Does Board Independence Affect Audit Fees? Evidence from Recent Regulatory Reforms

References

• Abbot, L. J., Parker, S., Peters, G. F., & Raghunandan, K. (2003). The association between audit committee characteristics and audit fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22, 17–32. doi: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.2.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, R., & Ferreira, D. (2007). A theory of friendly boards. The Journal of Finance, 62, 217–250. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong, C., Core, J., & Guay, W. (2014). When do independent directors improve firms’ information environments? Journal of Financial Economics, 113, 383–403. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audousset-Coulier, S. (2015). Audit fees in a joint audit setting. European Accounting Review, 24, 347–377. doi: 10.1080/09638180.2014.892787
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Neal, T. L. (2009). The audit committee oversight process. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26, 65–122. doi: 10.1506/car.26.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blue Ribbon Committee. (1999). Report and recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on improving the effectiveness of corporate audit committees. Stamford, CT: New York Stock Exchange and National Association of Securities Dealers.
   Google Scholar
• Boone, A., Field, L., Karpoff, J., & Raheja, C. (2007). The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 85, 66–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, H., & Wright, A. (2008). Negotiation research in auditing. Accounting Horizons, 22, 91–109. doi: 10.2308/acch.2008.22.1.91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., Neal, T. L., & Riley, R. A., Jr. (2002). Board characteristics and audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19, 365–384. doi: 10.1506/CHWK-GMQ0-MLKE-K03V
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, L. H., Chen, K. C. W., Chen, T. Y., & Yu, Y. X. (2012). The effects of firm-initiated clawback provisions on earnings quality and auditor behaviour. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 54, 180–196. doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2012.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, K. Y., & Zhou, J. (2007). Audit committee, board characteristics, and auditor switch decisions by Anderson's clients. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24, 1085–1117. doi: 10.1506/car.24.4.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Wang, X. (2015). Does increased board independence reduce earnings management? Evidence from recent regulatory reforms. Review of Accounting Studies, 20, 899–933. doi: 10.1007/s11142-015-9316-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chhaochharia, V., & Grinstein, Y. (2009). CEO compensation and board structure. The Journal of Finance, 64, 231–261. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01433.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chordia, T., Huh, S. W., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2006). The cross-section of expected trading activity. Review of Financial Studies, 20, 709–740. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhl014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates, J. (2007). The goals and promise of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 91–116. doi: 10.1257/jep.21.1.91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., & Hanno, D. (2000). Auditors’ consideration of corporate governance and management control philosophy in preplanning and planning judgement. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19, 133–146. doi: 10.2308/aud.2000.19.2.133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. (2008). Form versus substance: The implications for auditing practice and research of alternative perspectives on corporate governance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27, 181–198. doi: 10.2308/aud.2008.27.2.181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. (2010). Corporate governance in the post Sarbanes–Oxley era: Auditor experiences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27, 751–786. doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01026.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coles, J., Daniel, N., & Naveen, L. (2007). Co-opted boards: Costs, benefits, causes, and consequences (Working Paper). Arizona State University.
   Google Scholar
• Crosley, G. (2005). Selling to audit committees. Journal of Accountancy, 199, 41–45.
   Google Scholar
• Dao, M., Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. (2012). Shareholder voting on auditor selection, audit fees, and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 87, 149–171. doi: 10.2308/accr-10159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeFond, M. L., & Francis, J. R. (2005). Audit research after Sarbanes–Oxley. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24, 5–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeZoort, F. T., Hermanson, D., & Houston, R. (2008). Audit committee member support for proposed audit adjustments: Pre-SOX versus post-SOX judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27, 85–104. doi: 10.2308/aud.2008.27.1.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doty, J. R. (2011). The reliability, role, and relevance of the audit: A turning point. The CPA Journal, August, 31–36.
   Google Scholar
• Duchin, R., Matsusaka, J. G., & Ozbas, O. (2010). When are outside directors effective? Journal of Financial Economics, 96, 195–214. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law & Economics, 26, 301–325. doi: 10.1086/467037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 484–503. doi: 10.2307/2393314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, J. R. (2004). What do we know about audit quality? The British Accounting Review, 36, 345–368. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2004.09.003
   Google Scholar
• Gilson, S. C. (1990). Bankruptcy, boards, banks, and blockholders. Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 355–387. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(90)90060-D
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin-Stewart, J., & Kent, P. (2006). Relation between external audit fees, audit committee characteristics and internal audit. Accounting & Finance, 46, 387–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2006.00174.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, S., & Fraser, M. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hackenbrack, K., & Knechel, W. R. (1997). Resource allocation decisions in audit engagements. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14, 481–499. doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00537.x
   Google Scholar
• Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (2008). A theory of board control and size. Review of Financial Studies, 21, 1797–1832. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhl030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman, J. (1979). The sample bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–162. doi: 10.2307/1912352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellman, N. (2011). Chief financial officer influence on audit planning. International Journal of Auditing, 15, 247–274. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-1123.2011.00433.x
   Google Scholar
• Hermalin, B. H., & Weisbach, M. S. (2003). Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, 9, 7–26.
   Google Scholar
• Hogan, C. E., & Wilkins, M. S. (2008). Evidence on the audit risk model: Do auditors increase audit fees in the presence of internal control deficiencies? Contemporary Accounting Research, 25, 219–242. doi: 10.1506/car.25.1.9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 74–91. doi: 10.2307/3003320
   Google Scholar
• House of Lords. (2011). Auditors: Market concentration and their role. Select Committee on Economic Affairs. London.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance, 48, 831–880. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knechel, W. R. (2007). The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 383–408. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosnik, R. D. (1987). Greenmail: A study of board performance in corporate governance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 163–185. doi: 10.2307/2393124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, G., & Visvanathan, G. (2009). Do auditors price audit committee's expertise? The case of accounting vs. non-accounting financial experts. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 24, 115–144.
   Google Scholar
• Krishnan, G. V. (2003). Audit quality and pricing of discretionary accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22, 109–126. doi: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.1.109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. Y., Mande, V., & Ortman, R. (2004). The effect of audit committee and board of director independence on auditor resignation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23, 131–146. doi: 10.2308/aud.2004.23.2.131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linck, J. S., Netter, J. M., & Yang, T. (2008). The determinants of board structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 87, 308–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholson, G. J., & Kiel, G. C. (2007). Can directors impact performance? A case-based test of three theories of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 585–608. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00590.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Sullivan, N. (1999). Board characteristics and audit pricing post-Cadbury: A research note. European Accounting Review, 8, 253–263. doi: 10.1080/096381899336023
   Google Scholar
• Palmrose, Z. V. (1986). Audit fees and auditor size: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 24, 97–110. doi: 10.2307/2490806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raheja, C. G. (2005). Determinants of board size and composition: A theory of corporate boards. Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 40, 283–306. doi: 10.1017/S0022109000002313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. R., & Whited, T. M. (2013). Endogeneity in empirical corporate finance. In G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (pp. 493–567). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Simunic, D. A. (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 22, 161–190. doi: 10.2307/2490397
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utama, S., & Cready, W. M. (1997). Institutional ownership, differential predisclosure precision and trading volume at announcement dates. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24, 129–150. doi: 10.1016/S0165-4101(98)00003-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajac, E., & Westphal, J. (1996). Who shall succeed? How CEO/board preferences and power affect the choice of new CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 64–90. doi: 10.2307/256631
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar