Keith A. Houghton

The meaning of a defined accounting concept: regulatory changes and the effect on auditor decision making

Abstract Accounting standards exist in an attempt to “standardize” accounting practice. These standards contain definitions of accounting concepts whose function is to guide judgments made in practice. However, such judgments can have a major impact on a firms externally reported accounting numbers, as their inherent subjectivity and discretion may be lent to the manipulation of earnings. This study provides empirical evidence of the effect of measured meaning on an accounting judgment, in the context of regulated changes to the definition of one key accounting concept used in measuring operating income. The extraordinary items classification decisions made by auditors were found to be systematically associated with differences in measured meaning of the extraordinary items definition. The study has important policy implications for accounting standard-setting.

Audit fee determinants: the plural nature of risk

Addresses concerns regarding perceptions and measurement of risk and the resultant confusion relating to understanding of the market for audit services. Examines the theoretical justification for a plural approach to dealing with “risk” in audit fee models. Reviews the relevant literature and undertakes a factor analysis of 229 Western Australian firms in search of evidence of plurality. Argues for recognition of the idea that risk in the audit context is composed of two separate but related concepts: audit risk and business risk.

Audit Fees: the Effects of Auditee, Auditor and Industry Differences

The mathematical modelling of audit fees has emerged in research as one means by which the factors which explain the level and variability of audit fees can be examined. Existing literature shows that auditee size and complexity are major determinants of audit costs incurred by an auditee. Examines the power of these and other variables in explaining the variability of external audit fees for a sample of Australia′s largest listed companies and contributes to the existing literature by examining other potentially important factors which explain audit fees, some of which are unique to the present study. Reports results for the effect of: the presence of particular audit firms (for example, Coopers & Lybrand as opposed to say, Price Waterhouse); the extent of the level of internal audit in the auditee and; industrial classification of the auditee (for example, mining, manufacturing, retail, etc.). Results show that a very high proportion of reported audit fees can be explained by linear regression models, especially for certain auditors (for example, Peat Marwick, where over 93 per cent of the variability in fees can be explained by the model) and for certain industries (for example, the building industry, where over 90 per cent of variability is explained). Notes several limitations, especially those relating to measurement difficulties.

The cost of audit qualifications: the role of non-audit services

Abstract This study argues that the incremental audit production costs associated with issuing a qualified opinion are difficult for public accounting firms to recoup through audit fees alone. It proposes that audit production costs associated with qualifications may be recouped through non-audit service (NAS) fees in addition to audit fees. Further, it proposes that such recoupment follows a differential timing pattern. Audit fees, because of their more constrained nature, are more likely to be elevated as a consequence of qualification presence in the year subsequent to the qualification. On the other hand, NAS fees, by virtue of their very nature and more flexible billing opportunities provided, are likely to be so affected in the year concurrent with the qualification. The research is based on Australian data, as there are few jurisdictions in the world that require disclosure of both audit and non-audit fees. Using a sample of 270 companies, a significant and positive association is found between the presence of an audit qualification and significantly higher fees paid. This relationship holds both in the case of an audit qualification contemporaneous with the fee charged, and of one occurring in the year preceding the disclosed fee(s). The effect on audit fees, however, occurs only on a lagged opinion basis, while the effect on NAS fees occurs only on a concurrent opinion basis.

Takeovers and Corporate Governance: Whose Interests Do Directors Serve?

Using internal records of board meetings, this research explores issues relating to the motivation of directors’ action during takeover negotiations. The records relate to a time period when regulation was low and directors had ample opportunity to engage in adverse selection and moral hazard. In such circumstances, it might be supposed that they would have sought to protect their own tenure rather than seek to maximize shareholder wealth by recommending acceptance of a bid. However, in the case study under examination the directors worked hard to maximize the bid price by auctioning the company despite having little equity exposure themselves. The directors also sought to protect the interests of the staff when negotiating with bidders. Intentionally this behaviour was not disclosed to the shareholders and, on occasion, threatened the success of the negotiations. The article concludes that the actions of the directors were motivated by strong reputational effects not widely recognized in the contemporary literature as being a force that powerfully drives corporate governance.