Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Using data obtained from a sample of 314 UK quoted companies (excluding financial sector companies), this paper examines three aspects of the relationship between fees for audit and non-audit services: (a) the extent and nature of the provision of non-audit services to audit clients; (b) whether the positive association between the level of audit fees and non-audit services fees found in the majority of non-UK studies holds in the UK; and (c) whether it is possible to throw further light on the nature of the relationship between audit fees and non-audit services fees by exploring the interaction between non-audit services and other factors that appear to affect audit pricing. Our results suggest that: (i) income earned by audit firms from non-audit work for quoted clients averaged nearly 90% of the levels of audit fee earnings in 1992/93 (and more than a quarter of clients paid more for non-audit services than for the audit); (ii) the extent of voluntary disclosure of the breakdown of non-audit services was limited and the existing disclosure requirement allowed considerable variety in the manner in which non-audit services fees incurred or paid abroad were disclosed; (iii) there was a significant positive association between fees for audit and non-audit services similar to that reported in the majority of US and Australian studies; and (iv) four of the nine interaction terms introduced were significant, implying that non-audit services fees may moderate the association between other explanatory variables and audit fees.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ezzamel et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: