Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Beattie, V.; Goodacre, A.; Pratt, K.; Stevenson, J. (2001)
Publisher: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HF5601
Given the growing demand for accountability in the public sector, there is a need to begin to investigate audit pricing issues in this sector. This study makes three contributions. First, it develops and estimates, for the first time, a model of audit fee determinants for the charity sector. As in previous private sector company studies, size, organisational complexity and audit firm location are the major determinants. A positive association between audit fees and fees for non-audit services is also observed. Charity sector factors of empirical significance include the nature of the charity (i.e., grant-making or fund-raising), its area of activity and the importance of trading income. Separate models for grant-making and fund-raising charities reflect the relative complexity of the audit of fund-raising charities. Second, the lower auditor concentration in the charity sector market, compared to the private sector market, permits a more powerful test of whether large firms and/or auditor expertise are rewarded with a fee premium. In the more complex audit environment of fund-raising charities, the results show that Big Six audit firms receive higher audit fees (18.5% on average) than non-Big Six firms. Also, non-Big Six audit firms with charity expertise are rewarded with a fee premium over other non-Big Six firms. Finally, the study demonstrates that the charity audit fee rate is significantly lower than that of private sector companies; in fact it is approximately half. A change in the reporting of charity audit fees is proposed to reflect any element of 'charitable giving' by the audit firm.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Accounmncy Ai>i' (1998). 'New charity control." 23 April: 8.
    • Anderson. T. and Zeghal, D. (1994). 'The pricing of audit services: further evidence from the Canadian tnarket.' Accountiiiii and RHsitiess Research, 24(9?). Spring: 1 9 5 - 2 0 7 .
    • A u d i t i n g P r a c t i c e s B o a r d ( 1 9 9 6 ) . P r a c t i c e N o t e I I : The Auilil of Charities. London: CCAB Ltd.
    • Baber, W.R. (1983). 'Towards understanding the role of auditing in the public sector." Journal of Accounting and Economics. 5(3), December: 213-227.
    • Baher, W.R., Brooks. E.H. and Ricks. W.E. (1987). 'An empirical investigation of the market for audit services in the public sector.' Journal of Accouniing Research, 25(2): 293-.^05.
    • Bandyopadhyay. S.P. and Kao, J.L. (1998). 'Cotnpetition and Big Six brand name reputation: evidence from the Ontario municipal audit market." Working paper, AAA New Orleans.
    • Barings. (1998). Baring Asset Managemeni Top 3000 Charities I99H: the f>uitie to UK Charities. CaritasData Limited. London.
    • Barkess, L, and Simnett, R. (1994). The pricing of other services by auditors: independence and pricing issues." Accounting; ami Business Research, 24(94): 99-108.
    • Beatty, R.P. (1993). 'The economic determinants of auditor compensation in the initial public offerings market.' Journal of Accountini- Research, 31(2). Autumn: 294-302.
    • Beck, PJ. and Barefield. R.M. (1986). 'An economic analysis of competitive bidding for public sector audit engagements." Journal of Accounting and Public Policv, 5(3). Fall: 143-168.
    • Pianca, A. and Blackwood. M. (eds) (1996). Client and Adviser Guide: Charities. London: Tolley Publishing Company Ltd.
    • Pong. C.K.M. (1999). "Auditor concentration: a replication and extension for the UK audit market 1991-1995." Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. 26(3&4): 4 5 1 ^ 7 5 . ' Pong, C.K.M. and Whittington. G. (1994). 'The determinants of audit fees: some empirical models.' Journal of Business Finance and Accounting. 21(8): 1.071-1.095.
    • Ritson. B., Jubb. C.A. and Houghton, K.A. (1997).
    • 'Specialisation in the market for audit services: its role in explaining auditor/client realignment." Research paper 97-01. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Melbourne.
    • Rubin. M.A. (1988). 'Municipal audit fee detenninants.' The Accounting Review. 63(2): 219-236.
    • Sanders. G.. Allen, A. and Korte. L. (1995). 'Municipal audit fees: has increased competition made a difference?" Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. I4( 1). Spring: 10,5-114.
    • Schatzberg, J.W. (1990). 'A laboratory market investigation of low balling in audit pricing." The Accounting Review. 65(2). April: 337-362.
    • Schatzberg, J.W. (1994). "A new examination of auditor ""low ball" pricing: theoretical model and experimental evidence." Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory.
    • l3(Supplementj: 33-55.
    • Schatzberg. J.W. and Sevcik. G.R. (1994). 'A multiperiod model and experimental evidence of independence and "lowballing"." Contemporary Accounting Research, lKD.Summer: 137-174.
    • Sharpe. D. (1994). A Portrait of Canada's Charities.
    • Simon. D.T. (1985). "The audit services market: additional empirical evidenee." Auditing: A Journal of Practice & r/i
    • Simon. D.T. and Francis. J.R. (1988). 'The effects of auditor change on audit fees: tests of price cutting and price recovery." The Accounting Review. 63(2). April: 255-269.
    • Simon. D.T.. Ramanan. R. and Dugar. A. (1986). 'The market for audit services in India: an empirical examination.' International Journal of Accounting, 21(2). Spring: 27-35.
    • Simon, D.T.. Teo. S. and Trompeter. G. (1992). 'A comparative study of the market for audit services in Ht>ng Kong. Malaysia and Singapore." International Journal of Accounting. 27(3): 234-240.
    • Siniunic. D.A. (1980). 'The pricing of audit services: theory and evidence." Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1): 161-190.
    • Simunic. D.A. (1984). "Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence." Journal of Accounting Research. 22(2).
    • Autumn: 679-702.
    • Taffler, R.J. and Ramalinggam. K.S. (1982). 'The determinants of the audit fee in the UK: an exploratory study.' Working paper. City University Business School.
    • Taylor. M.E. and Baker. R.L. (1981). 'An analysis of the external audit fee." Accounting and Business Research.
    • 12(45). Winter: 55-60.
    • Turpen. R.A. (1990). 'Differential pricing on auditors' initial engagements: further evidence." Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. 9(2). Spring: 60-76.
    • Ward. D.D.. Eider. R.J. and Katteius. S.C. (1994). 'Further evidence on the determinants of municipal audit fees.' The Accounting Review. 69(2), April: 399-411.
    • White, H. (1980). 'A heteroscedastic-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity." Econometrica, 48: 817-828.
    • Wise. D. (1995). Performance Measurement for Charities.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Funded by projects

  • WT

Cite this article