Audit quality audit and corporate governance mechanisms

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Hossein Badiei 1
yahya Hasas Yeganeh 2
Ali Saghafi 3
Jafar Babajani 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2 Faculty Member, Department of Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author)
3 Faculty Member, Department of Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Maximizing shareholder wealth, fulfilling ethical duties and social responsibilities can be considered as one of the most important goals of the company. One of the factors that has a significant impact on the realization of these goals is the proper implementation of the principles of corporate governance. In this study, the corporate governance mechanisms on the audit fee rate, the interruption of the audit report and the size of the auditor in the companies active in the Tehran Stock Exchange between 2009 and 2018, the results of which indicate that the variables of the size of the board of directors, managers Non-executive and audit committee effectiveness / number of meetings have a positive and significant effect on the audit fee rate, and the variables of the role dangers (CEO), auditor literacy of the audit committee managers, ownership concentration and type of business activity have a negative and significant effect on the audit fee rate. Also variables of non-executives, small size Audit and size of the company / total assets have a positive and significant effect on the audit report lag, and the variables of board size, role duality (CEO) and profitability of the company have a negative and significant effect on the audit report lag. Independence of the board of directors and the existence of the internal auditor of the effect Have a positive and significant impact on the size of the auditor
 
 
Keywords
Corporate Governance
Audit quality
Audit interruption
Audit Fees
Audit Committee
*       حساس یگانه، یحیی و کاوه آذین فر. (1389). رابطه بین کیفیت حسابرسی و اندازه موسسه حسابرسی. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی. دوره 17. شماره 61. ص 85 تا 98.
*       حساس یگانه، یحیی. (1395). تأثیر سازو کارهای حاکمیت شرکتی بر کیفیت حسابرسی و مدیریت سود واقعی. تحقیق های تجربی حسابداری. دوره 5. شماره 4. تابستان 1395. ص 23-45.
*       شایسته، هادی و طباطبایی، سجاد و کاویانی، محسن و طاهری فرد، احمدرضا. (1394). بررسی رابطه بین حاکمیت شرکتی و کیفیت حسابرسی در شرکت های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. مجموعه مقالات سومین کنفرانس بین المللی حسابداری و مدیریت.
*       کرمی، غلامرضا و وکیلی فر، حمیدرضا و مزینانی، مهدی.(1395). بررسی ارتباط بین فشار زمانی، پیچیدگی کار و اثربخشی حسابرسی در دیوان محاسبات کشور. دانش حسابرسی. شماره 63. سال شانزدهم. تابستان 1395
*       مشایخی، بیتا و مهرانی، کاوه و رحمانی، علی و مداحی، آزاده.(1392). تدوین مدل کیفیت حسابرسی. فصلنامه بورس اوراق بهادار. شمارة 23. پاییز 1392. سال ششم. ص 103 -137.
*       Adjaoud, F., & Ben‐Amar, W. (2010). Corporate governance and dividend policy: shareholders’ protection or expropriation?. Journal of business finance & accounting, 37(5‐6), 648-667.
*       Black, B. S. KimT,chang. and Park, Love, I. , Rachinsky, A. (2009). Corporate governance indices and firms' market values: Time series evidence from Koria, Emerging Markets Review.
*       Coram, P., J. Ng, and D. R. Woodliff. 2004. The Effect of Risk of Misstatement on the
*       Propensity to Commit Reduced Audit Quality Acts under Time Budget Pressure.
*       Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 23(2):161-169.
*       Dickinson, D., & Villeval, M. (2008). Does monitoring decrease work effort? The complementarity between agency and crowding-out theories. Games and Economic Behavior, 63(1), 56-76.
*       Elder, R. J., M. S. Beasley, and A. A. Arens. 2010. Auditing and assurance services: An Integrated Approcah. Pearson Prentice Hall.
*       Ghafrana, C.,& O'Sullivan, N. (2017). The impact of audit committee expertise on audit quality: Evidence from UK audit fees. The British Accounting Review.
*       Haka,  S.,  and  P.  Chalos.  1990.  Evidence  of  agency  conflict  among  management, auditors,  and  the  audit  committee  chair.  Journal  of  Accounting  and  Public Policy 9 (4):271-292.
*       Herrbach,  O.  2001.  Audit  quality,  auditor  behaviour  and  the  psychological  contract.
*       Hope, O. K., Hu, D., & Zhao, W. (2017). Third-party consequences of short-selling threats: The case of auditor behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 63(2), 479-498
*       Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360.
*       Kapopoulos, P., & Lazaretou, S. (2007). Corporate ownership structure and firm performance: evidence from Greek firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 144-158.
*       Leventis, S., Weetman, P., & Caramanis, C. (2011). Agency costs and product market competition: The case of audit pricing in Greece. The British Accounting Review, 43(2), 112-119.
*       Lightner, S.; Adams,  S.; and K. Lightner (1982). “The Influence of Situation, Ethical, and Expectancy Theory Variables on Accountants’ Underreporting Behavior.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory,2, pp. 1-12.
*       Lord,  A.  T.,  and  F.  Todd  DeZoort.  (2001).  The  impact  of  commitment  and  moral reasoning  on  auditors'  responses  to  social  influence  pressure.  Accounting,
*       .Masoud, N. (2017). An empirical study of audit expectation-performance gap: The case of Libya. Research in International Business and Finance, 41, 1-151.
*       McNair, C. J. 1991. Proper Compromises: The Management Control Dilemma in Public Accounting and its Impact on Auditor Behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16(7): 635-653.
*       Minnis, M., & Sutherland, A. (2017). Financial statements as monitoring mechanisms: Evidence from small commercial loans. Journal of Accounting Research, 55(1), 197-233.
*       Mohanty, P. (2004). Institutional investors and corpoarte governance in India. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=353820
*       Nehme, R. (2016)," Performance Evaluation of Auditors A Constructive or a Destructive Tool of Audit Output ",Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 32 Iss 2 pp.
*       O'Connell, Vincent & Cramer, Nicole. (2010). The relationship between firm performance and board structure in Ireland. European Management Journal. 28. 387-399. 10.1016/j.emj.2009.11.002.
*       Porter,  M.  E.  1998.  Competitive  advantage:  Creating  and  sustaining  superior performance.Free press.
*       Sharma, N. (2014). Extent of corporate governance disclosure by banks and finance companies listed on Nepal Stock Exchange. Advances in accounting, 30(2), 425-439
*       Sun, J., Lan, G., & Liu, G. (2014). Independent audit committee characteristics and real earnings management. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(2), 153-172.
*       Ucar, E. (2015). Do Reputable Financial Intermediaries Help Firms in External Financial Markets? Effect of Auditor Reputation on SEO Transaction Costs. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 15(6), 104.
*       Zaka, V,. (2006).corporate governance and firm performance and audit quality. journal of financial of economy