{"title":"Are 'Big Four audits' really better? - Some remarks on the 'Big Four dichotomy' in the German audit market","authors":"Daniel Worret","doi":"10.1504/IJCA.2016.10001290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the green paper 'Audit policy: lessons from the crisis' of 2010, the European Commission discussed a break up of Big Four audit firms, since high market concentration was considered as a threat to independency. Our results suggest that concentration in the market for audits of German listed companies is persistently high. Regarding audit quality, clients of Big Four auditors show significantly lower amounts of discretionary accruals and lower likelihoods of error findings by the German enforcement system than clients of non-Big Four firms. When controlling for firm-specific characteristics, the difference remains observable only for the enforcement-error-proxy. The results suggest that differences in discretionary accruals might not primarily be influenced by auditor choice, but by different firm-characteristics between Big Four and non-Big Four clients. Nevertheless, while Big Four auditors might not be able to better constrain earnings management than non-Big Four auditors, they seem to be more successful in preventing 'real' accounting mistreatments, indicating higher audit quality.","PeriodicalId":343538,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Critical Accounting","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Critical Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCA.2016.10001290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
In the green paper 'Audit policy: lessons from the crisis' of 2010, the European Commission discussed a break up of Big Four audit firms, since high market concentration was considered as a threat to independency. Our results suggest that concentration in the market for audits of German listed companies is persistently high. Regarding audit quality, clients of Big Four auditors show significantly lower amounts of discretionary accruals and lower likelihoods of error findings by the German enforcement system than clients of non-Big Four firms. When controlling for firm-specific characteristics, the difference remains observable only for the enforcement-error-proxy. The results suggest that differences in discretionary accruals might not primarily be influenced by auditor choice, but by different firm-characteristics between Big Four and non-Big Four clients. Nevertheless, while Big Four auditors might not be able to better constrain earnings management than non-Big Four auditors, they seem to be more successful in preventing 'real' accounting mistreatments, indicating higher audit quality.
在2010年的绿皮书《审计政策:危机的教训》(Audit policy: lessons from the crisis)中,欧盟委员会(European Commission)讨论了四大审计公司的分拆,因为市场高度集中被认为是对独立性的威胁。我们的研究结果表明,德国上市公司审计市场的集中度一直很高。在审计质量方面,与非四大会计师事务所的客户相比,四大会计师事务所的客户显示出明显更低的可自由支配应计金额和更低的德国执法系统发现错误的可能性。当控制公司特定特征时,这种差异仅在执行-错误-代理中可见。结果表明,可支配性应计利润的差异可能主要不是受到审计师选择的影响,而是受到四大和非四大客户之间不同事务所特征的影响。然而,尽管四大会计师事务所可能无法比非四大会计师事务所更好地约束盈余管理,但它们似乎在防止“真正的”会计不当行为方面更成功,这表明审计质量更高。