Are 'Big Four audits' really better? - Some remarks on the 'Big Four dichotomy' in the German audit market

Daniel Worret
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“四大审计”真的更好吗?-对德国审计市场的“四大二分法”的一些评论
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。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does corporate governance matter in the failures of listed home-grown banks A critical review of the 2018 conceptual framework of IASB: a shift towards the primary users of the GPFRs Understanding MSME-owned women entrepreneurs in Bangladesh: exploring motives, challenges, and success factors Increasing globalisation in accounting publications Accounting for e-commerce sector
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1