scholarly journals Auditor-provided nonaudit services: Post-EU-regulation evidence from Denmark

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis van Liempd ◽  
Reiner Quick ◽  
Bent Warming-Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Nonaudit Services

Does AICPA Accreditation of Nonaudit Services Add Value? The Case of Personal Financial Planning

2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Shawn Mauldin ◽  
Mark Wilder ◽  
Morris H. Stocks
Keyword(s):  
Financial Planning ◽  
The Other ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Relative Value ◽  
Professional Attributes ◽  
Financial Planners ◽  
The Future ◽  
Financial Planner ◽  
Nonaudit Services ◽  
Personal Financial Planning

The AICPA has taken the position that accreditation of CPAs in specific areas of practice is an important aspect of repositioning the CPA profession for the future. The AICPA currently offers two designations exclusively to CPAs, one of which is the Personal Financial Specialist (PFS) designation. However, the issue of accrediting CPAs by granting official AICPA designations is a complex and highly debated issue with opposing sides having compelling arguments supporting their positions. CPAs and other professionals specializing in personal financial planning have opportunities to obtain designations other than the PFS. This paper examines the relative value of these alternative options for financial planners. Specifically, the research was designed to examine the differential effects of alternative financial-planning accreditations on users' perceptions. These perceptions relate to various professional attributes of a financial planner such as their knowledge and expertise, objectivity, and level of trust and ethics possessed. In addition, these perceptions relate to fees charged and the influence that the designation has on the public's choice of a financial planner. Our results indicate that the CPA designation used in conjunction with the PFS designation is generally perceived to signal a higher level of professional attributes than the other designations examined in the study. In addition, a CPA with a PFS designation has a significantly greater influence on the public's choice of a financial planner than do the other designations. These results suggest that important benefits may accrue to CPAs from holding the PFS specialty accreditation.

Do Investors' Perceptions Vary with Types of Nonaudit Fees? Evidence from Auditor Ratification Voting

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suchismita Mishra ◽  
K. Raghunandan ◽  
Dasaratha V. Rama
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Support ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
The Other ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Single Measure ◽  
Nonaudit Services ◽  
Recent Initiative

In FRR No. 68, the SEC (2003b) updated the rules related to the disclosure of fees paid to the independent auditor by requiring more detailed information about nonaudit fees. The SEC (2002, 2003b) asserted that the partition of nonaudit fees into the categories of audit-related, tax, and other fees would be useful for investors in assessing the auditor's independence and in voting on ratifying the auditor. The SEC suggested that investors would view audit-related and tax services more favorably than “other” nonaudit services. In this paper we test the SEC's assertions by examining shareholder ratification votes, during 2003, at 248 of the S&P 1500 firms. Our results support the SEC's assertion that investors would view audit-related fees differently than the other two types of nonaudit fees. However, contrary to the SEC's assertion, both the tax fee ratio and the other fee ratio have a positive association with the proportion of votes against auditor ratification. The results related to tax fees provide empirical support to the PCAOB's recent initiative to examine the association between tax services and auditor independence. Our results can be useful for client managements and audit committees considering purchases of nonaudit services from auditors. Our findings also suggest that it may be useful to replicate some prior studies (that use a single measure of nonaudit fees) using the newer, more finely partitioned, fee data.

Clients' Expectations on Audit Judgments: A Note

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkataraman M. Iyer ◽  
Dasaratha V. Rama
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Relative Power ◽  
Client Perceptions ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Nonaudit Services ◽  
The Impact

Audited financial statements can be viewed as the product of negotiations between a company's management and its auditor. Relative power of these two parties is a major factor that determines the outcome of the negotiation. This study examines the impact of auditor tenure, importance of a client to an audit partner, nonaudit purchases, and prior audit firm experience of client personnel on client perceptions about their ability to persuade the auditor in the context of an accounting disagreement. We obtained responses to a survey from 124 CPAs in industry who are employed as CEOs, CFOs, controllers, or treasurers. Our results indicate that respondents from companies with short auditor tenures were somewhat more likely to indicate that they could persuade the auditor to accept their (client's) position in case of a disagreement. This finding is consistent with the argument that auditors are susceptible to influence in the early years as they are still in the process of recouping start-up costs, but is not consistent with concerns expressed by legislators and others that long auditor tenures will adversely affect audit quality. Respondents who believed their business was more important for the audit partner were also more likely to believe that they could persuade the auditor. However, the purchase of nonaudit services and prior audit experience were not related to client's perceptions about their ability to persuade the auditor.

scholarly journals EU Regulation and open market share repurchases: new evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Angeliki Drousia ◽  
Athanasios Episcopos ◽  
George N. Leledakis ◽  
Emmanouil G. Pyrgiotakis
Keyword(s):  
Market Share ◽  
Share Repurchases ◽  
Open Market ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Open Market Share Repurchases

Supreme Site Services v. Shape (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Salim S. Sleiman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Dutch Supreme ◽  
Brussels Regulation

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document