Competition in the Audit Market: Policy Implications

The audit market's unique combination of features—its role in capital market transparency, mandated demand, and concentrated supply—means it receives considerable attention from policy makers. We explore the effects of two market scenarios that have been the focus of policy discussions: mandatory audit firm rotation and further supply concentration due to the exit of a “Big 4” audit firm. To do so, we first estimate publicly traded firms' demand for auditing services, allowing the services provided by each of the Big 4 to be differentiated products. We then use those estimates to calculate how each scenario would affect client firms' consumer surplus. We estimate that, for U.S. publicly trade firms, mandatory audit firm rotation would induce consumer surplus losses of approximately $2.7 billion if rotation were required after 10 years and $4.7–5.0 billion if after only four years. We find similarly that exit by one of the Big 4 would reduce client firms' surplus by $1.4–1.8 billion. These estimates reflect only the value of firms' lost options to hire the exiting audit firm; they do not include likely fee increases resulting from less competition among audit firms. The latter could result in audit fee increases between $0.75–1.3 billion per year for mandatory rotation and $0.47–0.58 billion per year for the disappearance of a Big 4 audit firm. Such losses are substantial; by comparison, total audit fees for public firms were $11 billion in 2010.     

The effect of audit market structure on audit quality and audit pricing in the private-client market

This study examines whether audit market structure affects audit quality and audit pricing. We analyze two conceptually distinct dimensions of market structure: audit market concentration and client mobility. Focusing on the private-client segment of the Belgian audit market, we compare the pricing and quality effects of market structure between the segment of small and medium-sized (SME) clients and the segment of large clients to test how audit complexity moderates such effects. We find that market concentration impairs price and quality competition in the SME-client segment. Market concentration is unrelated to audit quality in the large-client segment, where we argue that concentration is endogenous to audit complexity. Furthermore, we find that client mobility stimulates price competition in both segments but improves audit quality only in the large-client segment. We interpret our findings as evidence that (a) audit market concentration impairs competition especially when audits have low complexity and that (b) the large-client market segment, characterized by higher audit complexity and higher market concentration, can also be price and quality competitive if clients are sufficiently mobile, and change auditors relatively frequently.     

Audit market concentration,audit fees,and audit quality: A cross-country analysis of complex audit clients

Regulators around the world are concerned about the potentially harmful effects of high audit market concentration on audit pricing and quality. However, results in the overall literature have failed to reach consensus on this issue. We contribute to this debate by arguing that the audit market is segmented and that concentration in the Big 4 segment of the market leads to higher audit pricing. Accordingly, our analyses use international data and focus on concentration within the Big 4 group of firms across countries. We find that audit fees are increasing in our concentration measure for clients where the barriers to entry by competing auditors are higher, as proxied by client size, international operations, and IFRS use. Finally, we find evidence that audit quality is decreasing in Big 4 market concentration for these types of engagements. This indicates a wealth transfer from shareholders to audit firms when auditor concentration is high because these complex clients are charged more, but receive audits that are of lower quality.     

Auditor specialization, perceived audit quality, and audit fees in the local government audit market

Prior governmental research implies a positive relation between auditor specialization and audit quality, but the effect of specialization on audit fees is mixed. However, no single governmental study investigates the effect of auditor specialization on both audit quality and audit fees. Also, prior studies focus on either large- or small audit firms and often employ indirect proxies for audit quality. We study the effects of auditor specialization on perceived audit quality and audit fees. Our data represent both Big 5 and smaller audit firms and include three market-based measures of specialization. We survey 241 Florida local government finance directors and find that specialization is positively associated with perceived audit quality but not with audit fees. We also find that Big 5 auditors, often used as a proxy for higher audit quality in prior research, are not uniformly associated with increased perceived audit quality but consistently charge higher audit fees. Our results confirm a relation between measures of audit firm specialization and audit quality and raise questions regarding audit firm size and audit quality in the municipal sector. Our findings suggest that engaging specialized auditors may be good policy for many local governments.     

How audit effort affects audit quality: An audit process and audit output perspective

Using a unique dataset of audit days in China from 2006 to 2011, this paper examines the relationship between audit effort and audit quality from the perspective of audit process and audit output. The results show that audit effort significantly increases the probability of audit adjustments, which inhibits positive earnings management and improves the quality of audited financial statements. We also find that audit effort does not have a significant effect on the issuance of modified audit opinions overall, but that a modified audit opinion is more likely to be issued in the absence of an audit adjustment. Furthermore, we find that the impact of audit effort on audit quality is attenuated when clients are more complex and when audit firms are larger. Collectively, our evidence suggests that audit effort plays an important role in improving audit quality by influencing audit process and audit output. Our study extends the literature on the impact of audit effort on audit quality in emerging markets, and the conclusions have important implications for the improvement of China’s audit market efficiency.     

The dark side of audit market competition

This paper examines the relation between audit market competition and audit quality. We use the staggered introduction of bullet trains in different Chinese cities as shocks to travel time between audit clients and prospective audit firms, which increases the threat of competition for incumbent audit firms. The inception of bullet train connectivity leads to a 4.5 percentage point (pp) increase in the probability of GAAP violations and a 1.7 pp decrease in the probability of modified audit opinions for clients headquartered in connected cities. Bullet train connectivity is also followed by a 1.6 pp decrease in income-decreasing audit adjustments but no change in income-increasing audit adjustments. The negative relation between bullet train connectivity and audit quality is 1) stronger when bullet trains put greater competitive pressure on incumbent auditors and 2) weaker when clients demand high audit quality. Our paper provides plausibly causal evidence that competition lowers audit quality.     

An examination of the relation between market structure and the profitability of audit engagements

Due to increasing supplier concentration, there is growing concern regarding the lack of competition in the audit market. Theory based on Cournot oligopoly predicts that increasing concentration will facilitate monopolistic behaviour. Conversely, if the market for audit services has more in common with a Bertrand oligopoly, concentration may not lead to higher fees. We evaluate whether increased audit supplier concentration leads to economic rents by investigating audit profitability. Using proprietary data from a (then) Big 6 audit firm, we find that local market structure has a significant and positive association with audit profitability, but not auditor effort for large clients.     

Audit report lag: the role of auditor type and increased competition in the audit market

This study investigates the effect of auditor type (private vs. state) and increased competition in an audit market on audit report lag (ARL). This is the first study to provide evidence regarding the effect of audit market competition on ARL. Utilising structure–conduct–performance theory, we predict that competition pressures private auditors to be more efficient and to have less reporting lag than state auditors. We also predict that competition among auditors after a liberalisation period forces auditors to be more efficient and to record less ARL than before. We use a unique data set in Iran, whereby the audit market liberalisation (an audit market where services were previously provided primarily by a state entity) has resulted in both state and private auditors simultaneously providing audit services. The findings are consistent with the following hypothesis, that is ARL is shorter for private auditors than it is for state auditors, and ARL decreases as competition increases in the Iranian audit market. Consistent with the structure–conduct–performance theory, the findings suggest that increased competition in the audit market results in higher efficiency, as reflected by a shorter ARL.     

Mandatory audit partner rotation,audit market concentration,and audit quality: Evidence from China

This research examines the audit quality consequences of China's mandatory audit partner rotation (MPR) regulation, which became effective in 2004. The rule requires firms to rotate signing audit partners of audit reports every five years. We find that audit quality improves in the three years immediately following a client firm's MPR during the 2004–2011 period for a sample of 273 Chinese publicly listed firms. Specifically, we find that the improvement is most pronounced in those Chinese provinces with both low levels of audit market concentration and low levels of legal development. However, MPR does not improve audit quality in jurisdictions where legal conventions are more developed and/or where audit markets are highly concentrated with a handful of large audit firms dominating the market.     

The audit expectation gap: existence,causes, and the impact of changes

Recent regulatory initiatives targeting the statutory audit regime support the notion that the audit expectation gap is still a driver of change. This study seeks to analyse causes of the gap as well as the impact of proposed changes to the current statutory audit regime using an approach that differs from those used in prior literature. This approach allows us to attribute the audit expectation gap under the current regime to a failure of the public, the standard-setter, or the auditor. Based on a questionnaire survey conducted in 2011 in Germany, we find the public to have exaggerated expectations of auditors' responsibilities under current standards. Other causes of the gap relate to the public's difficulty in assessing the performance of auditors, but also to deficiencies in auditors' performance. In addition, we find that auditors are not fully aware of their responsibilities. Increasing the information content of the audit opinion is expected to narrow the gap. By contrast, recent proposed changes, such as mandatory rotation and a ban on non-audit services, may reduce the gap only to a lesser extent. Overall, it can be shown that the audit expectation gap is by its nature a persistent phenomenon comprising complex social aspects and interactions with changing accounting requirements, such as increased uncertainties in accounting estimates.     

From joint to single audits – audit quality differences and auditor pairings

This study analyses audit quality differences between audits by a single big audit firm and joint audits with either one or two big audit firms. We exploit the unique situation in Denmark beginning on 1 January 2005, at which time a long-standing mandatory joint audit system for listed companies was replaced by a voluntary joint audit system. First, we report the results of a survey of Danish CFOs’ views on and their experiences with the choice of single or joint audits and their perceptions of audit quality. Second, based on data from the mandatory joint audit abolition year and the following two years, we test the audit quality differences using abnormal accruals. Most CFOs perceive that audit quality by a single big four audit firm is the same as it is in joint audits with either one or two big four audit firms. The results of our empirical analysis are in line with the perceptions. We find no evidence of audit quality differences between audits made by a single big four firm and those conducted by either of the two combinations of joint audits.     

Auditor quality,audit fees,organizational structure,and risk taking in the US life insurance industry

Using a system of simultaneous equations, this study examines the relation among external audit monitoring, in the US life insurance industry. We find insurers with higher leverage risk and surplus risk are more likely to use Big‐4 auditors and to pay higher fees. In return, insurers hiring Big‐4 auditors and paying higher audit fees have lower leverage risk and surplus risk. Second, the results suggest that mutual life insurers have a higher leverage risk and surplus risk than stock life insurers. This evidence is in contrast to that for property–liability insurance companies. Third, we find insurers are less likely to hire Big‐4 auditors and to pay higher audit fees after implementation of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX). Finally, life insurers with Big‐4 auditors or paying higher audit fees are more likely to take lower risks after the implementation of SOX.     

Independent and joint effects of audit partner tenure and non-audit fees on audit quality

We examine the individual and joint effects of auditors’ non-audit services (NAS)/abnormal NAS fees and length of audit partner tenure on audit quality. Our results raise questions about the ‘one size fits all’ approach imposed by the current audit partner rotation requirement in Australia as a result of (1) a learning differentiation that we observe between Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors and (2) higher discretionary accruals associated with non-Big 4 auditors. We find abnormal NAS fees to have a positive association with both absolute and positive (income-increasing) values of discretionary accruals for firms with short audit partner tenure. NAS/abnormal NAS fees are also negatively associated with the issuance of going concern opinions to financially distressed firms when partner tenure is short. In terms of policy implications, regulators are able to gauge the efficacy of the CLERP 9 reforms which currently impose a five year mandatory audit partner rotation requirement.     

Risk-preparedness mechanism and audit quality: Evidence from mandatory increase of professional indemnity insurance and professional risk fund

We examine the risk-preparing benefits of Chinese audit firms’ professional indemnity insurance (PII) and professional risk fund (PRF) by using the Notice on Adjusting the Application Requirement of Audit Firms for Securities Qualifications as an exogenous shock. This policy requires audit firms to raise the sum of the cumulative compensation limit of their PII and PRF from 6 million to 80 million yuan. It is found, first, that the capital market regards this policy revision as a signal to strengthen investor protection and responds positively; client firms with high audit risks have a stronger response. Second, auditors’ governance of financial information has strengthened, resulting in the significant improvement of their clients’ financial reporting quality, with a stronger effect on firms with higher earnings management risk. There is no evidence that audit firms pass the costs on to their clients. Finally, the mismatch between auditors and new client firms is alleviated. We show that in an emerging market with weak investor protection, establishing a sound risk-preparedness mechanism for audit firms and strengthening the capacity for civil compensation ex post greatly improve the adaptive degree between international auditing standards and the legal environment of China, thereby enhancing the overall service quality of the audit market.     

The reform of accounting standards and audit pricing

This paper focuses on the reform of accounting standards in China in 2007 and investigates its impact on equilibrium pricing in the audit market. We find that the concentration of the audit market and the probability of issuing modified audit opinions do not significantly change, but that audit fees increase significantly after the adoption of the new accounting standards in China. Deeper analysis suggests that (1) the implementation of the new IFRS-based Chinese Accounting Standards (CASs) has increased the market risk faced by listed firms and thus auditors’ expected audit risk, causing an increase in audit fees, and (2) the degree of the increase in audit fees is positively related to the adjusted difference between net income according to the old CAS before 2007 and the new CAS after 2007. We thus conclude that the reform has had a significant impact on audit pricing in China.     

International evidence on economic policy uncertainty and asymmetric adjustment of audit pricing: Big 4 versus non‐big 4 auditors

By investigating the association between economic policy uncertainty and audit fees using data from eight countries, this study examines whether and how Big 4 auditors reinforce their advantages over non‐Big 4 auditors through audit pricing. We find that both Big 4 and non‐Big 4 auditors reduce their audit fees when economic policy uncertainty increases. However, while non‐Big 4 auditors adjust audit pricing asymmetrically as economic policy uncertainty changes, i.e., the magnitude of decline in audit fees when economic policy uncertainty increases exceeds the magnitude of rise when economic policy uncertainty decreases, Big 4 auditors regulate their audit pricing in a symmetric manner. Further analyses reveal that: (1) the asymmetric pricing of non‐Big 4 auditors mainly exists in countries where Big 4 auditors have dominant market share, (2) Big 4 auditors provide higher‐quality audits when economic policy uncertainty increases and (3) many firms in better financial condition turn to Big 4 auditors during uncertain years. Our findings suggest that the symmetric audit pricing helps Big 4 auditors maintain a favorable position in the audit market.     

AUDIT PRICING, AUDITOR CHANGES, AND THE WINNER'S CURSE

This paper presents a two-period model of the audit market. In the first period, all auditors have symmetric information and adopt identical bidding strategies. In the process of performing the audit, the incumbent auditor learns the actual costs, thereby becoming informationally advantaged in the second period. In the model presented, unlike earlier ones found in the literature, audit costs include both a component common to all potential auditors and a private component that varies across auditors. The common component of auditor costs gives rise to a ‘winner's curse’ scenario. A winner's curse is said to exist because a non-incumbent bidder who does not take into account the superior information of the incumbent would be expected to generate a loss from winning the audit engagement. The adjustment of bids by sophisticated auditors to compensate for the winner's curse is shown to play a significant role in determining the degree of low-balling (first-period price cuts) and auditor turnover. In the model, low-balling is not associated with loss of audit quality. Additionally, it is shown that it is in the interest of the client to structure audit selection in a manner that gives rise to low-balling.     

Consulting revenue sharing,auditor effort and independence,and the regulation of auditor compensation

The joint provision of audit and non-audit services by audit firms to their audit clients has posed a threat to auditor independence. To mitigate the independence problem, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a regulation (SEC, 2003) that prohibits audit partners from receiving compensation for the sale of non-audit services to their audit clients. This study examines the effects of this regulatory change on the effort and reporting decisions of audit partners. We show that partners in an audit firm strategically change the firm’s liability-sharing rule. As a consequence, the regulation restores truthful reporting but has an undesirable negative effect on audit effort. The effect of the regulation on the welfare of the economy (defined as the total payoff to both audit firms and their clients) hinges on the tradeoff between the benefit of the regulation, which is derived from the inducement of truthful reporting, and the cost of the regulation, which results from less diligent audit work. We show that the regulation is more likely to increase the welfare in a strong legal regime (where the legal liability cost of auditor litigation is high) than in a weak legal regime.     

Auditor mergers,audit quality and audit fees: Evidence from the PricewaterhouseCoopers merger in the UK

Focusing on the merger of Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand in 1998, we document increased audit quality (measured by earnings quality of the clients) for the merged firm and other big-X auditors (The big-X auditors are Ernst & Young, Deloitte, KPMG and Arthur Anderson.) during the post-merger period because: (1) controlling for economic conditions, clients of big-X auditors have lower levels of absolute discretionary accruals and (2) the value relevance of earnings has significantly increased. Furthermore, we find evidence that in the post-merger period, there is a significant increase in audit fees for PricewaterhouseCoopers and other big-X client firms, which suggests that the effect of collectively enhanced market power of big-X auditors (which tends to increase audit fees) dominates the effect of cost savings from the merger (which tends to lower audit fees). The results have implications for regulators and policy makers.     

Mandatory audit firm rotation: Fresh look versus poor knowledge

Our aim in this paper is to investigate the effects of mandatory audit firm rotation (MAR) on companies’ investment decision and auditor choice in a capital market setting. We compare a MAR regime with a non-MAR regime in a setting in which auditors’ independence and companies’ opinion shopping are real concerns. To capture auditor independence and opinion shopping, we model auditor biases (a conservative bias or an aggressive bias) and client firms’ incentives to engage auditors with desired biases. We find that when firms engage in opinion shopping, MAR improves investment efficiency for some firms but impairs investment efficiency for other firms. More generally, we contribute to the literature by demonstrating the real effects of auditing on corporate resource allocation decisions.