mitra, S., Hossain, M., & Deis, D. R. (2007). The empirical relationship between ownership characteristics and audit fees. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 28(3), 257-285.
Mayoral, J. A. M., & Segura, A. S. (2007). Un estudio empírico de los honorarios del auditor. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, (32), 81-110.
Nelson, S. P., & Mohamed-Rusdi, N. F. (2015). Ownership structures influence on audit fee. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 5(4), 457-478.
Seetharaman, A., Gul, F. A., & Lynn, S. G. (2002). Litigation risk and audit fees: Evidence from UK firms cross-listed on US markets. Journal of accounting and economics, 33(1), 91-115.
Simunic, D. A. (1984). Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence. Journal of Accounting research, 679-702.
Simunic, D. A. (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of accounting research, 161-190.
Simunic, D., & M.T. Stein. (1987). Product Differentiation in Auditing: A Study of Auditor Choice in the market for unseasoned new issues. Vancouver B.C.: The Canadian Certified General Accountants’ Research Foundation.
Simunic, D., & M. Stein. (1996). The Impact of Litigation Risk on Audit Pricing: A Review of
the Economics and the Evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 15: 119–34.
Shu, S. Z. (2000), Auditor resignations: clientele effects and legal liability, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29(2), pp. 173-205.
Sterzeck, G. (2017). Audit Expectation Gap nos litígios das firmas de auditoria (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo).
Sun, J., & Liu, G. (2011). Client-specific litigation risk and audit quality differentiation. Managerial Auditing Journal, 26(4), 300-316.
Venkataraman, R., Weber, J. P., & Willenborg, M. (2008). Litigation risk, audit quality, and audit fees: Evidence from initial public offerings. The Accounting Review, 83(5), 1315-1345.
Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1983). Agency problems, auditing, and the theory of the firm: Some evidence. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(3), 613-633.
Whisenant, S., Sankaraguruswamy, S., & Raghunandan, K. (2003). Evidence on the joint determination of audit and non‐audit fees. Journal of accounting research, 41(4), 721-744.
Zaman, M., Hudaib, M., & Haniffa, R. (2011). Corporate governance quality, audit fees and non‐audit services fees. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38(1‐2), 165-197.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2012). Introdução à Econometria: uma abordagem moderna. São Paulo: Cengage Learning.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, which allows the sharing of the work and recognition of authorship and its initial publication in this journal. This license allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, or create derivative works, even for commercial purposes, provided credit is given for the original creation.
b)There is no financial compensation to the authors in any capacity, for articles published in RePEc.c) The articles published in RePEc are the sole responsibility of the authors.
