IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijcrac/v8y2016i3-4p246-279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Worret

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Worret, 2016. "Are 'Big Four audits' really better? - Some remarks on the 'Big Four dichotomy' in the German audit market," International Journal of Critical Accounting, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(3/4), pages 246-279.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijcrac:v:8:y:2016:i:3/4:p:246-279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=80495
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:ids:ijcrac:v:8:y:2016:i:3/4:p:246-279. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=328 .

    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.