The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Internal control and management guidance
Feng, M., Li, C., & McVay, S. (2009) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.09.004 · Cited by 678
The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality
DeFond, M. L., & Lennox, C. S. (2011) · Journal of Accounting and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.03.002 · Cited by 356
Self-citationTrust across borders: buyer-supplier trust in global business-to-business E-commerce.
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Koh, T., Fichman, M., Carnegie Mellon University, Kraut, R., & Carnegie Mellon University (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00316 · Cited by 73
Evidence on going concern reporting before and after ASU 2014–15
Bakarich, K., & Baranek, D. (2020) · Accounting Research Journal · doi:10.1108/arj-06-2020-0165 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- DeFond, M. L., Raghunandan, K., & Subramanyam, K. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Accounting Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1247-1274
- ISSN
- 0021-8456 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-679X
- OpenAlex
- W3123370968
- Cited by
- 1,351
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 109.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
