Impact of Job Complexity and Performance on CFO Compensation

Prior research suggests that Big 4 auditors provide higher quality audits by virtue of their large size. Still, the recent reforms mandated by the Sarbanes Oxley Act – by increasing client and auditor incentives for accurate reporting – may have narrowed audit quality differences across auditor groups. In this paper, we examine audit quality for Big 4 and Mid-tier auditors during 2003-06 and include clients of other smaller audit firms for comparison purposes. We examine actual audit quality (as proxied by earnings management metrics) as well as perceived audit quality (as proxied by the client- and year-specific eloading and ex ante equity risk premium metrics). We include in our analysis only those Big 4 clients for whom the Mid-tier firms are potentially viable as auditors. Relative to other smaller audit firm clients, we find Big 4 and Mid-tier audit clients to have (1) lower levels of accrual management, (2) higher levels of real earnings management, and (3) higher levels of investor-perceived accruals quality. In each case, we were unable to reject the null that Big 4 and Mid-tier audits are similar. However, we find Big 4 audit clients to have a lower client-specific ex ante equity risk premium relative to both Mid-tier and other smaller audit firm clients. Collectively, our findings indicate that in situations where a Mid-tier auditor is potentially viable, Big 4 clients could utilize a Mid-tier firm without adversely affecting audit quality. Still, the results suggest that Big 4 clients have a lower ex ante cost of equity capital which is likely related to the insurance considerations (“deep pockets”) – rather than the audit quality -- associated with having a Big 4 auditor.