IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nms/untern/10.5771-0042-059x-2015-1-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Anbieterkonzentration auf dem deutschen Prüfungsmarkt – Eine empirische Untersuchung der Jahre 2010-2013

Author

Listed:
  • Heuser, Simon
  • Quick, Reiner
  • Schmidt, Florian

Abstract

The market structure and the high concentration of the audit market was one element addressed by the European Union by its new regulation on specific requirements regarding statutory audits of public-interest-entities. This paper examines the audit market concentration for companies listed in the Prime Standard during the years 2010 until 2013. In addition to the total market, it also focuses on the various DAX indices. The results show that the market is highly concentrated. However, neither a significant tendency towards a higher concentration nor to a lower concentration can be observed in comparison to prior years. Measured in terms of total fees KPMG (44.48%) is market leader, followed by PwC (35.21%), Ernst & Young (14.2%) and Deloitte & Touche (3.26%). Only 2.85% of the total fees is attributable to NonBig4 audit firms. However, for companies included in the indices for small, technological and in particularly family firms, the market is less concentrated.

Suggested Citation

  • Heuser, Simon & Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2015. "Die Anbieterkonzentration auf dem deutschen Prüfungsmarkt – Eine empirische Untersuchung der Jahre 2010-2013," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 69(1), pages 81-109.
    • Handle: RePEc:nms:untern:10.5771/0042-059x-2015-1-81
    DOI: 10.5771/0042-059X-2015-1-81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0042-059X-2015-1-81
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5771/0042-059X-2015-1-81?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. Quick, Reiner & Sattler, M., 2011. "Das Erfordernis der Umsatzunabhängigkeit und die Konzentration auf dem deutschen Markt für Abschlussprüferleistungen," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 56503, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    2. Dennis M. O'Reilly & Robert A. Leitch & Brad Tuttle, 2006. "An Experimental Test of the Interaction of the Insurance and Information†Signaling Hypotheses in Auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 267-289, March.
    3. K. McMeeking & K. Peasnell & P. Pope, 2006. "The determinants of the UK Big Firm premium," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 207-231.
    4. Baumol, William J, 1982. "Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Willekens, Marleen & Achmadi, Christina, 2003. "Pricing and supplier concentration in the private client segment of the audit market: Market power or competition?," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 431-455.
    6. Géraldine Broye & Laurent Weill, 2008. "Does leverage influence auditor choice? A cross-country analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/14152, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Willem F. J. Buijink & Steven J. Maijoor & Roger H. G. Meuwissen, 1998. "Competition in Auditing: Evidence from Entry, Exit, and Market Share Mobility in Germany versus The Netherlands," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 385-404, September.
    8. Tonge, Stanley D. & Wootton, Charles W., 1991. "Auditor concentration and competition among the large public accounting firms: Post-merger status and future implications," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 157-172.
    9. Willekens, Marleen, 2003. "Reply to discussion of "Pricing and supplier concentration in the private client segment of the audit market: Market power or competition?"," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 461-464.
    10. Quick, Reiner & Marten, K.-U. & Ruhnke, K., 2011. "Wirtschaftsprüfung, Grundlagen des betriebswirtschaftlichen Prüfungswesens nach nationalen und internationalen Normen," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 56497, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    11. Jay B. Barney, 1986. "Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(10), pages 1231-1241, October.
    12. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    13. Gietzmann, M. B. & Quick, R., 1998. "Capping auditor liability: The German experience," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 81-103, January.
    14. Birger Wernerfelt, 1984. "A resource‐based view of the firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 171-180, April.
    15. Michael A. Utton, 2003. "Market Dominance and Antitrust Policy, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2461.
    16. Merete Christiansen & Anne Loft, 1992. "Big players and small players," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 277-301.
    17. Kevin McMeeking & Ken Peasnell & Peter Pope, 2007. "The effect of large audit firm mergers on audit pricing in the UK," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 301-319.
    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. Jeroen van Raak & Erik Peek & Roger Meuwissen & Caren Schelleman, 2020. "The effect of audit market structure on audit quality and audit pricing in the private‐client market," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3-4), pages 456-488, March.
    2. Corten, Maarten & Steijvers, Tensie & Lybaert, Nadine, 2017. "The effect of intrafamily agency conflicts on audit demand in private family firms: The moderating role of the board of directors," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 13-28.
    3. Numan, Wieteke & Willekens, Marleen, 2012. "An empirical test of spatial competition in the audit market," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 450-465.
    4. Vander Bauwhede, Heidi & Willekens, Marleen & Gaeremynck, Ann, 2003. "Audit firm size, public ownership, and firms' discretionary accruals management," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 1-22.
    5. Steven Maijoor & Willem Buijink & Roger Meuwissen & Arjen Van Witteloostuijn, 1998. "Towards the establishment of an internal market for audit services within the European Union," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 655-673.
    6. Tom Van Caneghem, 2010. "Audit pricing and the Big4 fee premium: evidence from Belgium," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(2), pages 122-139, January.
    7. Dirk Simons & Nicole Zein, 2016. "Audit Market Segmentation -- The Impact of Mid-tier Firms on Competition," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 131-154, May.
    8. Verbruggen, Sandra & Christiaens, Johan & Reheul, Anne-Mie & Van Caneghem, Tom, 2011. "Audit pricing in a reformed nonprofit market," Working Papers 2011/29, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    9. Reiner Quick & Niklas Schenk & Florian Schmidt & Thilo Towara, 2018. "The impact of corporate governance on auditor choice: evidence from Germany," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(2), pages 251-283, June.
    10. Cahan, Steven & Hay, David & Li, Lina Z., 2021. "Audit firm merger and the strategic response by large audit firms," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    11. Felix Oberholzer-Gee & Dennis A. Yao, 2018. "Integrated Strategy: Residual Market and Exchange Imperfections as the Foundation of Sustainable Competitive Advantage," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 463-480, June.
    12. Claudio Vitari & Elisabetta Raguseo, 2016. "Big data value and financial performance: an empirical investigation [Digital data, dynamic capability and financial performance: an empirical investigation in the era of Big Data]," Post-Print halshs-01923271, HAL.
    13. David G. Sirmon & Michael A. Hitt, 2003. "Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 27(4), pages 339-358, October.
    14. Luís Cabral, 2018. "We’re Number 1: Price Wars for Market Share Leadership," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2013-2030, May.
    15. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    16. Bernard Kwamena Cobbina Essel & Faizal Adams & Kwadwo Amankwah, 2019. "Effect of entrepreneur, firm, and institutional characteristics on small-scale firm performance in Ghana," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Judith Cavazos-Arroyo & Rogelio Puente-Diaz, 2019. "The Influence of Marketing Capability in Mexican Social Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Margaret A. Peteraf, 1992. "A Review Of Ghemawat'S Commitment: The Dynamic Of Strategy," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(3), pages 575-582, September.
    19. Patrick Velte & Martin Stawinoga, 2017. "Empirical research on corporate social responsibility assurance (CSRA): A literature review," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1017-1066, November.
    20. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.

    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:nms:untern:10.5771/0042-059x-2015-1-81. 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: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nomos.de/ .

    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.