تدوين مدل حق الزحمه حسابرسي در ايران: شواهد اوليه مبتني بر روندهاي ترتيبي روش تركيبي

Audit Fee Model in Iran: First Evidence from a Mixed Method

اغلب پژوهش‌‌هاي كمّي مرتبط با عوامل موثر بر تعيين حق الزحمه حسابرسي در كشور به نظر مي رسد از مشكلات روش‌شناسي رنج مي برند. بدين منظور پژوهش حاضر براي اولين بار از روش تركيبي مبتني بر روندهاي ترتيبي براي بررسي اين موضوع بهره برده است. با تحليل محتواي پيشينۀ پژوهش، متغيرهايي موثر بر حق الزحمه حسابرسي شناسايي و براساس آن، مصاحبه نيمه‌ ساختار يافته اي با 15 نفر از شركا، سرپرستان و مديران فني موسسات حسابرسي در سال 1398 اجرا گرديد. عوامل موثر بر حق الزحمه از طريق كدگذاري و تحليل مضمون مصاحبه ها شناسايي و براساس آن پرسشنامه اي طراحي و داده ها در نيمه دوم سال 1398 و نيمه اول سال 1399 گردآوري شدند. نتايج حاصل از تحليل عاملي نشان داد كه عوامل اثر گذار برتعيين حق الزحمه حسابرسي در ايران را مي توان در چهار طبقه كلي شامل عوامل مرتبط با صاحبكار، عوامل مرتبط با كار حسابرسي، عوامل مرتبط با حسابرس و ساير عوامل (ارتباطي و اقتصادي) دسته بندي كرد. به علاوه اين پژوهش نشان داد كه عوامل موثر بر تعيين حق الزحمه حسابرسي در ايران مي تواند در مواردي، متفاوت از عوامل برجسته شده در متون بين المللي باشد (مانند، لابي، حق الزحمه حسابرسي سال قبل و ميان دوره اي). به نظر مي رسد اين مطالعه توانسته باشد برخي از عوامل مهمي كه در پژوهش هاي كيفي و كمي داخلي (مانند، وجود بند شرط در رابطه با وضعيت بيمه و ماليات) مغفول مانده بودند را برجسته كرد

Audit quality and consequently financial reporting quality is subject to appropriate level of fees paid to auditors (Francis, 2004). Low audit fees is one the significant challenges of the audit profession in Iran (MohammadRezaei et al., 2015). Audit fee has attracted the attention of researchers and regulators in both Iran and other countries. However, the review of empirical research about the audit fee model in Iran reveals that most of these studies suffer from several methodological issues such as omitted correlated variable bias (MohammadRezaei and Faraji, 2019). Hence, the present study is going to provide a model about determinants of audit fee in Iran through employing a mixed method. Literature review: Simonic (1980) considers audit fee as a function of audit costs and profit. There are two streams of archival research about audit fees. The older and broader stream is a continuation of previous models but with the aim of quickly identifying new variables that affect audit fees and possibly audit costs such as investigating the effect of the audit market structure (Gunn et al., 2019) and disclosure of audit fees (Averhals et al. 2020). The smaller, second stream uses information about audit work hours to estimate production performance or compare audit performance. In Iran, there is also considerable evidence about determinants of audit fees (such as, Nikhbakhat and Tanani, 2010: MohammadRezaei et al., 2018). Comparison of these studies with the meta-analysis of Hay et al (2006) reveals that the studies suffer from three main methodological issues including omitted correlated variables bias, self- selection bias (endogeniety) and a lack of attention to the different market structure of private and state auditors. Research method: Through a close reading of the previous literature, variables affecting the audit fee were identified and based on it, a semi-structured interview with 15 audit partners and managers was conducted. Based on factors affecting audit fee identified through coding and content analysis of the interviews, a questionnaire was designed and data were collected through survey responses from 90 certified auditors. Findings: The coding and content analysis of the interviews reveals four codes and 30 themes. In addition, through factor analysis of data obtained from survey responses, the variables affecting audit fees were identified and classified into four groups, including factors related to the client, the auditor, the audit engagement and other factors (lobbying). More specifically, client-related factors include six components and 23 variables, auditor-related factors include four variables, audit engagement factors contain two components and 12 variables and finally lobbying factors include four variables. Conclusion: This study indicates that the determinants of audit fee in Iran can be different from those highlighted by prior studies in international era (e.g., lobbying, audit fees in last year and interim fees). Moreover, the present study highlights some of the significant determinants of audit fee model in Iran (e.g., audit qualification paragraph in relation to insurance and tax) that have not been captured by prior qualitative and quantitative research from the setting. This study opens a rich avenue for future studies in Iran about audit fees to overcome methodological issues such as omitted correlated variable bias. In addition, the findings of this study can be interesting for auditors and oversight bodies in Iran.