When fee-pressured audit offices focus on non-audit services, financial statements suffer

March 7, 2018 by Shannon Roddel, University of Notre Dame

Firms hire auditors to create independent assessments of their financial statements, providing assurance to investors and outside parties that they are free from material misstatement.

However—especially since the economic downturn—companies pressure auditors to lower their fees as a way to reduce costs. Auditors, in turn, place greater emphasis on more-profitable non-audit services, such as consulting, which can negatively impact audit , according to new research from the University of Notre Dame.

"How do Audit Offices Respond to Audit Fee Pressure? Evidence of Increased Focus on Non-audit Services and their Impact on Audit Quality" by Erik Beardsley, assistant professor of accountancy in Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business, along with Dennis Lassila of Texas A&M University and Thomas Omer from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, is forthcoming in Contemporary Accounting Research.

The team examined audit fees, non-audit fees and client misstatement rates of 561 audit offices from 2004-2013.

"Audit offices experiencing audit fee pressure appear to focus more on providing non-audit services in relation to their total fees," Beardsley says, "and we find that when they do that, audit quality suffers.

"If are misstated, then later re-stated," he says, "it means the auditor didn't catch the misstatement before the financial statements were presented, meaning audit quality was low."

Beardsley says firms and investors should be wary of auditors trying to sell more non-audit services, which has been an ongoing concern for the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The board has focused on whether non-audit services impair auditor independence and whether it has an effect on audit quality.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, enacted in response to a series of high-profile financial scandals including Enron and WorldCom, set requirements for all U.S. public companies in an effort to improve corporate governance and accountability. Among these requirements were restrictions on the type of non-audit services an auditor may provide.

Beardsley notes, "These restrictions put in place in the early 2000s certainly decreased the amount of non-audit services that auditors provide. However, some firms seem to be focusing on them again, and our study suggests that this could be due in part to the reduced profitability of audit engagements."

Explore further: Companies flee audit firms who lose big clients, flock to those who win them

Related Stories

Study calls for audit transparency

January 26, 2015

As major accounting companies increasingly outsource audit work to other firms, a new study from the University of Colorado Denver Business School says greater transparency is needed to help investors assess the quality of ...

Auditor's report needs significant changes

January 31, 2012

Every year public companies release a financial statement that includes a report from an auditor. That report provides assurance about the quality of the financial information and is meant to help the company attract investors, ...

Deloitte denies HP claim on audit missteps

November 21, 2012

The audit and consulting firm Deloitte on Wednesday rejected claims by US tech giant Hewlett-Packard that it missed "accounting improprieties" at the British firm Autonomy ahead of a takeover.

Recommended for you


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.