Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

research summary

    Spatial Competition in Local Audit Markets and the Fallout...
    research summary posted May 30, 2017 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB, 03.0 Auditor Selection and Auditor Changes, 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control, 11.11 Impact of Firm and External Inspection Programs 
    229 Views
    Title:
    Spatial Competition in Local Audit Markets and the Fallout on Deloitte from the 2007 PCAOB Censure
    Practical Implications:

    The results from this study demonstrate that product differentiation in the form of market leadership and industry specialization may not provide a firm the power to mitigate the adverse consequences of a PCAOB censure.

    Citation:

    Boone, J. P., I. K. Khurana, and K. K. Raman. 2017. Spatial Competition in Local Audit Markets and the Fallout on Deloitte from the 2007 PCAOB Censure. Auditing, A Journal of Practice and Theory 36 (21): 1-19.

    Keywords:
    PCAOB; Big 4 auditors; local audit markets; spatial competition
    Purpose of the Study:

    The 2007 PCAOB censure on Deloitte regarding a pharmaceutical client in California caused the firm to suffer both audit fee and client losses. The objective of the paper is to determine whether auditor market power in a local area overrides the audit quality issues resulting from a censure. Specifically, authors investigate the effects of the censure on Deloitte’s ability to retain existing clients (or, switching risk) and potential loss of audit fees. The initial assumption is that auditor-client alignment and auditor-closest-competitor distance can help create differentiation among the Big 4 and this would lead to lower audit fee and client losses for a particular metropolitan area. Researchers looked at specific market specialization and geographic areas to analyze the effects on Deloitte. 

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The research evidence was collected from 2008-2010, the period after the censure. There were 65 local audit markets used within the sample. Each of these markets had a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 1,662 clients observed. Deloitte-client alignment for the individual local audit markets was based on Deloitte’s expertise in the client’s industry, measured according to whether Deloitte is the national leader in the industry (top fee earner), an industry specialist (significant fee earner), or a local audit market leader (top fee earner locally). Deloitte-closest-competitor distance measures Deloitte’s implied differentiation and reputation. It was calculated by comparing the distance between the firm’s fee market share and its closest competitor both at the national level and in the local market.

    Findings:

    The overall finding is that audit quality issues override auditor market power and that differentiation does not provide Big 4 firms market power against adverse regulatory action.

    The authors specifically find that:

    • Deloitte’s audit fee losses were concentrated in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the majority of client losses were not limited to one geographical area or industry.
    • In all cases observed, the results indicate that Deloitte’s leadership or specialty engagements suffered client loss risk odds that were not different from that of its non-leader or non-specialty engagements.
    • Evidence with respect to Deloitte-closest-competitor distance suggests that there was no difference in client loss risk across the local audit market areas.
    Category:
    Audit Quality & Quality Control, Auditor Selection and Auditor Changes, Standard Setting
    Sub-category:
    Impact of Firm & External Inspection Programs, Impact of PCAOB