IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/joares/v59y2021i3p959-1020.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Is the Audit Market Affected by Characteristics of the Nonaudit Services Market?

Author

Listed:
  • HENRY L. FRIEDMAN
  • LUCAS MAHIEUX

Abstract

How can features of the markets for audit and nonaudit services (NAS) affect an audit firm's incentives to invest in audit quality, average audit quality, and social welfare? We address these questions in a model focusing on competition in both audit and NAS markets. We show that, when audit and NAS demand are positively correlated, prohibiting auditors from providing NAS to audit clients leads to higher investments in audit quality, but can decrease average audit quality if marginal clients switch to lower quality auditors. The effect on social welfare can be positive or negative, depending on the distribution of clients' service demands. General bans on auditor provision of NAS can, via similar channels, increase or decrease audit quality and social welfare. Overall, our findings suggest a more nuanced view of how regulating an auditor's provision of NAS might affect audit quality and social welfare, and are driven by the effects of multimarket competition on the auditor's incentives to invest in audit quality, rather than previously identified auditor independence or knowledge spillover channels.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry L. Friedman & Lucas Mahieux, 2021. "How Is the Audit Market Affected by Characteristics of the Nonaudit Services Market?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 959-1020, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:59:y:2021:i:3:p:959-1020
    DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12347
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1475-679X.12347?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. Raphael Duguay & Michael Minnis & Andrew Sutherland, 2020. "Regulatory Spillovers in Common Audit Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3389-3411, August.
    2. Dye, Ronald A., 1995. "Incorporation and the audit market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 75-114, February.
    3. Monika Causholli & Dennis J. Chambers & Jeff L. Payne, 2014. "Future Nonaudit Service Fees and Audit Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 681-712, September.
    4. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    5. Joseph Gerakos & Chad Syverson, 2015. "Competition in the Audit Market: Policy Implications," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 725-775, September.
    6. Minlei Ye & Dan A. Simunic, 2013. "The Economics of Setting Auditing Standards," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1191-1215, September.
    7. Mark L. DeFond & K. Raghunandan & K.R. Subramanyam, 2002. "Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1247-1274, September.
    8. Datar, Srikant M. & Feltham, Gerald A. & Hughes, John S., 1991. "The role of audits and audit quality in valuing new issues," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-49, March.
    9. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13.
    10. Brandon Gipper & Christian Leuz & Mark Maffett, 2020. "Public Oversight and Reporting Credibility: Evidence from the PCAOB Audit Inspection Regime," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(10), pages 4532-4579.
    11. Titman, Sheridan & Trueman, Brett, 1986. "Information quality and the valuation of new issues," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 159-172, June.
    12. Zachary T. Kowaleski & Brian W. Mayhew & Amy C. Tegeler, 2018. "The Impact of Consulting Services on Audit Quality: An Experimental Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 673-711, May.
    13. Mark L. Defond & Clive S. Lennox, 2017. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Quality of Internal Control Audits?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 591-627, June.
    14. Fung, Simon Yu Kit & Raman, K.K. & Zhu, Xindong (Kevin), 2017. "Does the PCAOB international inspection program improve audit quality for non-US-listed foreign clients?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 15-36.
    15. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    16. Kimberly D. Westermann & Jeffrey Cohen & Greg Trompeter, 2019. "PCAOB Inspections: Public Accounting Firms on “Trial”," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 694-731, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Phillip C. Stocken, 2022. "Disclosure regulation and incentive uncertainty," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2267-2281, June.
    2. Breuer, Matthias & Le, Anthony & Vetter, Felix, 2023. "Audit mandates, audit firms, and auditors," Working Papers 333, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    3. Reshma Kumari Tiwari & Jasojit Debnath, 2021. "Joint Provision of Non-audit Services to Audit Clients: Empirical Evidences from India," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 46(3), pages 153-165, September.

    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. Christensen, Brant & Lei, Lijun (Gillian) & Shu, Sydney Qing & Thomas, Wayne, 2023. "Does audit regulation improve the underlying information used by managers? Evidence from PCAOB inspection access and management forecast accuracy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Sebastian Kronenberger & Volker Laux, 2022. "Conservative Accounting, Audit Quality, and Litigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 2349-2362, March.
    3. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Sarah B. Stuber & Chris E. Hogan, 2021. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 331-370, March.
    5. Beardsley, Erik L. & Imdieke, Andrew J. & Omer, Thomas C., 2021. "The distraction effect of non-audit services on audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2).
    6. Giuseppe Iuliano & Gaetano Matonti, 2015. "Do big 4 audit companies detect earnings management and report it in the audit opinion? Empirical evidence from italian non-listed firms," ESPERIENZE D'IMPRESA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 5-43.
    7. Nathan R. Berglund, 2020. "Do Client Bankruptcies Preceded by Clean Audit Opinions Damage Auditor Reputation?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1914-1951, September.
    8. Hanlon, Michelle & Shroff, Nemit, 2022. "Insights into auditor public oversight boards: Whether, how, and why they “work”," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    9. Breuer, Matthias & Le, Anthony & Vetter, Felix, 2023. "Audit mandates, audit firms, and auditors," Working Papers 333, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    10. John, Kose & John, Teresa A., 2006. "Managerial incentives, derivatives and stability," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 71-94, April.
    11. Li‐Ying Huang & Gene C. Lai & Erin Lu & Michael McNamara, 2020. "Auditor quality, audit fees, organizational structure, and risk taking in the US life insurance industry," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 23(2), pages 151-182, June.
    12. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.
    13. Dongshan Ma & Shengqiang Zhang & Jiayu Zhao, 2022. "The High-Speed Railway Opening and Audit Fees: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2024. "Costs and benefits of a risk-based PCAOB inspection regime," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Daniel Aobdia, 2020. "The Economic Consequences of Audit Firms’ Quality Control System Deficiencies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 2883-2905, July.
    17. Inder K. Khurana & Nathan G. Lundstrom & K. K. Raman, 2021. "PCAOB Inspections and the Differential Audit Quality Effect for Big 4 and Non–Big 4 US Auditors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 376-411, March.
    18. MohammadRezaei, Fakhroddin & Mohd-Saleh, Norman & Ahmed, Kamran, 2018. "Audit Firm Ranking, Audit Quality and Audit Fees: Examining Conflicting Price Discrimination Views," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 295-313.
    19. Xingqiang Du, 2019. "Does CEO-Auditor Dialect Sharing Impair Pre-IPO Audit Quality? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 699-735, May.
    20. Steve Fortin & Ahmad Hammami & Michel Magnan, 2021. "Re‐exploring Fair Value Accounting and Value Relevance: An Examination of Underlying Securities," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 57(2), pages 220-250, June.

    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:joares:v:59:y:2021:i:3:p:959-1020. 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=0021-8456 .

    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.