F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
31
Related-Party Transactions and Audit Fees
Fortuna Oktavia Perwita
1
Iman Harymawan
2
1,2
Department of Accountancy, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
email: harymawan.iman@feb.unair.ac.id
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26675/jabe.v5i2.15984
Abstract: This research aims to analyze the association between the related-party
transactions and audit fees. This study used 781 observations listed on the Indonesia Stock
Exchange from 2010 to 2017. The analysis technique used in this research was the
Ordinary Least Square Regression analysis model processed with STATA 14.0 software.
This study found that related-party transactions are positively and significantly related to
audit fees. The result indicated that the related-party transactions increase audit fees paid
by companies. It also investigated the moderating effect of industry specialty auditors.
This indicated that auditor specialization strengthened the relationship between the
related-party transactions and audit fees. The market share proxy was used to measure
industry specialization. However, this proxy still has disadvantages as it can generate
different market shares. This study found that related-party transactions increased audit
fees. The results of this study can be used as consideration in making decisions for related
parties.
Article History
Received:
8 September 2020
Revised:
31 Oktober 2020
Accepted:
7 November 2020
Keywords
Related-party transactions,
audit fees, auditor
specialization
Citation: Perwita, F, O., & Harymawan, I. (2021). Related-Party Transactions and Audit Fees. Journal of
Accounting and Business Education, 5(2),31-42
INTRODUCTION
The existence of related-party transactions related to fraud scandals in accounting practices
recently raised concerns about current auditing practices (Gordon et al., 2007). The related-party
transactions need a major concern. In the case of Enron and Adelphia, transactions with related parties
might be for fraudulent purposes rather than for business purposes and were not adequately disclosed in
the financial statements (Gordon et al., 2007). Related-party transactions are transactions between
companies and individuals or organizations related to the companies, such as managers, directors, major
shareholders, and affiliates (Al-Dhamari et al., 2018; Bona-Sánchez, et al. 2017; Gordon et al., 2007).
There are various types of related-party transactions, including purchases, sales, loans, or providing loans
to parties related to the company (Bryan & Mason, 2017; Gallery et al., 2008). Since 2007, research on
the related-party transactions has increased due to accounting irregularities. Research and practice show
that the auditing of related-party transactions is problematic. For example, the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) admits that related-party transactions are difficult to audit. This is
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS EDUCATION
P-ISSN 2528-7281 E-ISSN 2528-729X
E-mail: jabe.journal@um.ac.id
http://journal2.um.ac.id/index.php/jabe/
mailto:harymawan.iman@feb.unair.ac.id
http://dx.doi.org/10.26675/jabe.v5i2.15984
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
32
supported by empirical evidence stating that related-party transactions are one of the top ten audit
deficiencies often identified in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Law Enforcement
Commission (Beasley et al., 2000). The related-party transactions are complex since they involve several
parties and operations (Kohlbeck & Mayhew, 2017). The factors that determine the amount of payment
for the audit services provided are the size, complexity, and level of risk of the client's business (Chen et
al., 2017; Hong & Hwang, 2018; McMeeking et al., 2006; Salehi et al., 2018; Waresul Karim & Moizer,
1996).
The emergence of International Standard Auditing (ISA) 550 regarding related parties shows that all
related parties have a significant risk to the company's financial reporting so it is also risky if the auditor
audits companies that conduct related-party transactions. The risk faced by the auditor is the possibility of
an error in providing an opinion on the audit of the financial statements of companies that conduct
related-party transactions to manipulate financial statements (El-Helaly, 2018).
Several studies regarding related-party transactions were conducted because they were considered to
influence the determination of audit fees. Al-Dhamari et al., (2018) show that companies that conduct
related-party transactions have higher audit fees compared to companies whose related-party transactions
are few or even nonexistent. However, the results of research conducted by Kohlbeck dan Mayhew
(2017) said that related-party transactions affect the level of financial report restatement, and audit fees at
the company are lower.
In Indonesia, to ensure that an entity's financial statements contain the necessary disclosures to bring
attention to the possibility that the financial position and profit and loss have been affected by the
existence of related parties, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (DSAK) issued a Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards (PSAK) 7 which regulates regarding related-party disclosure. The
emergence of PSAK 7 provides a signal that related-party transactions may pose a risk to the presentation
of financial statements. Research conducted by Simunic (1980) shows that the things that affect the
amount of the audit fees are the size of the client company, audit complexity, and audit risk. Therefore,
the increase in audit risk is also in line with the increase in fees for audit services. Jiang dan Son (2015)
argued that the auditor may respond to increased client risk by charging a premium as insurance against
potential litigation and as an excess effort by the auditor in conducting the audit. If the auditor considers
that related-party transactions are risky as it will affect the determination of the audit fees because the
auditor needs more audit effort to ensure that such related-party transactions will not mislead users of
financial statements.
Habib dan Bhuiyan (2011) said one of the dimensions of audit quality that differentiates high-quality
auditors from their lower-quality peers is the degree of specialization of the audit firm's industry. Much
research has been done on the relationship between industry specialty auditors and audit fees, but no one
has yet researched the effects of industry specialty auditor moderation on the relationship between
related-party transactions and audit fees. So, this relationship needs to be studied more deeply.
Researchers suspect that related-party transactions will positively affect audit costs and the relationship
between the two is strengthened if the auditors conducting the audit are auditors with industry specialties.
The industry specialty audit is an industry-specific knowledge that auditing firms use to help auditors
better understand what clients are doing in a particular industry and the risks they face (Fleming et al.,
2014; Kend, 2008). In addition to discussing the relationship between related-party transactions and audit
fees, this study will also discuss the relationship between auditors and industry specialties that carry out
audits of the financial statements of companies conducting the related-party transactions and their impact
on audit costs. Research related to the related-party transactions is an interesting matter to be studied in
more depth because related-party transactions pose a significant risk to the company's financial reporting.
After all, the nature of the transactions is difficult to identify. This causes the audit risk on the related-
party transactions to increase and will affect the amount of audit fees to be paid to the auditors.
Industry specialty auditor is expected to strengthen the relationship between the two variables
because auditors with industry specialization have more adequate knowledge of a particular company
industry so that they will better understand the nature of the company's transactions. The ability of
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
33
auditors to identify the things mentioned above will increase the amount of audit fees so that companies
that carry out related-party transactions whose financial statements are audited by auditors with industry
specializations will have a higher audit fee. So it is assumed that related-party transactions affect the
amount of audit fees paid by the company and if the company is audited by auditors with industry
specialties, the relationship between the two will be stronger.
This research can contribute to the literature related to related-party transactions which can then be
used for the development of further studies in accounting. First, this study provides an understanding of
why related-party transactions affect the amount of audit fees. Second, this study provides an
understanding that those companies that are audited by industry specialization auditors will pay higher
audit fees. Also, the results of this study are expected to be useful as a consideration in making decisions
regarding the related-party transactions.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Related-party Transactions and Audit Fees
According to Ryngaert dan Thomas (2012), a related-party transaction is an efficient contract
mechanism when there is incomplete information. A related-party transaction can be used as a tool to
transfer resources to related parties (Aharony et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2005). According to Gordon et
al., (2007), there are several reasons why it is difficult to audit related-party transactions, besides it is
difficult to identify related-party transactions, the auditor also relies heavily on information provided
about related parties and related-party transactions.
PSAK 7 states that disclosures related to related parties are necessary for presenting financial
statements because the statements of financial position and profit and loss, as well as transactions and
balances, are affected by the existence and commitment of related parties or so-called related parties.
According to PSAK 7, a related party is a person or entity that is related to a certain entity in preparing its
financial statements. PSAK 7 regulates what matters need to be disclosed in the financial statements, for
example, in the entity's relationship with related parties, compensation given to key management, and
related-party transactions.
Indonesia has also regulated the amount of audit fees that must be paid to public accountants with
the consideration that an audit fee for auditing financial statements that is too low can pose a threat in the
form of personal interests which has the potential to cause non-compliance with the professional code of
ethics of the Public Accountant. Therefore, the Indonesian Institute of Public Accountants (IAPI) issued
PP No. 2 of 2016 concerning the determination of fees for financial statement audit services. IAPI also
regulates the indicator for the lower limit of audit service billing rates. This is done so that in conducting
audits, auditors remain obedient to the code of ethics of the Public Accountants and applicable
regulations. The determination of the lower limit in determining the service fee is expected so that the
entire service fee is adequate for the auditor to perform audit procedures. The amount of the audit fee (fee
for services) is the result of calculating the number of hours worked multiplied by the value of the hourly
audit fee. In PP No. 2 of 2016, IAPI requires auditors to calculate the amount of time required for each
stage of the audit which consists of risk assessment, risk response, and reporting. This is done so that the
auditor can calculate the service fees that must be paid by the company for financial statement audit
services.
Things that affect the amount of the audit fees are the size of the client company, the complexity of
the audit, and the audit risk (Simunic, 1980). Audit risk consists of three, namely inherent risk, control
risk, and detection risk. The research conducted by Jiang dan Son (2015) shows the results that the auditor
responds to the presence of control risk, the auditor will charge a fee that is higher than the cost of
carrying out the audit. The related-party transactions are very important for the auditor because there will
always be risks that are judged to be different if the transactions are made with third parties (Al-Dhamari
et al., 2018). One of the risks of related-party transactions is a decrease in the level of independence
between parties, thus violating the arm's length principle.
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
34
There is a significant and positive effect of related-party transactions on audit fees (Al-Dhamari et
al., 2018). This is because the auditor considers that related-party transactions increase audit risk. If the
auditor assesses that there is a potential risk, the auditor will charge a higher fee as compensation for the
risk and effort that must be made to describe the transaction and provide assurance that related-party
transaction does not provide misleading value.
H1: There is a positive relationship between the related-party transactions and audit fees.
Industry Specialty Auditor and Audit Fees in Companies Conducting Related-party Transactions
Having in-depth knowledge of an industry means understanding the economy of the industry, key
accounting policy issues, specific industry issues, and its business practices. (Kend, 2008; Nagy, 2014).
Understanding the client industry increases the professional auditor's skepticism about the appropriate
recognition and judgment of transactions and events related to the industry (Scott & Gist, 2013; Solomon
et al., 1999). A deep understanding of a particular industry will increase the effectiveness and efficiency
in conducting audits. A specialist's knowledge of an industry is built up through extensive audit
experience, specialized staff training, and expensive investment in information technology (DeBoskey &
Jiang, 2012).
The results of research conducted by Fuentes dan Sierra (2015) shows that industry-specialized
auditors influence determining the amount of audit fees. The auditor's industry specialization is one of the
attributes of audit quality because it increases the likelihood of identifying material misstatements in
financial statements (Fuentes & Sierra, 2015). In this study, industry-specialized auditors are used to
seeing whether industry-specialized auditors will influence the audit fees for companies that transact with
related parties. If companies that carry out many transactions with related parties are audited by auditors
with industry specialties, it will improve the quality of the financial statements because auditors with
industry specializations are considered capable of detecting errors, both errors and intentional errors. Bae
et al. (2016) said that the amount of audit fees associated with industry specialty auditors is a reflection of
the number of audit services provided by auditors or the result of hourly costs of industry specialty
auditors, or perhaps the result of both.
Auditors with industry specialties have in-depth knowledge of industry. Therefore, they will pay
more attention to transactions and events in the company, especially if these transactions or events present
the risk of material misstatement in the financial statements. However, in Indonesia, there are no detailed
regulations that discuss the specialty of the auditor industry and have not determined the lowest level of
auditors to understand the client industry before accepting an offer to audit the company's financial
statements.
H2: Audit fees will increase for companies conducting related-party transactions when their financial
statements are audited by industry specialty auditors.
METHODS
The approach used in this research is quantitative. This research is conducted to determine the
relationship between two variables so that this research is included in the associative research group. This
study examines the effect of the related-party transactions and industry specialty auditors on audit fees.
All data is secondary data from OSIRIS and data related to auditors comes from the IDX.
The population used in this study was all companies registered in the IDX for 2010-2017 period,
consisting of 3,038 companies. The sample selection of this study used a purposive sampling approach
with predetermined criteria. These criteria are (1) non-financial companies listed on the IDX in the 2010-
2017 period and (2) companies whose annual reports and audited financial reports contain the data
required for this research. The researcher removes all populations that do not have the required data.
Researchers only use data from non-financial companies, so researchers delete companies with SIC code
6. The number of observations in this study is 781 companies.
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
35
The measurement of related-party transactions uses the measurement used by Habib et al., (2015).
The related-party transactions are the result of the natural logarithm of all related-party transactions.
Besides, researchers measured industry specialty auditors using proxies that already existed in previous
studies. Industry specialty auditors are measured by the audit company market share which is calculated
from the total assets of the company being audited by the auditor (Rusmin and Evans, 2017). Then the
dummy variable of industry specialty auditors is determined, which is given a value of 1 if the auditor's
market share is the highest and the value of 0 is vice versa. This variable will be interacted with the
related-party transactions variable to see whether being audited by a specialist auditor will affect the audit
costs. Audit costs are measured by the natural logarithm of the audit fees paid to the auditor. Researchers
also use control variables taken from several previous studies regarding audit costs.
There are two regression models in this study. Model 1 is used to test hypothesis 1, while model 2
is used to test hypothesis 2. The regression models used are as follows:
Model 1:
Model 2:
Where audit fee is the natural logarithm of the audit fee. Lnrpt is the natural logarithm of all related
party transactions. The specialist is a dummy variable where 1 is industry specialty auditors and 0 is the
opposite. Big4 is a dummy variable where 1 is the auditor included in BIG4 while 0 is the opposite.
Auditor change is a dummy variable where 1 is for companies whose auditors are different from the
previous year and 0 is the opposite. The comsize is the number of commissioners in a company. Firmage
is the company's age since its establishment until 2017. The clientsize is the natural logarithm of total
assets. Cash is the natural logarithm of cash. Leverage is total debt divided by total assets. Liquidity is
short-term debt divided by current assets.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Descriptive Statistics
Before doing descriptive statistics, winsorize data was conducted first. The winsorize is done to
overcome data containing outliers by pulling the lowest outliers data to the 1% level and pulling the
highest outliers data to the 99% level. Table 1 shows the results that the average audit fee value is
1,913,000,000 and has a median value of 790,000,000. The maximum value of the audit fee is
36,000,000,000, while the minimum value is 80,000,000. Related-party transactions (LNRPT) have an
average value of related-party transactions of 540,500,000,000 and a median value of 67,820,000,000.
The maximum value of this variable is 9,942,000,000 where the transaction is carried out by PT Waskita
Karya and the minimum value of this variable is 0.
As additional information, table 2 contains the percentage of companies that disclose audit fees in
their financial statements based on industry information regarding the type of industry based on SIC.
Manufacturing and service industries are divided into 2 based on their main characteristics.
Manufacturing (1) is a company that is included in SIC 2 and manufacturing (2) is included in SIC 3. A
company with SIC 7 is included in Services (1) and SIC 8 into Services (2). Based on table 2, the
companies that disclosed the most audit fees were companies engaged in the agriculture, forestry, and
fisheries industries, which amounted to 39.8%, while the companies that disclosed the least audit fees
were companies engaged in the service industry, namely 13.8%.
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
36
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics Results
Mean Median Minimum Maximum
AUDITFEE 1,913,000,000,000 790,000,000,000 80,000,000,000 36,000,000,000,000
RPT 540,500,000,000,000 67,820,000,000,000 0.000 9,942,000,000,000,000
COMSIZE 4.589 4.000 2.000 10.000
FIRMAGE 35.515 34.000 5.000 116.000
CLIENTSIZE 10,570,000,000,000 3,736,000,000,000 157,800,000,000 111,400,000,000,000
CASH 0.761 0.028 0.000 123.288
LEVERAGE 1.323 0.871 -2.168 8.331
LIQUIDITY 2.080 1.495 0.118 11.421
MTBV 2.204 1.262 -1.199 18.726
Source: STATA processing result, 2019
Table 2. Percentage of Companies Disclosing Audit Fees
SIC Industry
Disclose the audit
fees
Percentage
Not
Disclosing
Audit fees
Percentage
Companies
in Total
0 Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
45 39.8% 68 60.2% 113
1 Mining and Construction 200 41.9% 277 58.1% 477
2 Manufacturing (1) 262 34.1% 506 65.9% 768
3 Manufacturing (2) 166 30.3% 381 69.7% 547
4 Transportation and Public
Utilities
170 34.6% 322 65.4% 492
5 Wholesale and Retail Trade 71 23.1% 237 76.9% 308
7 Services (1) 46 17.2% 222 82.8% 268
8 Services (2) 9 13.8% 56 86.2% 65
Source: STATA processing result, 2019
Note: Manufacturing and service industries are divided into two based on their main characteristics
according to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Pearson Correlation
Based on the results of the Pearson correlation test in Table 3, it can be seen that the related-party
transactions have a positive relationship with a significance level of 1% on the audit fee. This means that
the related-party transaction in a company become the auditor's consideration in determining the amount of
the audit fee. Also, auditors for industry specialization show a positive relationship direction with a
significance level of 1% with audit fees. This suggests that auditors with industry specialization charge a
higher audit fees.
Table 3. Pearson Correlation
AUDIT
FEES
LNRPT
SPECIA
LIST
BIG4
AUDITOR
CHANGE
COMSIZE
AUDIT FEES 1.000
LNRPT 0.292
***
1.000
(0.000)
SPECIALIST 0.358
***
0.109
***
1.000
(0.000) (0.002)
BIG4 0.530
***
0.190
***
0.476
***
1.000
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
AUDITOR
CHANGE
-0.126
***
-0.186
***
-0.139
***
-0.220
***
1.000
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
37
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
COMSIZE 0.488
***
0.243
***
0.158
***
0.360
***
-0.090
**
1.000
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.012)
FIRMAGE 0.050 0.074
**
-0.057 0.015 0.011 0.276
***
(0.163) (0.039) (0.108) (0.676) (0.761) (0.000)
CLIENT
SIZE
0.694
***
0.304
***
0.264
***
0.372
***
-0.098
***
0.541
***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.006) (0.000)
CASH -0.119
***
-0.106
***
-0.013 -0.057 -0.033 -0.096
***
(0.001) (0.003) (0.712) (0.110) (0.354) (0.007)
LEVERAGE -0.035 0.061
*
-0.017 -0.106
***
0.000 -0.054
(0.334) (0.087) (0.642) (0.003) (1.000) (0.132)
LIQUIDITY -0.161
***
-0.101
***
-0.011 -0.007 0.013 -0.002
(0.000) (0.005) (0.767) (0.844) (0.720) (0.954)
MTBV 0.127
***
0.020 0.150
***
0.083
**
-0.021 -0.007
(0.000) (0.586) (0.000) (0.020) (0.550) (0.845)
FIRMAGE CLIENTSIZE CASH LEVERAGE LIQUIDITY MTBV
FIRMAGE 1.000
CLIENTSIZE 0.072
**
1.000
(0.044)
CASH -0.039 -0.160
***
1.000
(0.273) (0.000)
LEVERAGE -0.047 0.082
**
-0.057 1.000
(0.190) (0.022) (0.111)
LIQUIDITY 0.016 -0.169
***
0.093
***
-0.358
***
1.000
(0.663) (0.000) (0.010) (0.000)
MTBV -0.023 0.054 -0.023 0.127
***
0.040 1.000
(0.514) (0.130) (0.529) (0.000) (0.262)
p-values in parentheses
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Source: STATA processing result, 2019
Independent T-Test
Table 4 shows the results that auditors charge higher audit fees to companies conducting the related-
party transactions. Besides, the results also show that specialized auditors charge higher audit fees to
companies conducting a related-party transaction.
Table 4. Independent T-Test Result
RPT
With related-party
transaction
Without related-party
transaction
Coef t-value
AUDITFEE 20.591 19.799 0.792
***
5.373
SPECIALIST 0.238 0.104 0.134
**
2.505
BIG4 0.521 0.254 0.267
***
4.226
AUDITORCHANGE 0.104 0.343 -0.240
***
-5.801
COMSIZE 4.681 3.612 1.069
***
4.762
FIRMAGE 35.739 33.119 2.620 1.064
CLIENTSIZE 22.154 21.388 0.766
***
4.230
CASH 0.637 2.088 -1.452
**
-2.222
LEVERAGE 1.340 1.149 0.191 1.007
LIQUIDITY 2.041 2.493 -0.452
*
-1.885
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
38
MTBV 2.205 2.192 0.012 0.033
Source: STATA processing result, 2019
Multiple Linear Regressions
Table 5. Multiple Linear Regressions Result: Related-party Transaction and Audit fee
AUDIT FEES
(1) (2)
LNRPT 0.009
**
0.009
***
(2.52) (2.76)
SPECIALIST 0.195
**
0.195
**
(2.50) (2.23)
BIG4 0.583
***
0.583
***
(8.48) (7.32)
AUDITOR CHANGE 0.054 0.054
(0.62) (0.58)
COMSIZE 0.078
***
0.078
***
(3.94) (3.92)
FIRMAGE -0.001 -0.001
(-0.79) (-0.83)
CLIENTSIZE 0.402
***
0.402
***
(15.78) (14.17)
CASH 0.000 0.000
(0.02) (0.04)
LEVERAGE -0.074
***
-0.074
***
(-3.68) (-3.74)
LIQUIDITY -0.066
***
-0.066
***
(-4.17) (-4.53)
MTBV 0.033
***
0.033
**
(3.38) (2.42)
CONSTANT 11.220
***
11.220
***
(19.74) (18.13)
Industry Dummy Included Included
Year Dummy Included Included
r2 0.606 0.606
r2_a 0.593 0.593
N 781 781
t statistics in parentheses
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Source: STATA processing result, 2019
Regression in this study was carried out twice, the first is multiple linear regressions by controlling
the fixed-year effect and the industry-year effect, while the second is performing multiple linear regression
with robust. As presented in table 5, in the first column multiple linear regressions is carried out for model
1 and produces an LNRPT coefficient of 0.009 and a t-value of 2.52 with a significance level of 0.05. This
means that for every 1 point increase in LNRPT, the audit fee will increase by 0.009. In the second column,
multiple linear regressions is performed robustly and produces an LNRPT coefficient of 0.009 and a t-value
of 2.76 with a significance level of 0.01. This means that for every 1 point increase in LNRPT, the audit fee
will increase by 0.009. Both regression results indicate that the related-party transactions positively affect
the amount of audit fees charged by auditors. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 is accepted.
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
39
Table 6. Multiple Linear Regressions Result: Related-party Transactions, Industry Specialty Auditor and
Audit fees
AUDIT FEES
(1) (2)
RPT*SPECIALIST 0.021
**
0.021
**
(2.01) (2.34)
LNRPT 0.007 0.007
*
(1.65) (1.77)
SPECIALIST -0.305 -0.305
(-1.17) (-1.46)
BIG4 0.596
***
0.596
***
(8.65) (7.59)
AUDITORCHANGE 0.051 0.051
(0.60) (0.56)
COMSIZE 0.076
***
0.076
***
(3.89) (3.90)
FIRMAGE -0.001 -0.001
(-0.92) (-0.95)
CLIENTSIZE 0.401
***
0.401
***
(15.77) (14.19)
CASH -0.000 -0.000
(-0.06) (-0.10)
LEVERAGE -0.069
***
-0.069
***
(-3.41) (-3.50)
LIQUIDITY -0.066
***
-0.066
***
(-4.18) (-4.58)
MTBV 0.032
***
0.032
**
(3.32) (2.36)
_cons 11.312
***
11.312
***
(19.87) (18.36)
Industry Dummy Included Included
Year Dummy Included Included
r2 0.608 0.608
r2_a 0.594 0.594
N 781 781
t statistics in parentheses
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Source: STATA processing result, 2019
The researcher also conducted tests to determine how the relationship between auditors and industry
specialties that perform company audits with transactions related to the amount of audit fees. This test is
performed with multiple linear regressions twice. The first is multiple linear regressions by controlling the
fixed-year effect and industry-year effect, and the second by performing multiple linear regression robustly.
Table 6 in the first and second columns shows that LNRPT * SPECIALIST, which is an interaction
between industry specialty auditors auditing companies with related transactions, produces a positive
coefficient of 0.021 with a t-value of 2.01 and a significance level of 1%. This means that auditors with
industry specializations will charge a higher audit fee on companies that carry out the related-party
transactions. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 2 is accepted.
Related-party Against Audit Fees
Based on the results of research using Pearson correlation and multiple linear regressions, it shows
that the related-party transactions have a positive and significant relationship to audit fees. This means that
companies that conduct the related-party transactions tend to pay a larger audit fee to external auditors.
This is following the hypothesis that has been proposed, so that hypothesis 1 is accepted. The related-party
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
40
transactions are an efficient contract mechanism when there is incomplete information (Ryngaert &
Thomas, 2012). According to Gordon et al., (2007), there are several reasons why it is difficult to audit the
related-party transactions, including the difficulty to identify the related-party transactions. Besides, the
auditor relies heavily on information provided about related parties and the related-party transactions. The
results of this study are in line with research conducted by Al-Dhamari et al., (2018) in Malaysia. The study
says that sales and purchase transactions with related parties place the auditor in a situation where the audit
risk is very significant so that the audit fee will be paid higher to the external auditor as compensation for
the risk and effort incurred by the auditor. The increase in audit fees in this study is also in line with
research conducted by Jiang and Son (2015) which shows the results that the auditor responds to the
presence of control risk, the auditor will charge a fee that is higher than the cost in carrying out the audit
itself.
Industry Specialty Auditor and Audit Fees in Companies Conducting Related-party Transactions
In addition to discussing the relationship between related-party transactions and audit fees, the
researcher also discusses how industry specialty auditors can influence the relationship between related-
party transactions and audit fees. Previously, researchers had expected that industry specialty auditors
would strengthen the relationship between related-party transactions and audit fees so that industry
specialty auditors would charge a larger audit fee to companies conducting the related-party transactions.
The results of the multiple linear regression in table 5 show that industry specialty auditors will
charge a higher audit fee for conducting the related-party transactions so that hypothesis 2 is accepted.
There are three reasons why the related-party transactions are difficult to disclose, namely because the
related-party transactions are difficult to identify, all documents required to carry out the audit come from
the company itself and finally, the internal controls that are implemented in the company do not necessarily
identify related-party transaction (Gordon et al., 2007). Even though the auditors have performed
appropriate audit procedures, it is possible that the auditors cannot reveal fraud from related-party
transactions. This situation is one of the risks in the audit which is called detection risk. The industry
specialty auditor is one of the attributes of audit quality because it increases the likelihood of identifying
material misstatements in financial statements (Fuentes & Sierra, 2015). Therefore, companies that carry
out many related-party transactions are audited by industry specialty auditors, which will improve the
quality of these financial statements because industry specialty auditors are considered capable of detecting
errors, both errors and intentional errors. The auditor will charge a higher audit fee to the company
following the advantages offered by the auditor. Apart from the advantages offered by the auditor, the
imposition of a higher fee is also the auditor's response to the risks faced from the related-party transactions
(Jiang & Son, 2015).
CONCLUSION
The results showed that related-party transactions had a positive and significant effect on the
amount of audit fees paid to the auditors. Furthermore, the results of research that interacted with related-
party transactions with industry specialty auditors also found that industry specialty auditors strengthened
positively and significantly the relationship between related-party transactions and audit fees. This study
has limitations that can be considered for further research. The proxy used to measure industry specialty
auditors was market share. However, this proxy still has disadvantages because it can generate different
market shares. Based on the results of the previous research, the auditor should consider and assess the
risks in carrying out the audit. This needs to be done to determine the appropriate amount of audit fee so
that it does not harm the auditor, either at present or in the future due to audit risk. As for future research,
it is better to use proxies to measure industry specialty auditors which do not create different results for
market share so that it does not contain ambiguity.
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
41
REFERENCES
Aharony, J., Wang, J., & Yuan, H. (2010). Tunneling as an incentive for earnings management during the
IPO process in China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2009.10.003
Al-Dhamari, R. A., Al-Gamrh, B., Ku Ismail, K. N. I., & Haji Ismail, S. S. (2018). Related party
transactions and audit fees: the role of the internal audit function. Journal of Management and
Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-017-9376-6
Bae, G. S., Choi, S. U., & Rho, J. H. (2016). Audit Hours and Unit Audit Price of Industry Specialist
Auditors: Evidence from Korea. Contemporary Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-
3846.12145
Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Lapides, P. D. (2000). Fraudulent financial
reporting: Consideration of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting
Horizons. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2000.14.4.441
Bona-Sánchez, C., Fernández-Senra, C. L., & Pérez-Alemán, J. (2017). Related-party transactions,
dominant owners and firm value. BRQ Business Research Quarterly.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2016.07.002
Bryan, D. B., & Mason, T. W. (2017). Executive tournament incentives and audit fees. Advances in
Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2016.12.001
Chen, Y., Ge, R., & Zolotoy, L. (2017). Do corporate pension plans affect audit pricing? Journal of
Contemporary Accounting and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2017.10.002
DeBoskey, D. G., & Jiang, W. (2012). Earnings management and auditor specialization in the post-sox
era: An examination of the banking industry. Journal of Banking and Finance.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.09.007
El-Helaly, M. (2018). Related-party transactions: a review of the regulation, governance and auditing
literature. Managerial Auditing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-07-2017-1602
Fleming, D., Hee, K., & Romanus, R. N. (2014). Auditor industry specialization and audit fees
surrounding Section 404 implementation. Review of Accounting and Finance.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RAF-09-2013-0109
Fuentes, C. De, & Sierra, E. (2015). Industry specialization and audit fees : a meta-analytic approach
Especialización industrial y honorarios de auditoría : Un estudio meta-analítico. Academia Revista
Latinoamericana de Administración.
Gallery, G., Gallery, N., & Supranowicz, M. (2008). Cash-based related party transactions in new
economy firms. Accounting Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/10309610810905935
Gordon, E. A., Henry, E., Louwers, T. J., & Reed, B. J. (2007). Auditing related party transactions: A
literature overview and research synthesis. Accounting Horizons.
https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2007.21.1.81
Habib, A., & Bhuiyan, M. B. U. (2011). Audit firm industry specialization and the audit report lag.
Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2010.12.004
Habib, A., Jiang, H., & Zhou, D. (2015). Related-party transactions and audit fees: Evidence from China.
Journal of International Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-51020
Hong, P. K., & Hwang, S. (2018). Fair value disclosure of pension plan assets and audit fees. Advances in
Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2018.01.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2009.10.003
F. O. Perwita, I. Harymawan/Journal of Accounting and Business Education, 5 (2), March 2021
42
Jiang, W., & Son, M. (2015). Do audit fees reflect risk premiums for control risk? Journal of Accounting,
Auditing and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X14560896
Johnson, S. H., La Porta, R., Lopez de Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2005). Tunnelling. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.204868
Kend, M. (2008). Client industry audit expertise: towards a better understanding. Pacific Accounting
Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/01140580810872843
Kohlbeck, M., & Mayhew, B. W. (2017). Are Related Party Transactions Red Flags? Contemporary
Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12296
McMeeking, K. P., Peasnell, K. V., & Pope, P. F. (2006). The determinants of the UK Big Firm premium.
Accounting and Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2006.9730022
Nagy, A. L. (2014). Audit partner specialization and audit fees. Managerial Auditing Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2013-0966
Rusmin, R., & Evans, J. (2017). Audit quality and audit report lag: Case of Indonesian listed companies.
Asian Review of Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-06-2015-0062
Ryngaert, M., & Thomas, S. (2012). Not All Related Party Transactions (RPTs) Are the Same: Ex Ante
Versus Ex Post RPTs. Journal of Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
679X.2012.00437.x
Salehi, M., Tarighi, H., & Safdari, S. (2018). The relation between corporate governance mechanisms,
executive compensation and audit fees: Evidence from Iran. Management Research Review.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2016-0277
Scott, W. D., & Gist, W. E. (2013). Forced auditor change, industry specialization and audit fees.
Managerial Auditing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2012-0779
Simunic, D. A. (1980). The Pricing of Audit Services: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Accounting
Research. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490397
Solomon, I., Shields, M. D., & Whittington, O. R. (1999). What Do Industry-Specialist Auditors Know?
Journal of Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491403
Waresul Karim, A. K. M., & Moizer, P. (1996). Determinants of audit fees in Bangladesh. International
Journal of Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7063(96)90034-5