IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/rqfnac/v58y2022i1d10.1007_s11156-021-00998-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does office size matter in client acceptance decisions? Evidence from big 4 accounting firms

Author

Listed:
  • Yu-Ting Hsieh

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Chan-Jane Lin

    (National Taiwan University)

  • Hsihui Chang

    (Drexel University)

Abstract

This study examines whether audit firm office size affects auditors’ risk tolerance in making client acceptance decisions. Analyzing publicly traded client portfolios of the Big 4 audit firms from 2003 to 2012, we find that large Big 4 offices are less likely to accept clients with high audit risk. This is particularly true when auditors face temporary capacity constraints arising from the exogenous demand shock by SOX 404 during the post-SOX 404/pre-AS5 period (2003–2007). However, the negative association between office size and risk consideration in client acceptance decisions attenuates when AS5 coupled with the financial recession results in a temporary capacity surplus in the post-AS5/financial crisis period (2008–2012).

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Ting Hsieh & Chan-Jane Lin & Hsihui Chang, 2022. "Does office size matter in client acceptance decisions? Evidence from big 4 accounting firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 383-407, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:rqfnac:v:58:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11156-021-00998-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11156-021-00998-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11156-021-00998-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11156-021-00998-x?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francis, J & Philbrick, D & Schipper, K, 1994. "Shareholder Litigation And Corporate Disclosures," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 137-164.
    2. Jong†Hag Choi & Rajib K. Doogar & Ananda R. Ganguly, 2004. "The Riskiness of Large Audit Firm Client Portfolios and Changes in Audit Liability Regimes: Evidence from the U.S. Audit Market," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(4), pages 747-785, December.
    3. Kaplan, Steven E. & Williams, David D., 2012. "The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 322-341.
    4. Johnson, W. Bruce & Lys, Thomas, 1990. "The market for audit services : Evidence from voluntary auditor changes," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1-3), pages 281-308, January.
    5. Jere R. Francis & Paul N. Michas & Michael D. Yu, 2013. "Office Size of Big 4 Auditors and Client Restatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 1626-1661, December.
    6. Karla M. Johnstone & Jean C. Bedard, 2004. "Audit Firm Portfolio Management Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 659-690, September.
    7. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    8. Jones, Frederick L. & Raghunandan, K., 1998. "Client risk and recent changes in the market for audit services," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 169-181.
    9. Asare, Stephen & Cohen, Jeffrey & Trompeter, Greg, 2005. "The effect of non-audit services on client risk, acceptance and staffing decisions," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 489-520.
    10. Edward C. Norton & Hua Wang & Chunrong Ai, 2004. "Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(2), pages 154-167, June.
    11. Kenneth L. Bills & Quinn T. Swanquist & Robert L. Whited, 2016. "Growing Pains: Audit Quality and Office Growth," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 288-313, March.
    12. Kothari, S.P. & Leone, Andrew J. & Wasley, Charles E., 2005. "Performance matched discretionary accrual measures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 163-197, February.
    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. Shao-Huai Liang & Yu-Ting Hsieh & Hsuan-Chu Lin & Hui-Yu Hsiao, 2023. "What underlies key audit matters? Evidence from Taiwan," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 1243-1258, April.

    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. Dennis M. López & Marshall K. Pitman, 2013. "Auditor workload compression and busy season portfolio changes – U.S. evidence," Working Papers 0216acc, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    2. Omrane Guedhami & Jeffrey A. Pittman & Walid Saffar, 2014. "Auditor Choice in Politically Connected Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 107-162, March.
    3. Kaplan, Steven E. & Williams, David D., 2012. "The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 322-341.
    4. 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.
    5. Chan Li & K. K. Raman & Lili Sun & Rong Yang, 2020. "The SOX 404 control audit and the effectiveness of additional audit effort in lowering the risk of financial misstatements," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 981-1009, April.
    6. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    7. Vivek Mande & Myungsoo Son, 2011. "Do audit delays affect client retention?," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(1), pages 32-50, January.
    8. Pan, Yue & Shroff, Nemit & Zhang, Pengdong, 2023. "The dark side of audit market competition," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1).
    9. Weiss, Renee & Kalbers, Lawrence, 2013. "Determinants of auditor changes for non-accelerated filers," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 13-29.
    10. Sanoran, Kanyarat (Lek), 2018. "Auditors’ going concern reporting accuracy during and after the global financial crisis," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 164-178.
    11. 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.
    12. Thompson, Anne M., 2022. "Political connections and the SEC confidential treatment process," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    13. Sharad Asthana, 2017. "Diversification by the audit offices in the US and its impact on audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1003-1030, May.
    14. Jin Suk Heo & Soo Young Kwon & Hun‐Tong Tan, 2021. "Auditors' Responses to Workload Imbalance and the Impact on Audit Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 338-375, March.
    15. Beck, Matthew J. & Gunn, Joshua L. & Hallman, Nicholas, 2019. "The geographic decentralization of audit firms and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1).
    16. Katsuhiko Muramiya & Tomomi Takada, 2010. "Auditor Conservatism, Abnormal Accruals, and Going Concern Opinions," Discussion Papers 2010-64, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    17. Shaw, Kenneth W. & Whitworth, James D., 2022. "Client importance and unconditional conservatism in complex accounting estimates," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    18. Anastassia Fedyk & James Hodson & Natalya Khimich & Tatiana Fedyk, 2022. "Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 938-985, September.
    19. Dong Drew Li & Wenguang Lin & Pei-Yu Sun & Yunshu Tang & Zheng Cheng, 2024. "Breaking the Big Four brand’s halo effect precisely: evidence from the association between RMM coverage ratios and integrated audit effectiveness," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 1291-1328, April.
    20. Sellers, R. Drew & Fogarty, Timothy J. & Jadallah, Jadallah, 2020. "Has the new world order taught the big four to manage client portfolio risk? Examining extreme loss occurrences before and after Sarbanes Oxley," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Client acceptance decisions; Office size; Big 4 auditors; Exogenous capacity shock;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:kap:rqfnac:v:58:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11156-021-00998-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://springer.com .

    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.