Authors:

Fitri Nurjanah, Akhmad Imam Amrozi

Abstract:

“The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of effectiveness of audit committee and independence board of commissioner on audit fee. This research uses samples of Non-financial companies in Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) in 2015-2018. The sampling technique used purposive sampling. The total number of companies used as research samples is 584 companies. Using tools SPSS 20 and testing hypothesis using linear regression. The F test indicates a stable and significant model. R square is 49,4%The result show independence board of commissioner and Effectiveness of audit committee can positively significant effect on audit fee because board of commissioners and audit committee wants a higher audit quality from the auditor. Keywords: Board Of Commissioners; Effectiveness Of Audit Committee; Audit Fee.”

Keywords

Board Of Commissioners; Effectiveness Of Audit Committee; Audit Fee.

Downloads:

Download data is not yet available.

References

  • Abbott, L. J., & Parker, S. (2000). Auditor selection and audit committee characteristics. Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 19(2), 47-66.
  • Ali, M. J., Singh, R. K. S., & Al-Akra, M. (2018). The impact of audit committee effectiveness on audit fees and non-audit service fees: Evidence from Australia. Accounting Research Journal, 31(2), 174-191.
  • Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., & Beasly, m. S. (2014). Auditing and assurance services (15 edition ed.): pearson education.
  • Ariningrum, I., & Diyanty, V. (2017). The Impact of Political Connections and the Effectiveness of Board of Commissioner and Audit Committees on Audit Fees. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 11(4), 53-70.
  • Arnold, V., Bedard, J. C., Phillips, J. R., & Sutton, S. G. (2012). The impact of tagging qualitative financial information on investor decision making: implications for XBRL. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 13(1), 2-20.
  • Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., Neal, T. L., & Riley Jr, R. A. (2002). Board characteristics and audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(3), 365-384.
  • Chen, E. T., & Nowland, J. (2010). Optimal board monitoring in family‐owned companies: Evidence from Asia. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(1), 3-17.
  • Craswell, A. T., Francis, J. R., & Taylor, S. L. (1995). Auditor brand name reputations and
  • Francis, J. R., & Wilson, E. R. (1988). Auditor changes: A joint test of theories relating to agency costs and auditor differentiation. Accounting Review, 663-682.
  • García-Ramos, R., & García-Olalla, M. (2014). Board independence and firm performance in Southern Europe: A contextual and contingency approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(3), 313-332.
  • Ghosh, A. A., & Tang, C. Y. (2015). Assessing financial reporting quality of family firms: The auditors׳ perspective. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 95-116.
  • Ghozali, I. (2009). Ekonometrika, Teori dan Aplikasi dengan Program SPSS. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
  • Ghozali, I. (2013). Analisis Multivariate dengan Program IBM SPSS 21: Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.
  • Goodwin‐Stewart, J., & Kent, P. (2006). Relation between external audit fees, audit committee characteristics and internal audit. Accounting & Finance, 46(3), 387-404.
  • Huang, C.-J. (2010). Board, ownership and performance of banks with a dual board system: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(2), 219-234.
  • 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.
  • Johnson, S., & Mitton, T. (2003). Cronyism and capital controls: evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Financial Economics, 67(2), 351-382.
  • Karamanou, I., & Vafeas, N. (2005). The association between corporate boards, audit committees, and management earnings forecasts: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(3), 453-486.
  • Knechel, W. R., & Willekens, M. (2006). The role of risk management and governance in determining audit demand. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 33(9‐10), 1344-1367.
  • Kroszner, R. S., & Stratmann, T. (1998). Interest-group competition and the organization of congress: theory and evidence from financial services’ political action committees. American economic review, 1163-1187.
  • Li, H., Meng, L., Wang, Q., & Zhou, L.-A. (2008). Political connections, financing and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese private firms. Journal of development economics, 87(2), 283-299.
  • Lin, J. W., Li, J. F., & Yang, J. S. (2006). The effect of audit committee performance on earnings quality. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(9), 921-933.
  • Musah, A. (2017). Determinants of audit fees in a developing economy: evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(11), 716-730.
  • Rittenberg, L. E., & Nair, R. D. (1993). Improving the effectiveness of audit committees: Institute of Management Accountants.
  • Safari, M. (2017). Board and audit committee effectiveness in the post-ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations era. Managerial Finance, 43(10), 1137-1151.
  • Salehi, M., & Shirazi, M. (2016). Audit committee impact on the quality of financial reporting and disclosure: Evidence from the Tehran Stock Exchange. Management Research Review, 39(12), 1639-1662.
  • Sulistyanto, S. (2008). Manajemen Laba (Teori & Model Empiris): Grasindo.
  • Vafeas, N. (2005). Audit committees, boards, and the quality of reported earnings. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(4), 1093-1122.
  • Vafeas, N., & Waegelein, J. F. (2007). The association between audit committees, compensation incentives, and corporate audit fees. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 28(3), 241-255.
  • Veronica, S., & Bachtiar, Y. S. (2005). Corporate governance, information asymmetry, and earnings management. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia, 2(1), 77-106.
  • Wahab, E. A. A., Zain, M. M., & James, J. (2011). Political connections, corporate governance and audit fees in Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal, 26(5), 393-418.
  • Wahab, E. A. A., Zain, M. M., James, K., & haron, H. (2009). Institutional investors, political connection and audit quality in Malaysia. Accounting Research Journal, 22(2), 167-195.
  • Walker, G. R., & Reid, T. (2002). Upgrading corporate governance in East Asia: Part 1.
  • Wu, X., & Li, H. (2015). Board independence and the quality of board monitoring: Evidence from China. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 11(3), 308-328.
  • Yu, F., & Yu, X. (2011). Corporate lobbying and fraud detection. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 46(6), 1865-1891.
  • Zaman, M., Hudaib, M., & Haniffa, R. (2011). Corporate governance quality, audit fees and non‐audit services fees. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38(1‐2), 165-197.

PDF:

https://jurnal.harianregional.com/akuntansi/full-53500

Published

2021-03-25

How To Cite

NURJANAH, Fitri; IMAM AMROZI, Akhmad. Effektivitas Komite Audit, Dewan Komisaris Independen dan Biaya Audit.E-Jurnal Akuntansi, [S.l.], v. 31, n. 3, p. 667-676, mar. 2021. ISSN 2302-8556. Available at: https://jurnal.harianregional.com/akuntansi/id-53500. Date accessed: 08 Jul. 2024. doi:https://doi.org/10.24843/EJA.2021.v31.i03.p11.

Citation Format

ABNT, APA, BibTeX, CBE, EndNote - EndNote format (Macintosh & Windows), MLA, ProCite - RIS format (Macintosh & Windows), RefWorks, Reference Manager - RIS format (Windows only), Turabian

Issue

Vol 31 No 3 (2021)

Section

Articles

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License