Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

-

Year 2015, , 75 - 98, 02.01.2016

Alper Karavardar

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.103773
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Auditor independence, in terms of reflecting the
quality of the audit process is an important element of the financial system.
Independent auditor concept, essentially represents a public trust, has a
direct impact on the efficiency of capital markets. After the audit scandals in
recent years, providing auditors’ independence has become an important topic.
Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) and other international regulations indicate the
increasing importance of this issue. A math-based objective measure of the risk of auditor
independence provides a clear evaluation about the reliability of financial
information to financial statement users. The aim of this study is to show the
analytical representantion to determine auditor independence risk based on
Dempster Shafer theory belief functions approach.

Keywords

Auditor independence risk belief functions risk assesment

References

  • American Institute of Certified Accountants-AICPA (1997), W. Burke Auditor Independence: An Organizational Psychology Perspective, A Report prepared on behalf of the AICPA for Presentation to the Independence Standards Board of Serving the Public Interest: A New Conceptual Framework for Auditor Independence, New York: AICPA, http://www.aicpa.org/members/div/secps/isb/white.htm
  • American Institute of Certified Accountants-AICPA (2002), Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, New York: AICPA, http://AICPA.org./
  • American Institute of Certified Accountants-AICPA (2011), ET Section 101, 2006, ET Section 100-1 Conceptual Framework for AICPA Independence Standards, Code of Professional Conduct, New York: AICPA, http://AICPA.org./
  • Ashbaugh H., R. LaFond, B.W. Mayhew (2003),"Do Non Audit Services Compromise Auditor Independence? Further Evidence", The Accounting Review, 78(3), 611–39.
  • Blay A. D., A.G. Marshall (2013), "Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions", Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(2), 579- 606
  • Brandon D., A. Crabtree, J. Maher (2004), “Non Audit Fees, Auditor Independence and Bond Ratings”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 23(2), 89–103.
  • Chu A.G.H., D. Xingqiang, G. Jiang (2011), “Buy, Lie, or Die: An Investigation of Chinese ST Firms Voluntary Interim Audit Motive and Auditor Independence”, Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 135-153.
  • Chung H., S. Kallapur (2003), “Client Importance, Non Audit Services and Abnormal Accruals”, The Accounting Review, 78(4), 931–55.
  • Dart E. (2011), “UK Investors’ Perceptions of Auditor Independence”, The British Accounting Review, 43(1), 173–185.
  • DeFond M. L., K. Raghunandan, K.R. Subramanyam (2002), “Do Non-Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions”, Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4), 1247–74.
  • Edwards, A.W.F. (1984), Likelihood: An Account of the Statistical Concept of Likelihood and its Application to Scientific Inferences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
  • Frankel R.M., M.F. Johnson, K.K. Nelson (2002), “The Relation Between Auditors’ Fees for Non Audit Services and Earnings Quality”, The Accounting Review, 77(1), 71–114.
  • Glazer A., H. Jaenicke (2002), "A Pathology of the Independence Standards Board’s Conceptual Framework Project", Accounting Horizons, 16(4), 329–52.
  • Goverment Accountability Office-GAO (2000), Revision of The Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, December 18, Washington D.C.:http://www.gao.gov
  • Hodge F. (2003), “Investor’s Perceptions of Earnings Quality, Auditor Independence and The Usefulness of Audited Financial Information”, Accounting Horizons, 17(1), 37–48.
  • Ianniello G. (2012), “Non-Audit Services and Auditor Independence in the 2007 Italian Regulatory Environment”, International Journal of Auditing, 16(1), 147–164.
  • Independence Standards Board-ISB (2000), Statement of Independence Concepts: A Conceptual Framework for Auditor Independence, Exposure Draft, New York: Independence Standards Board, New York: AICPA: http://AICPA.org
  • International Federation of Accountants-IFAC (2008), Handbook of International Auditing, Assurance, and Ethics Pronouncements, New York: IFAC, http://www.IFAC.org/
  • International Federation of Accountants-IFAC (2013), Handbook of the Code of Ethics For Professional Accountants 2013 Edition, New York: International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants, ‘IESBA http://IFAC.org/
  • Jenkins, J.G., K. Krawczyk (2002), “The Relationship between non Audit Services and Perceived Auditor Independence”, Journal of Business and Economic Perspectives, Fall/Winter, 25–36.
  • Johnstone K., M.Sutton, T. Warfield (2001) “Antecedents and Consequences of Independence Risk: Framework for Analysis”, Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 1–18.
  • Public Oversight Boeurd-PCAOB (2000), Panel on Audit Effectiveness, Report and Recommendations. Stamford, CT: POB, http://www.pcaobus.org./
  • Ratzinger-Sakel N.V.S. (2013), “Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence—Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions in Germany”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory American Accounting Association, 32(4), 129–168.
  • Reynolds, K., D. Deis, J. Francis (2004), “Professional Service Fees and Auditor Objectivity”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23(1), 29–52.
  • Schmidt J.J. (2012), “Perceived Auditor Independence and Audit Litigation: The Role of Non Audit Services Fees”, The Accounting Review American Accounting Association, 87(3), 1033–1065.
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (1998), The Establishment and Improvement of Standards Related to Auditor Independence, Financial Reporting Release No. 50, Washington D.C. http://sec.gov
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (1999), Staff Accounting Bulletin No:99-Materiality, August 12, Washington D.C.http://www.sec.gov
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (2000), Final Release: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, 33-7919; 34-43602; 35-27279; IC-24744; IA- 1911; FR 56. November 21, Washington. D.C.http://www.sec.gov/
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (2000), Proposed Rule: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, Washington D.C.http://www.sec.gov
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (2000), Testimony of Ralph Whitworth, Managing Member, Relational Investors LLC, September 13, Washington D.C.http://www.sec.gov
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (2001), Final Rule: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, 17 CFR Parts 210, 240 and 279, February 5, Washington. D.C.http://www.sec.gov/
  • Shafer W., R. Morris, A. Ketchand (1999), “The Effects of Formal Sanctions on Auditor Independence”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 18(2), 85–101.
  • Shafer, G. (1976), A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Srivastava, R.P., G.Shafer (1992), "Belief-Function Formulas for Audit Risk", The Accounting Review, 67(2), 249–83.
  • Srivastava, R.P., T. Mock, J. Turner (2007), "Analytical Formulas for Risk Assessment for a Class of Problems Where Risk Depends on Three Interrelated Variables", International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 45(1), 123–51.
  • Srivastava R.P., T. Mock, J.L. (2009), “Turner, Bayesian and Belief-Functions Formulas for Auditor Independence Risk Assessment”, International Journal of Auditing, 13(1), 163–183.
  • Taylor M., T. DeZoort, E. Munn, M. Thomas (2003), “A Proposed Framework Emphasizing Auditor Reliability Over Auditor Independence”, Accounting Horizons, 17(3), 257–66.
  • Turner J., T. Mock, R.P. Srivastava (2002), “A Formal Model of Auditor Independence Risk”, Australian Accounting Review, 12(2), 31–8.
  • Turner J.L. (2009), “Bayesian and Belief-Functions Formulas for Auditor Independence Risk Assessment”, International Journal of Auditing, 13(1), 163–183.
  • Zadeh L.A. (1978), “Fuzzy Sets As a Basis for a Theory of Probability”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1, 3-28.
  • Zadeh, L.A.(1979), A Theory of Approximate Reasoning, Machine Intelligence, J.E.Ayes, D.Mitchie and L.I.Mikulich (eds.), Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.

DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA

Year 2015, , 75 - 98, 02.01.2016

Alper Karavardar

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.103773
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Denetçi bağımsızlığı, denetim sürecinin kalitesini yansıtması bakımından finansal sisteminin önemli bir unsurdur. Bağımsız denetçilik kavramı esasen bir kamu güvenini temsil etmekte olup, sermaye piyasalarının etkinliğine doğrudan etki eder. Son yıllarda yaşanan denetim skandallarının sonrasında, denetçilerin bağımsızlığının temini önemli bir konu başlığı haline gelmiştir. Sarbanes Oxley yasası (SOX) ve benzeri yasal düzenlemeler bu konunun artan önemine işaret etmektedir. Denetçi bağımsızlık riskinin matematik tabanlı objektif bir ölçümü, finansal tablo kullanıcılarına sunulan finansal bilginin güvenilirliliği hakkında, açık bir değerlendirme sağlar. Bu çalışmanın amacı denetçi bağımsızlık riskinin belirlenmesinde Dempster Shafer teorisinin kanaat fonksiyon yaklaşımına dayalı analitik bir gösteriminin sunumudur.

Keywords

Denetçi bağımsızlığı riski kanaat fonksiyonları risk tayini

References

  • American Institute of Certified Accountants-AICPA (1997), W. Burke Auditor Independence: An Organizational Psychology Perspective, A Report prepared on behalf of the AICPA for Presentation to the Independence Standards Board of Serving the Public Interest: A New Conceptual Framework for Auditor Independence, New York: AICPA, http://www.aicpa.org/members/div/secps/isb/white.htm
  • American Institute of Certified Accountants-AICPA (2002), Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, New York: AICPA, http://AICPA.org./
  • American Institute of Certified Accountants-AICPA (2011), ET Section 101, 2006, ET Section 100-1 Conceptual Framework for AICPA Independence Standards, Code of Professional Conduct, New York: AICPA, http://AICPA.org./
  • Ashbaugh H., R. LaFond, B.W. Mayhew (2003),"Do Non Audit Services Compromise Auditor Independence? Further Evidence", The Accounting Review, 78(3), 611–39.
  • Blay A. D., A.G. Marshall (2013), "Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions", Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(2), 579- 606
  • Brandon D., A. Crabtree, J. Maher (2004), “Non Audit Fees, Auditor Independence and Bond Ratings”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 23(2), 89–103.
  • Chu A.G.H., D. Xingqiang, G. Jiang (2011), “Buy, Lie, or Die: An Investigation of Chinese ST Firms Voluntary Interim Audit Motive and Auditor Independence”, Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 135-153.
  • Chung H., S. Kallapur (2003), “Client Importance, Non Audit Services and Abnormal Accruals”, The Accounting Review, 78(4), 931–55.
  • Dart E. (2011), “UK Investors’ Perceptions of Auditor Independence”, The British Accounting Review, 43(1), 173–185.
  • DeFond M. L., K. Raghunandan, K.R. Subramanyam (2002), “Do Non-Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions”, Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4), 1247–74.
  • Edwards, A.W.F. (1984), Likelihood: An Account of the Statistical Concept of Likelihood and its Application to Scientific Inferences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
  • Frankel R.M., M.F. Johnson, K.K. Nelson (2002), “The Relation Between Auditors’ Fees for Non Audit Services and Earnings Quality”, The Accounting Review, 77(1), 71–114.
  • Glazer A., H. Jaenicke (2002), "A Pathology of the Independence Standards Board’s Conceptual Framework Project", Accounting Horizons, 16(4), 329–52.
  • Goverment Accountability Office-GAO (2000), Revision of The Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, December 18, Washington D.C.:http://www.gao.gov
  • Hodge F. (2003), “Investor’s Perceptions of Earnings Quality, Auditor Independence and The Usefulness of Audited Financial Information”, Accounting Horizons, 17(1), 37–48.
  • Ianniello G. (2012), “Non-Audit Services and Auditor Independence in the 2007 Italian Regulatory Environment”, International Journal of Auditing, 16(1), 147–164.
  • Independence Standards Board-ISB (2000), Statement of Independence Concepts: A Conceptual Framework for Auditor Independence, Exposure Draft, New York: Independence Standards Board, New York: AICPA: http://AICPA.org
  • International Federation of Accountants-IFAC (2008), Handbook of International Auditing, Assurance, and Ethics Pronouncements, New York: IFAC, http://www.IFAC.org/
  • International Federation of Accountants-IFAC (2013), Handbook of the Code of Ethics For Professional Accountants 2013 Edition, New York: International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants, ‘IESBA http://IFAC.org/
  • Jenkins, J.G., K. Krawczyk (2002), “The Relationship between non Audit Services and Perceived Auditor Independence”, Journal of Business and Economic Perspectives, Fall/Winter, 25–36.
  • Johnstone K., M.Sutton, T. Warfield (2001) “Antecedents and Consequences of Independence Risk: Framework for Analysis”, Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 1–18.
  • Public Oversight Boeurd-PCAOB (2000), Panel on Audit Effectiveness, Report and Recommendations. Stamford, CT: POB, http://www.pcaobus.org./
  • Ratzinger-Sakel N.V.S. (2013), “Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence—Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions in Germany”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory American Accounting Association, 32(4), 129–168.
  • Reynolds, K., D. Deis, J. Francis (2004), “Professional Service Fees and Auditor Objectivity”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23(1), 29–52.
  • Schmidt J.J. (2012), “Perceived Auditor Independence and Audit Litigation: The Role of Non Audit Services Fees”, The Accounting Review American Accounting Association, 87(3), 1033–1065.
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (1998), The Establishment and Improvement of Standards Related to Auditor Independence, Financial Reporting Release No. 50, Washington D.C. http://sec.gov
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (1999), Staff Accounting Bulletin No:99-Materiality, August 12, Washington D.C.http://www.sec.gov
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (2000), Final Release: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, 33-7919; 34-43602; 35-27279; IC-24744; IA- 1911; FR 56. November 21, Washington. D.C.http://www.sec.gov/
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (2000), Proposed Rule: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, Washington D.C.http://www.sec.gov
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (2000), Testimony of Ralph Whitworth, Managing Member, Relational Investors LLC, September 13, Washington D.C.http://www.sec.gov
  • Securities and Exchange Commission-SEC (2001), Final Rule: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, 17 CFR Parts 210, 240 and 279, February 5, Washington. D.C.http://www.sec.gov/
  • Shafer W., R. Morris, A. Ketchand (1999), “The Effects of Formal Sanctions on Auditor Independence”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 18(2), 85–101.
  • Shafer, G. (1976), A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Srivastava, R.P., G.Shafer (1992), "Belief-Function Formulas for Audit Risk", The Accounting Review, 67(2), 249–83.
  • Srivastava, R.P., T. Mock, J. Turner (2007), "Analytical Formulas for Risk Assessment for a Class of Problems Where Risk Depends on Three Interrelated Variables", International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 45(1), 123–51.
  • Srivastava R.P., T. Mock, J.L. (2009), “Turner, Bayesian and Belief-Functions Formulas for Auditor Independence Risk Assessment”, International Journal of Auditing, 13(1), 163–183.
  • Taylor M., T. DeZoort, E. Munn, M. Thomas (2003), “A Proposed Framework Emphasizing Auditor Reliability Over Auditor Independence”, Accounting Horizons, 17(3), 257–66.
  • Turner J., T. Mock, R.P. Srivastava (2002), “A Formal Model of Auditor Independence Risk”, Australian Accounting Review, 12(2), 31–8.
  • Turner J.L. (2009), “Bayesian and Belief-Functions Formulas for Auditor Independence Risk Assessment”, International Journal of Auditing, 13(1), 163–183.
  • Zadeh L.A. (1978), “Fuzzy Sets As a Basis for a Theory of Probability”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1, 3-28.
  • Zadeh, L.A.(1979), A Theory of Approximate Reasoning, Machine Intelligence, J.E.Ayes, D.Mitchie and L.I.Mikulich (eds.), Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.
There are 41 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Alper Karavardar

Publication Date January 2, 2016
Submission Date September 30, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015

Cite

APA Karavardar, A. (2016). DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(3), 75-98. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.103773
AMA Karavardar A. DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. January 2016;33(3):75-98. doi:10.17065/huniibf.103773
Chicago Karavardar, Alper. “DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 33, no. 3 (January 2016): 75-98. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.103773.
EndNote Karavardar A (January 1, 2016) DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 33 3 75–98.
IEEE A. Karavardar, “DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 75–98, 2016, doi: 10.17065/huniibf.103773.
ISNAD Karavardar, Alper. “DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 33/3 (January 2016), 75-98. https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.103773.
JAMA Karavardar A. DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2016;33:75–98.
MLA Karavardar, Alper. “DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 33, no. 3, 2016, pp. 75-98, doi:10.17065/huniibf.103773.
Vancouver Karavardar A. DENETÇİ BAĞIMSIZLIK RİSKİNİN BELİRLENMESİNDE KANAAT FONKSİYON YAKLAŞIMININ KULLANIMI: BİR UYGULAMA. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2016;33(3):75-98.

Cited By

Yasal Mevzuat Işığında Denetçi Bağımsızlığı
IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
Fatma.akyuz@usak.edu.tr Fatma.akyuz@usak.edu.tr
https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.659150

Dergiye yayımlanmak üzere gönderilecek yazılar Dergi'nin son sayfasında ve Dergi web sistesinde yer alan Yazar Rehberi'ndeki kurallara uygun olmalıdır.


Gizlilik Beyanı

Bu dergi sitesindeki isimler ve e-posta adresleri sadece bu derginin belirtilen amaçları doğrultusunda kullanılacaktır; farklı herhangi bir amaç için veya diğer kişilerin kullanımına açılmayacaktır.