IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/abacus/v59y2023i3p697-734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulating the Market for Audit Services: A Game Theoretic Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantinos Eleftheriou
  • Iliya Komarev
  • Paul Klumpes

Abstract

We apply game theory to model how alternative mandatory audit firm rotation regimes can affect the strategic interaction between auditee and auditor firms, and analyze potential consequences on detection risk and impairment of auditor scepticism. The major results suggest that: (1) relative to an initial state with no rotation requirement but high probability for impaired auditor scepticism, imposing either short‐term or long‐term mandatory audit firm rotation will remove the threat to auditor scepticism and lead to higher audit fees and lower detection risk; (2) relative to long‐term mandatory audit firm rotation, imposing a short‐term rotation will lead to lower audit fees and higher detection risk, resulting from greater informational frictions. We further find that imposing supplementary regulatory instruments, such as increased regulatory scrutiny of the auditee and/or auditor, can be used to lower the detection risk and increase audit quality. We discuss implications of these findings for empirical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantinos Eleftheriou & Iliya Komarev & Paul Klumpes, 2023. "Regulating the Market for Audit Services: A Game Theoretic Approach," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(3), pages 697-734, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:abacus:v:59:y:2023:i:3:p:697-734
    DOI: 10.1111/abac.12278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12278
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/abac.12278?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy B. Bell & Wayne R. Landsman & Douglas A. Shackelford, 2001. "Auditors' Perceived Business Risk and Audit Fees: Analysis and Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 35-43, June.
    2. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    3. Paul Klumpes, 2013. "Audit fee pricing and internationally-credible GAAP: a property rights analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-39, February.
    4. Dye, Ronald A., 1995. "Incorporation and the audit market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 75-114, February.
    5. Border,Kim C., 1990. "Fixed Point Theorems with Applications to Economics and Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521388085, January.
    6. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    7. Cameran, Mara & Negri, Giulia & Pettinicchio, Angela, 2015. "The audit mandatory rotation rule: the state of the art," Journal of Financial Perspectives, EY Global FS Institute, vol. 3(2), pages 61-75.
    8. William Kerler & Larry Killough, 2009. "The Effects of Satisfaction with a Client’s Management During a Prior Audit Engagement, Trust, and Moral Reasoning on Auditors’ Perceived Risk of Management Fraud," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 109-136, March.
    9. Lu, Tong & Sivaramakrishnan, K., 2009. "Mandatory audit firm rotation: Fresh look versus poor knowledge," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 71-91.
    10. Jochen Bigus, 2015. "Loss Aversion, Audit Risk Judgments, and Auditor Liability," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 581-606, September.
    11. Ralf Ewert & Eberhard Feess & Martin Nell, 2000. "Auditor liability rules under imperfect information and costly litigation: the welfare-increasing effect of liability insurance," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 371-385.
    12. Elitzur, Ramy & Falk, Haim, 1996. "Planned audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 247-269.
    13. Aloke Ghosh & Steven Lustgarten, 2006. "Pricing of Initial Audit Engagements by Large and Small Audit Firms," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 333-368, June.
    14. Dye, Ronald A, 1993. "Auditing Standards, Legal Liability, and Auditor Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(5), pages 887-914, October.
    15. Okeefe, Tb & Simunic, Da & Stein, Mt, 1994. "The Production Of Audit Services - Evidence From A Major Public Accounting Firm," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 241-261.
    16. Caplan, D, 1999. "Internal controls and the detection of management fraud," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 101-117.
    17. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    18. Yasuhiro Ohta, 2008. "On the Conditions under which Audit Risk Increases with Information," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 559-585.
    19. Ettredge, Michael & Reed, Margaret & Stone, Mary, 2000. "An Examination of Substitution among Monitoring Devices: The Case of Internal and External Audit Expenditures," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 57-79, July.
    20. Mark DeFond & David H. Erkens & Jieying Zhang, 2017. "Do Client Characteristics Really Drive the Big N Audit Quality Effect? New Evidence from Propensity Score Matching," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3628-3649, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    2. Ku He & Xiaofei Pan & Gary Tian, 2017. "Legal Liability, Government Intervention, and Auditor Behavior: Evidence from Structural Reform of Audit Firms in China," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 61-95, January.
    3. Christine Gimbar & Molly Mercer, 2021. "Do Auditors Accurately Predict Litigation and Reputation Consequences of Inaccurate Accounting Estimates?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 276-301, March.
    4. Jingyu Yang & Hai Wu & Yangxin Yu, 2021. "Distracted institutional investors and audit risk," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 3855-3881, September.
    5. Sharad Asthana & Rachana Kalelkar, 2011. "The Market For Audit Services And S&P 500 Index Clients," Working Papers 0022, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    6. Ghosh, Aloke(Al) & Tang, Charles Y., 2015. "Assessing financial reporting quality of family firms: The auditors׳ perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 95-116.
    7. Kusano, Masaki & Sakuma, Yoshihiro, 2019. "Effects of recognition versus disclosure of finance leases on audit fees and costs: Evidence from Japan," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 53-68.
    8. Mande, Vivek & Son, Myungsoo & Song, Hakjoon, 2017. "Auditor search periods as signals of engagement risk: Effects on auditor choice and audit pricing," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 15-29.
    9. Tharindra Ranasinghe & Lin Yi & Ling Zhou, 2023. "Do auditors charge a client business risk premium? Evidence from audit fees and derivative hedging in the U.S. oil and gas industry," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 1107-1139, June.
    10. Liangliang Jiang & Hui Zhou, 2017. "The role of audit verification in debt contracting: evidence from covenant violations," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 469-501, March.
    11. Yang, Seunghee & Lee, Woo-Jong & Lim, Youngdeok & Yi, Cheong H., 2021. "Audit firm operating leverage and pricing strategy: Evidence from lowballing in audit industry," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    12. Erich Pummerer & Marcel Steller & Julia Baldauf, 2013. "Prüfungsqualität, Prüferhaftung und Risikoaversion — Eine analytische Betrachtung der Bedeutung der Risikoaversion für die Prüfungsqualität," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 32-59, February.
    13. Sharad Asthana & Inder Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2019. "Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 403-438, February.
    14. Xiaomei Han & Wei Luo & Liansheng Wu & Wei Zhou, 2023. "Audit Effort and Stock Price Crash Risk," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(1), pages 230-257, March.
    15. Ball, Ray & Jayaraman, Sudarshan & Shivakumar, Lakshmanan, 2012. "Audited financial reporting and voluntary disclosure as complements: A test of the Confirmation Hypothesis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 136-166.
    16. Frecka, Thomas J. & Griffin, Jeremy B. & Stevens, Jennifer Sustersic, 2018. "Transparency and the audit industry? Not in the U.S. Evidence on audit production costs, profitability and partner compensation from the U.K," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 73-81.
    17. Leventis, Stergios & Hasan, Iftekhar & Dedoulis, Emmanouil, 2013. "The cost of sin: The effect of social norms on audit pricing," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 152-165.
    18. Sebastian Kronenberger & Volker Laux, 2022. "Conservative Accounting, Audit Quality, and Litigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 2349-2362, March.
    19. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. John M. Barrios, 2022. "Occupational Licensing and Accountant Quality: Evidence from the 150‐Hour Rule," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 3-43, March.
    21. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2012. "The consequences of protecting audit partners’ personal assets from the threat of liability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 154-173.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:abacus:v:59:y:2023:i:3:p:697-734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0001-3072 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.