The impact on the market for audit services of aggressive competition by auditors

Supporters of direct uninvited solicitation activities argue that clients can make more informed choices of auditors when auditors are allowed to solicit prospective clients. In banned markets, auditors are allowed to submit bids to provide audit services only when invited by the client. This study provides theoretical models that examine the efficiency of client–auditor alignments in the banned and allowed market. We identify conditions under which realignment differences between the two markets occur and derive client losses in the banned market as compared to the allowed market. We also identify conditions under which independence may be impaired in the allowed market, consistent with the claims of solicitation opponents. However, we believe that, in view of the potential positive effects related to audit pricing and client–auditor alignment, restrictions on advertising or direct uninvited solicitation are not necessarily indicated. Instead, regulators or market mechanisms should insure that the independence (truth-telling) condition is so readily satisfied as to be virtually irrelevant. This can happen in one of two ways: (a) increased scrutiny, leading to an increased likelihood of discovery, or (b) increased penalties when an audit failure is discovered, leading to increased costs of an audit failure, or both.