THE EFFECT OF INDEPENDENT AUDIT FIRMS’ CHARACTERISTICS ON INDEPENDENT AUDIT REVENUE IN TURKEY

Year 2016, Volume: 12 Issue: 27, 105 - 122, 01.01.2016

Sedat Erdoğan Nilgün Kutay

https://doi.org/10.17130/10.17130/ijmeb.2016.12.27.1053

Cited By: 7

Abstract

This study examines auditors’ characteristics associated with the audit quality on the independent audit revenue of audit companies in Turkey. Data comes from 2013 transparency reports of listed audit firms. Ordinary least squares method is used as the analysis method. Size measurements, being included in an international audit network, and the year of experience are determined as characteristics associated with the quality of the independent audit. The results reveal that even though some auditors’ characteristics e.g. the number of audited public interest entities have positive effects on the audit revenue, some others e.g. the capital have no effect on the audit revenue

Keywords

Independent Audit, Audit Quality, Independent Audit Revenue, Auditor Characteristics, Turkey

TÜRKİYE’DE BAĞIMSIZ DENETİM ŞİRKETLERİNİN KARAKTERİSTİKLERİNİN BAĞIMSIZ DENETİM GELİRLERİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren bağımsız denetim şirketlerinin bağımsız denetimden elde ettikleri gelirler üzerinde bağımsız denetimin kalitesiyle ilişkilendirilen denetim şirketlerinin karakteristiklerinin etkisini incelemektedir. Çalışmanın verileri 2013 yılına ait şeffaflık raporlarından elde edilmiştir. Çalışmada analiz yöntemi olarak En Küçük Kareler yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bağımsız denetim şirketlerinin büyüklük ölçüleri, uluslararası denetim ağlarına dahil olma durumları ve tecrübe düzeyleri bağımsız denetimin kalitesiyle ilişkilendirilen denetim şirketi karakteristikleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Yapılan analiz sonuçlarına göre bazı karakteristiklerin ör. denetimi yapılan KAYİK sayısı bağımsız denetim gelirleri üzerinde pozitif etki oluşturmasına karşın, diğer karakteristiklerin ör. sermaye bağımsız denetim gelirleri üzerinde hiçbir etki oluşturmadığı tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Bağımsız Denetim, Denetim Kalitesi, Bağımsız Denetim Geliri, Denetçi Özellikleri, Türkiye

References

• Sayılı Resmi Gazete. (2012). Bağımsız denetim yönetmeliği. http://www.resmigazete. gov.tr/eskiler/2012/12/20121226-5.htm
• Breusch. T.S., & Pagan A.R. (1979). A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5), 1287-1294.
• Chatterjee, S., & Ali S. H. (2012). Regression analysis by examples. 5th Edition, New Jersey: Wiley Publication.
• Chen, X., Ender, P., Mitchell, M., & Wells, C. (2003). Regression with stata. Retrieved June , 2015, from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/webbooks/ reg/ default. htm
• Davidson, R., & James, G. M. (1993). Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York
• Oxford University Press, DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, , 183-199.
• Dechow, M. P., & Dichev, I. D. (2002). The quality of accruals and earnings: The role of accrual estimation errors. The Accounting Review, 77(2-1), 35-59.
• DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2013). A reivew of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3), 275-326.
• Erdoğan, S. (2015). Finansal skandalların bağımsız denetim boyutu. Mali Çözüm, 128, 15-32.
• Grubbs, E. F. (1950). Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. The Annals of
• Mathematical Statistics, 21(1), 27-58. Hoitash, R, Ariel M., & Charles, A. B. (2007). Auditor fees and audit quality. Managerial
• Auditing Journal, 22(8), 761-786. IAASB. (2013). A framework for audit quality. retrieved June 28, 2015, from https://www.ifac. org/system/files/publications/files/A%20Framework% 20for%20Audit %20Quality.pdf
• Jones, J. J. (1991). Earnings management during import relief investigation. Journal of
• Accounting Research, 29(2), 193-228. Lennox, S. C. (1999). Audit quality and auditor size: An evaluation of reputation and deep pockets hypotheses. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 26(7-8), 779-805.
• Little, J. A. R. (1992). Regression with missing x’s: A review. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(420), 1227-1237.
• Matignon, R. (2005). Neural network modeling using SAS enterprise miner, Authorhouse.
• Palmrose, Z. V. (1988). An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 63(1), 55-73.
• PCAOB. (2013). Standing advisory group meeting discussion: Audit quality indicators.
• Retrieved September 22, 2015, from http://pcaobus.org /news /events/ documents/05152013sagmeeting/audit qualityindicat ors.pdf.
• Pregibon, D. (1979). Goodness of link tests for generalized linear models. Applied Statistics, , 15-24.
• Rosenblatt, M. (1956). Remarks on some nonparametric estimates of a density function. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27(3), 832-837.
• Rubin, B. D. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581-592.
• Rubin, B. D. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.
• Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika, 52(¾), 591-611.
• Watts, L. R., & Zimmerman, J. (1981). The markets for independence and independent auditors.
• The University of Rochester Working Paper Series, No. GPB 80-10. Wayman, C. J. (2003). Multiple imputation for missing data: What is It and how can I use it?.
• Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Williams, R. (2015). Heteroskedasticity, Retrieved June 24, 2015, from https:// www3. nd.edu/~rwilliam/s tats2/l25.pdf. Ekler
• Ek 4: Model Spesifikasyonlarını Değerlendirme Link Test Sonuçları Std. Hatalar 4307108 33E-07 5 1 t P>t %95 Güven Aralığı] _hat _hatsq _Sabit 19 0.241 27 0.211 -0.000000993 0.00000437 45 0.653 463182.9 1 Model Anlamlılık R2 Düzeltilmiş R2 = 000 = = 3707