Discussion of “The jointness of audit fees and demand for MAS: A self‐selection analysis”
Discussion of “The jointness of audit fees and demand for MAS: A self‐selection analysis”
复制标题
“审计费用与 MAS 需求的联合性：自我选择分析”的讨论
DOI：
10.1111/j.1911-3846.1990.tb00761.x
复制
发表时间：
1990
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
I. Solomon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
I. Solomon
Abdel-Khalik(1990)就联合提供审计和管理咨询服务是否会产生可通过分析审计服务费用发现的知识溢出这一问题提供了补充证据。这项研究的重点是作者认为是违反直觉的先前研究发现。也就是说，Simunic(1984)首次报道，PalmRose(1986)有效地证实，同时从其外部审计师购买MAS的客户的审计费用高于仅从其外部审计师购买审计服务的客户的审计费用。(此后，这一先前的研究结果将被称为S发现。)除了这个审计问题，本文还试图通过使用所谓的“Heckman-Lee方法”(见Maddala，1983)来纠正自我选择偏差，从而做出方法论上的贡献。我的评论将涉及激励问题、理论发展、数据收集和可靠性以及研究设计问题。这些评论将形成的一个主要主题是，Abdelkhalik(1990)中的经验检验的力量令人担忧。同样值得注意的是，在对回答企业的特定样本进行概括时，应该非常谨慎。然而，在进一步讨论之前，我应该注意到，这篇论文有许多积极的特点。它涉及一个有趣而重要的问题。也就是说，正如作者所指出的，正如下面进一步讨论的那样，从买方(即客户)的角度来看，S的调查结果相当令人费解。事实上，为什么联合购买两项服务，特别是那些据报道存在知识溢出的服务，会比单独从其他潜在供应商那里获得服务会给购买者带来更大的成本？Abdel-Khalik(1990)将注意力集中在这一问题上，并讨论了将这类服务作为一种经济商品与审计服务区分开来的MAS的特征，从而做出了贡献。这篇论文在方法上也是创新的，发人深省。
Abdel-khalik (1990) provides additional evidence on the issue of whether the joint provision of audit and management advisory services (MAS) creates knowledge spillovers that can be detected through analysis of fees for audit services. The focus of the study is what the author regarded as a counter-intuitive prior research finding. That is, Simunic (1984) first reported and Palmrose (1986) effectively confirmed that audit fees for clients who also purchased MAS from their external auditor were higher than audit fees for clients who purchase only audit services from their external auditor.(Hereafter, this prior research result will be referred to as the S&P finding.) In addition to this auditing issue, the paper attempts to make a methodological contribution by employing the so-called" Heckman-Lee Method"(see Maddala, 1983) to correct for self-selection bias. My comments will address motivational issues, theoretical development, data collection and reliability, and research design issues. A primary theme to be developed by these comments is that the power of the empirical tests in Abdelkhalik (1990) is of concern. Also worthy of note is that generalization beyond the specific sample of responding firms should be made only with extreme caution.Before proceeding further, however, I should note that the paper has many positive features. It deals with an interesting and important issue. That is, as the author indicates, and as discussed further below, from the purchaser's (ie, the client's) perspective, the S&P finding is rather puzzling. Indeed, why would the joint purchase of two services, especially those for which there reportedly are knowledge spillovers, result in greater costs to the purchaser than if the services were acquired individually from other potential suppliers? Abdel-khalik (1990) makes a contribution by focussing attention on this issue and by discussing features of MAS that distinguish such services as an economic commodity from audit services. The paper also is methodologically innovative and thought provoking.