Audit Firm Assessments of Cyber-Security Risk: Evidence from Audit Fees and SEC Comment Letters

IF 2 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
P. Rosati, Fabian Gogolin, Theo Lynn
{"title":"Audit Firm Assessments of Cyber-Security Risk: Evidence from Audit Fees and SEC Comment Letters","authors":"P. Rosati, Fabian Gogolin, Theo Lynn","doi":"10.1142/s1094406019500136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the impact of cyber-security incidents on audit fees. Using a sample of 5,687 firms, we find that (i) breached firms are charged 12% higher audit fees, and (ii) firms operating in the same industry of a breached firm are charged 5% higher fees. Finally, using a difference-in-difference regression on a propensity score matched sample, we provide evidence suggesting that auditors do not revise their audit risk assessment following a breach. Overall, these results suggest that the increase in audit fees in the year of a breach is only temporary, and that auditors include cyber-security risk in their audit risk assessment even before an incident occurs. Higher cyber-security risk is ultimately reflected in higher audit fees paid by auditees.","PeriodicalId":47122,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Accounting","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1142/s1094406019500136","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s1094406019500136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of cyber-security incidents on audit fees. Using a sample of 5,687 firms, we find that (i) breached firms are charged 12% higher audit fees, and (ii) firms operating in the same industry of a breached firm are charged 5% higher fees. Finally, using a difference-in-difference regression on a propensity score matched sample, we provide evidence suggesting that auditors do not revise their audit risk assessment following a breach. Overall, these results suggest that the increase in audit fees in the year of a breach is only temporary, and that auditors include cyber-security risk in their audit risk assessment even before an incident occurs. Higher cyber-security risk is ultimately reflected in higher audit fees paid by auditees.
审计公司对网络安全风险的评估:来自审计费和美国证券交易委员会意见函的证据
本研究探讨网络安全事件对审计费用的影响。使用5,687家事务所的样本,我们发现(i)违规事务所收取的审计费用高出12%,(ii)与违规事务所在同一行业运营的事务所收取的费用高出5%。最后,在倾向得分匹配样本上使用差分回归,我们提供证据表明审计师在违规后不会修改其审计风险评估。总体而言,这些结果表明,审计费用在违规年度的增加只是暂时的,审计人员甚至在事件发生之前就将网络安全风险纳入其审计风险评估。更高的网络安全风险最终反映在被审计单位支付的更高的审计费用上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The aim of The International Journal of Accounting is to advance the academic and professional understanding of accounting theory, policies and practice from the international perspective and viewpoint. The Journal editorial recognizes that international accounting is influenced by a variety of forces, e.g., governmental, political and economic. Thus, the primary criterion for manuscript evaluation is the incremental contribution to international accounting literature and the forces that impact the field. The Journal aims at understanding the present and potential ability of accounting to aid in analyzing and interpreting international economic transactions and the economic consequences of such reporting. These transactions may be within a profit or non-profit environment. The Journal encourages a broad view of the origins and development of accounting with an emphasis on its functions in an increasingly interdependent global economy. The Journal also welcomes manuscripts that help explain current international accounting practices, with related theoretical justifications, and identify criticisms of current policies and practice. Other than occasional commissioned papers or special issues, all the manuscripts published in the Journal are selected by the editors after the normal double-blind refereeing process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信