Changes in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies over time

Abstract

We examine changes over time in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies, from 1970 to 2015, by client size and risk segments. We particularly focus on the period from 1997 to 2001, characterized by numerous tumultuous events that led to the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). We find that Big N auditors shed en masse the smallest and riskiest clients during this tumultuous phase. Our results show that the initial impetus for the change in Big N’s client selection strategies at the dawn of the twenty-first century came from changes in the market conditions, not the demise of Arthur Andersen and the implementation of SOX, as concluded in prior literature. Those changes led to the current divide between the characteristics of Big N and non-Big N client segments that is taken for granted today. Our findings also shed light on the debate about the Big N association with audit quality. While we find existence of a Big N effect, we also find that this effect is highly correlated with, and appears and disappears with, changes in Big N’s client screening criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Availability of data and material

All data used in this study are available from public sources.

Code availability

We used SAS programs.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for example, Dwyer (2003), Cox (2005), Nocera (2005), GAO (2006), Cunningham (2006), DeFond and Lennox (2011), Gerakos and Syverson (2015) and Ferguson et al. (2016).

  2. 2.

    Shu (2000) shows that Big N’s market concentration increased steadily over a 23-year period from 1974 to 1997, her last study year. Subsequent studies find a decline in Big N’s market concentration after the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (e.g., Landsman et al. 2009) and when the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) passed Auditing Standard No. 2 (AS2) (Rama and Read 2006; Ettredge et al. 2007),eventually replacing it with Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) (Schroeder and Hogan 2013).

  3. 3.

    This period was examined by Landsman et al. (2009), but with the years between 1993 and 2001 considered a uniform block, that is, a pre-SOX benchmark for post-SOX developments.

  4. 4.

    See for example, Campbell et al. (2001), Ljungqvist and Wilhelm (2003), and Fama and French (2004). Also see https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/2018/03/Listed1980-2017.pdf for the number of listed companies by year and quarter. The number of restatements went from 92 in 1997 to 225 in 2001, a 145% increase (GAO 2003). The percentage of listed firms restating their financial statements increased from 0.89 to 2.25. Of the 280 stocks in the Bloomberg’s U.S. Internet Index, 79 dropped by more than 90% or more and another 72 dropped 80–89% from their peak values (Kleinbard 2000). These 280 stocks lost $1.755 trillion of market capitalization, an approximately 60% drop, in the dot-com bust.

  5. 5.

    Client acceptance and retention policies are generally a firm-wide decision, likely dependent on overall reputation and litigation risk considerations (Johnstone and Bedard 2004). The Big N auditors thus could have become more careful in their client selection during this period, even though the engagement-level partners could act less conscientiously. The quality control systems at the firm level aim to reduce these conflicts of interest (e.g., Huddart and Liang 2005). Deficiencies in those systems, allegedly prevalent during the dot-com period, likely contributed to individual audit failures (e.g., Aobdia 2019a). Consistent with the idea that auditors’ client acceptance and retention decisions were reasonably sound prior to SOX, many former Arthur Andersen offices were purchased by the remaining Big 4 audit firms after the collapse, with the majority of the acquired clients being retained subsequent to the purchase (Blouin et al. 2007; Kohlbeck et al. 2008).

  6. 6.

    One potential explanation is that Big N auditors increased their non-audit services after 1997, which might have caused capacity constraints, assuming that assurance professionals became directly involved in providing non-audit services. We do not have audit and non-audit fees data from the later 1990 s to test this hypothesis, because the Securities and Exchange Commission, as part of its revised auditor independence rules of November 2000, mandated disclosure of audit fees and fees paid for non-audit services beginning from proxy statements filed after February 5, 2001 (see for example Frankel et al. 2002). This hypothesis would be valid if we could show (1) a systematic shift of Big N’s revenues from audit to non-audit services and (2) that this shift was more pronounced for bigger and safe clients than for smaller and riskier clients, making the latter set less profitable. We note that, if valid, this alternative explanation would still support the conclusion that the initial change in Big N’s client selection and retention occurred pre-SOX, not post-SOX.

  7. 7.

    Admittedly, small auditors cannot cover large clients. Thus, it is expected that Big N would remain dominant in the largest client segment.

  8. 8.

    Multivariate regression controls for size, profitability, asset turnover, leverage, current ratio and earnings volatility.

  9. 9.

    Post-2003, the difference declined because a large percentage of the smallest-size non-Big N clients delisted between 1999 and 2003. Post-2003, IPOs of small-size clients never reached the levels of the 1990s (Gao et al. 2013).

  10. 10.

    The only significant regulation promulgated during dot-com boom and bust phases was Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 82 (1997). It clarified but did not increase the auditor’s responsibility to detect fraud responsibility (Mancino 1998). That responsibility continued to be framed within the concepts of materiality and reasonable assurance under the overall general standards (auditor identity Section 110 of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Professional Standards). Zimbelman (1997) shows that auditors who separately assess fraud risk, as required by SAS No. 82, spend more time attending to red-flag cues and significantly increase their budgeted hours but do not increase sensitivity to fraud risk or changed the nature of audit plans. Furthermore, SAS 82 cannot explain the large increase in downgrades of 1999 to 2001 that were far larger than that of 1998.

  11. 11.

    The eight firms in the 1980 s were Arthur Andersen, Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Mitchell, Price Waterhouse, and Touche Ross.

  12. 12.

    Asthana et al. (2019) find that fee competition among auditors improves audit quality in the highly concentrated U.S. audit market.

  13. 13.

    Studies offer different criteria for defining a tight oligopoly, all of which are met by the public accounting industry. For example, some define a tight oligopoly as when the top four firms hold more than 60% market share (Shepherd and Shepherd 2004); others, when eight or fewer firms hold more than 50% market share (Kaysen and Turner 1959).

  14. 14.

    See Ferguson et al. (2016) for the investments by audit firms in exogenous and endogenous sunk costs, creating economies of scale.

  15. 15.

    Myers et al. (2014) find that SOX changed auditor behavior with respect to going concern reporting. Non-Big N auditors became more conservative while Big N auditors became more accurate.

  16. 16.

    We estimate the standard deviations of CFO for each company-year using four rolling annual observations (t − 3 through t). We acknowledge that the balance sheet method of estimating cash flows has weaknesses (Hribar and Collins (2002) but use it to maintain feasibility and consistency of measurement of our 1975 onward study period. We conduct an additional analysis with reported cash flows from 1989 and find similar results (not tabulated).

  17. 17.

    In unreported tests, we find similar results using sales and earnings volatility.

  18. 18.

    The PCAOB in 2004 released reports for its limited inspections. These reports, restricted to the Big 4 audit firms, corresponded to a test run of the full inspections, which started in 2004.

  19. 19.

    The PCAOB publicly discloses deficiencies identified in its inspection of individual engagements, as well as quality control deficiencies when these are not addressed to the satisfaction of the board within 12 months following the release of the initial inspection report [Section 104(g)(2) of SOX]. Prior literature finds mixed evidence about the market share impact of the disclosure of such deficiencies, depending on the auditor type and the nature of the deficiency (e.g., Lennox and Pittman 2010; Abbott et al. 2013; Nagy 2014; Aobdia and Shroff 2017; Acito et al. 2018; Aobdia 2018). Dealing with more difficult PCAOB inspections is potentially costly for an audit firm (Aobdia 2018).

  20. 20.

    We use ordinary least squares instead of Tobit regression because of the ease of interpretation of the coefficients, as each coefficient represents the average percentage during that period.

  21. 21.

    Audit Analytics provides the client and auditor-office mapping beginning only from 2000. However, the vast majority of audits of publicly traded corporations are conducted locally (Jensen et al. 2015).

  22. 22.

    We conduct an additional test (not tabulated). We retain clients having a Big N auditor in the last year and match them to CBSAs. We divide all CBSAs by their market size, proxied by the sum of square root of clients’ assets. We then examine their downgrade using Eq. (2). We continue to find a significant increase in downgrades before SOX even for the smallest markets.

  23. 23.

    In a univariate regression of log audit fees on log assets, the regression coefficient is approximately 0.5 with R-squared exceeding 65%. This is consistent with Simunic (1980).

  24. 24.

    Datta et al. (2019) also find a positive relation between audit fee and intangible assets.

  25. 25.

    We find similar trends using accruals measured using the statement of cash flows, but doing so limits our analysis to after 1988. We find that the Big N effect is insignificantly different from zero in years before 1992 and decreases from 1992 to 2006.

  26. 26.

    We cannot use restatements as a measure of audit quality, despite the advantages (e.g., Aobdia 2019a), because restatements are available in Audit Analytics starting only from 2000.

  27. 27.

    For example, Huang et al. (2019) find that Big N audit firms reduce managerial expropriation of cash. Kim et al. (2013) find that the loan interest rate is significantly lower for borrowers with Big N auditors than for borrowers with non-Big N auditors. Lobo et al. (2018) find that Big N auditors moderate the negative association between intangibles and financial reporting quality.

  28. 28.

    Control variables are defined in “Appendix”.

References

  1. Abbott LJ, Gunny KA, Zhang TC (2013) When the PCAOB talks, who listens? Evidence from stakeholder reaction to GAAP-deficient PCAOB inspection reports of small auditors. Audit J Pract Theory 32(2):1–31

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acito AA, Hogan CE, Mergenthaler RD (2018) The effects of PCAOB inspections on auditor-client relationships. Account Rev 93(2):1–35

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aobdia D (2018) The impact of the PCAOB individual engagement inspection process—preliminary evidence. Account Rev 93(4):53–80

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aobdia D (2019a) Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections. J Account Econ 67(1):144–174

    Google Scholar 

  5. Aobdia D (2019b) The economic consequences of audit firms’ quality control system deficiencies. Manag Sci forthcoming

  6. Aobdia D, Shroff N (2017) Regulatory oversight and auditor market share. J Account Econ 63(2–3):262–287

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arnett H, Danos P (1979) CPA firm viability: a study of major environmental factors affecting firms of various sizes and characteristics. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  8. Asthana S, Khurana I, Raman KK (2019) Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality. Rev Quant Financ Account 52(2):403–438

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ball R (2001) Infrastructure requirements for an economically efficient system of public financial reporting and disclosure. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services 127–169

  10. Bedard JC, Johnstone KM (2004) Earnings manipulation risk, corporate governance risk and auditors’ planning and pricing decisions. Account Rev 79(2):277–304

    Google Scholar 

  11. Blouin J, Grein BM, Rountree BR (2007) An analysis of forced auditor change: the case of former Arthur Andersen clients. Account Rev 82(3):621–650

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bonner SE, Palmrose Z-V, Young SM (1998) Fraud type and auditor litigation: an analysis of SEC accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Account Rev 73(4):503–532

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brown G, Kapadia N (2007) Firm-specific risk and equity market development. J Financ Econ 84:358–388

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brown SV, Knechel WR (2016) Auditor-client compatibility and audit firm selection. J Account Res 54:725–775

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bushman R, Lerman A, Zhang XF (2016) The changing landscape of accrual accounting. J Account Res 54(1):41–78

    Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell J, Lettau M, Malkiel B, Xu Y (2001) Have individual stocks become more volatile? An empirical exploration of idiosyncratic risk. J Finance 56:1–43

    Google Scholar 

  17. Carcello JV, Palmrose Z-V (1994) Auditor litigation and modified reporting on bankrupt clients. J Account Res 32(Supplement):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cox C (2005) Speech by SEC chairman: remarks before the 2005 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments. http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch120505cc.htm

  19. Cunningham L (2006) Too big to fail: moral hazard in auditing and the need to restructure the industry before it unravels. Columbia Law Rev 106:1698–1748

    Google Scholar 

  20. Danos P, Eichenseher JW (1982) Audit industry dynamics: Factors affecting changes in client industry market shares. J Account Res 20(Autumn):604–616

    Google Scholar 

  21. Datta S, Jha A, Kulchania M (2019) On accounting’s twenty-first century challenge: evidence on the relation between intangible assets and audit fees. Rev Quant Finance Account (forthcoming)

  22. Dechow PM, Sloan RG, Sweeney AP (1995) Detecting earnings management. Account Rev 70(2):193–225

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dechow PM, Ge W, Schrand CM (2010) Understanding earnings quality: a review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences. J Account Econ 50(2–3):346–347

    Google Scholar 

  24. DeFond M, Lennox CS (2011) The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. J Account Econ 52:21–40

    Google Scholar 

  25. DeFond M, Zhang J (2014) A review of archival auditing research. J Account Econ 58:275–326

    Google Scholar 

  26. DeFond M, Erkens DH, Zhang J (2017) Do client characteristics really drive the Big N audit quality effect? New evidence from propensity score matching. Manag Sci 63(11):3531–3997

    Google Scholar 

  27. DeLong J, Magin K (2006) A short note on the size of the dot-com bubble. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper

  28. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (2010) Horizontal merger guidelines. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/merger-review/100819hmg.pdf

  29. Donovan J, Frankel RM, Lee JA, Joshua A, Martin X, Seo H (2014) Issues raised by studying DeFond and Zhang: what should audit researchers do? J Account Econ 58:327–338

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dwyer P (2003) The Big Four: too few to fail. BusinessWeek (August 31)

  31. Earley CE, Odabashian K, Willenborg M (2003) Some thoughts on the audit failure at Enron, the demise of Andersen and the ethical climate of public accounting firms. Connecticut Law Rev 35(3):1013–1033

    Google Scholar 

  32. Efendi J, Srivastava A, Swanson EP (2007) Why do corporate managers misstate financial statements? The role of in-the-money options and other incentives. J Financ Econ 85(3):667–708

    Google Scholar 

  33. Eshleman D, Guo P (2014) Do Big 4 auditors provide higher audit quality after controlling for the endogenous choice of auditor? Audit J Pract Theory 33(4):197–219

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ettredge M, Heintz J, Li C, Scholz S (2007) Auditor realignments accompanying implementation of SOX 404 reporting requirements. University of Kansas working paper

  35. European Commission (2010) Audit policy: lessons from the crisis. Green paper. Brussels, Belgium, October 13

  36. Fama EF, French KR (2004) New-lists: fundamentals and survival rates. Financ Econ 73:229–269

    Google Scholar 

  37. Feng Z-Y, Huang H-W, Dao M (2019) US Big 4 and local auditors in the china initial public offering market. Rev Pac Basin Financ Mark Policies 22(04):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ferguson C, Pinnuck M, Skinner D (2016) The evolution of audit market structure and the emergence of the Big N: evidence from Australia. Working paper

  39. Francis JR, Reichelt K, Wang D (2005) The pricing of national and city-specific reputations for industry expertise in the US audit market. Account Rev 80(1):113–136

    Google Scholar 

  40. Frankel RM, Johnson MF, Nelson KK (2002) The relation between auditors’ fees for non-audit services and earnings management. Account Rev 77(S-1):71–105

    Google Scholar 

  41. GAO (2003) Public accounting firms: mandated study on consolidation and competition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  42. GAO (2006) Sarbanes-Oxley Act: consideration of key principles needed in addressing implementation for smaller public companies. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  43. GAO (2008) Audits of public companies: continued concentration in audit market for large public companies does not call for immediate action. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gao X, Ritter JR, Zhu Z (2013) Where have all the IPOs gone? J Financ Quant Anal 48:1663–1692

    Google Scholar 

  45. Gendron Y, Spira LF (2010) Identity narratives under threat: a study of former members of Arthur Andersen. Account Organ Soc 35(3):275–300

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gerakos J, Syverson C (2015) Competition in the audit market: policy implications. J Account Res 53(4):725–775

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hindo B (2003) Audit clients get the heave-ho. BusinessWeek (December 1), 7

  48. Hribar P, Collins D (2002) Errors in estimating accruals: implications for empirical research. J Account Res 40:105–134

    Google Scholar 

  49. Huang P, Wen Y-C, Zhang Y. (2019) Does the monitoring effect of Big 4 audit firms really prevail? Evidence from managerial expropriation of cash assets. Rev Quant Finance Account (forthcoming)

  50. Huddart SJ, Liang PJ (2005) Profit sharing and monitoring in partnerships. J Account Econ 40(1–3):153–187

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jensen K, Kim J-M, Yi H (2015) The geography of U.S. auditors: information quality and monitoring costs by local versus non-local auditors. Rev Quant Finance Account 44:513–549

    Google Scholar 

  52. Johnstone KM, Bedard JC (2003) Risk management in client acceptance decisions. Account Rev 78(4):1003–1025

    Google Scholar 

  53. Johnstone KM, Bedard JC (2004) Audit firm portfolio management decisions. J Account Res 42(4):659–690

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kaysen C, Turner DF (1959) Antitrust policy. Harvard University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kim J-B, Song B, Tsui SL (2013) Auditor size, tenure and bank loan pricing. Rev Quant Finance Account 40:75–99

    Google Scholar 

  56. Klein A, Marquardt CA (2006) Fundamentals of accounting losses. Account Rev 81(1):179–206

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kleinbard D (2000) Index of 280 Internet stocks is down $1.7 trillion from its 52-week high. http://money.cnn.com/2000/11/09/technology/overview/

  58. Klepper S, Simons KL (2000) The making of an oligopoly: firm survival and technological change in the evolution of the U.S. tire industry. J Polit Econ 108(4):728–760

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kohlbeck M, Mayhew BW, Murphy P, Wilkins MS (2008) Competition for Andersen’s clients. Contemp Account Res 25(4):1099–1136

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kothari SP, Laguerre TE, Leone AJ (2002) Capitalization versus expensing: evidence on the uncertainty of future earnings from capital expenditures versus R&D outlays. Rev Account Stud 7(4):355–382

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kothari SP, Leone AJ, Wasley CE (2005) Performance matched discretionary accruals measures. J Account Econ 39:163–197

    Google Scholar 

  62. Krishnan J, Krishnan J (1997) Litigation risk and auditor resignations. Account Rev 72(October):539–560

    Google Scholar 

  63. Landsman WR, Nelson KK, Rountree BR (2009) Auditor switches in the pre- and post-Enron eras: risk or realignment? Account Rev 84(2):531–558

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lawrence A, Minutti-Meza M, Zhang P (2011) Can Big 4 versus non-Big 4 differences in audit-quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics? Account Rev 86(1):259–286

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lennox C, Li B (2014) Accounting misstatements following lawsuits against auditors. J Account Econ 57(1):58–75

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lennox C, Pittman J (2010) Auditing the auditors: evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of audit firms. J Account Econ 49:84–103

    Google Scholar 

  67. Levitt A (1998) The “numbers game.” Remarks of the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, delivered at the NYU Pollack Center for Law and Business, September 28, New York, NY

  68. Ljungqvist A, Wilhelm WJ (2003) IPO pricing in the dot-com bubble. J Finance 58:723–752

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lobo GJ, Xie Y, Zhang JH (2018) Innovation, financial reporting quality and audit quality. Rev Quant Financ Account 51:719–749

    Google Scholar 

  70. Loughran T, Ritter JR (2004) Why has IPO underpricing increased over time. Financ Manag 33(3):5–37

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lys T, Watts R (1994) Lawsuits against auditors. J Account Res 32(Supplement):65–93

    Google Scholar 

  72. Mancino JM (1998) The auditor and fraud. J Account (April):32–34

  73. Myers LA, Schmidt J, Wilkins M (2014) An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors. Rev Quant Finance Account 43:155–172

    Google Scholar 

  74. Nagy AL (2014) PCAOB quality control inspection reports and auditor reputation. Audit J Pract Theory 33(3):87–104

    Google Scholar 

  75. Nocera J (2005) Auditors: too few to fail. New York Times, June 25

  76. Pástor L, Veronesi P (2003) Stock valuation and learning about profitability. J Finance 58:1749–1789

    Google Scholar 

  77. Rama DV, Read WJ (2006) Resignations by the Big 4 and the market for audit services. Account Horiz 20(2):97–109

    Google Scholar 

  78. Reichelt KJ, Wang D (2010) National and office-specific measures of audit industry expertise and effects on audit quality. J Account Res 48(3):647–686

    Google Scholar 

  79. Schroeder JH, Hogan CF (2013) The impact of PCAOB AS5 and the economic recession on client portfolio characteristics of the Big 4 audit firms. Audit 32(4):95–127

    Google Scholar 

  80. Shepherd WG (1962) On sales-maximizing and oligopoly behavior. Economica 29:420–424

    Google Scholar 

  81. Shepherd WG, Shepherd JM (2004) The economics of industrial organization. Waveland Press Inc., Long Grove

    Google Scholar 

  82. Shi C (2003) On the trade-off between the future benefits and riskiness of R&D: a bondholder’s perspective. J Account Econ 35(2):227–254

    Google Scholar 

  83. Shu S (2000) Auditor resignations: clientele effects and legal liability. J Account Econ 29:173–205

    Google Scholar 

  84. Simunic D (1980) The pricing of audit services: theory and evidence. J Account Res 18(Spring):161–190

    Google Scholar 

  85. Srivastava A (2014) Why have measures of earnings quality changed over time? J Account Econ 2–3:196–217

    Google Scholar 

  86. Srivastava A, Tse SY (2016) Why are successive cohorts of listed firms persistently riskier? Eur Financ Manag 22(5):957–1000

    Google Scholar 

  87. Toffler BL, Reingold J (2004) Final accounting: ambition, greed and the fall of Arthur Andersen. Crown Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  88. Venkataraman R, Weber JP, Willenborg M (2008) Litigation risk, audit quality and audit fees: evidence from initial public offerings. Account Rev 83(5):1315–1345

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wallace WA (1980) The economic role of audits in free and regulated markets. Touche Ross Foundation, Wilton

    Google Scholar 

  90. Watts R, Zimmerman J (1981) Auditors and the determination of accounting standards. University of Rochester working paper

  91. Wyatt AR (2004) Accounting professionalism—they just do not get it! Account Horiz 18(March):45–54

    Google Scholar 

  92. Zeff SA (2003) How the U.S. accounting profession got where it is today, Part I. Account Horiz 17(September):189–206

    Google Scholar 

  93. Zhang C (2010) A reexamination of the causes of time-varying stock return volatilities. J Financ Quant Anal 45(3):663–684

    Google Scholar 

  94. Zimbelman MF (1997) The effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors’ attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions. J Account Res 35:75–79

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ashiq Ali, Bruce Behn, Bugra Ozel, Aaron Crabtree, Keith Czerney, Paul Danos, David Emanuel, Joseph Gerakos, Nathan Goldman, Michael Gurbutt, Sean McCarthy (discussant), Ningzhong Li, Miguel Minutti-Meza, Gary Monroe, Tom Omer, Richard Sansing, Suraj Srinivasan, Nir Yehuda, Chris Yust, Dechun Wang, Chris Wolfe, Jieying Zhang, Yuan Zhang, and workshop participants at Texas A&M University, University of Nebraska (Lincoln), University of Texas (Dallas), the 2015 annual meeting of the American Accounting Association, and the 2016 meeting of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association for helpful comments. Daniel Aobdia gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management. He was a Senior Economic Research Fellow in the Center of Economic Analysis at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) between September 2014 and September 2016. He co-wrote this paper outside of his affiliation with the PCAOB. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board, individual Board members, or staff of the PCAOB. Anup Srivastava gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Canada Research Chairs program.

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anup Srivastava.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Sample selection and definition of variables

Appendix: Sample selection and definition of variables

This Appendix describes the measurement or definition of variables used in this study. The corresponding data items in the Compustat annual database are in capital letters. We use three sets of samples from 1975 through 2015. The first set requires non-missing observations on the auditor identity (AU) and assets (AT) variables in Compustat. We retain firms headquartered in the United States (Compustat LOC of “USA”), leaving 274,273 company-year observations from 1975 to 2015. The second set requires additional data for calculation of stock prices and shares outstanding to determine market value of equity, leaving 221,721 observations. The third set requires data for calculation of cash flow volatility, where cash flows are determined using the balance sheet method. This leaves a sample of 194,073 company-year observations.

Variable Definition
TotalAssets AT. For certain tests, assets are inflation-adjusted to 1997 values based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (Fig. 3 and Table 1). In other tests, assets are inflation-adjusted to 1975 values (Tables 4, 6). LogAsset is the natural log of total assets. LogInflationAdjustedAssets is the natural log of inflation-adjusted assets. SquareRootInflationAdjustedAssets is the square root of inflation-adjusted assets
Earnings IB, scaled by average TotalAssets for the year
AssetTurnover Asset turnover. Revenues (SALE), scaled by average TotalAssets for the year
Leverage Total debt (DLC + DLTT)/TotalAssets
CurrentRatio Current assets (ACT)/current liabilities (LCT)
R&D Research and Development Expenditures (XRD)/TotalAssets
Accruals Change in Current Assets (ACT) − Change in Cash (CHE) − Change in Current Liabilities (LCT) + Change in Debt in Current Liabilities (DLC) − Depreciation and Amortization (DP), scaled by beginning TotalAssets
CFO IB, scaled by beginning TotalAssets − Accruals
AuditQuality − 1 × absolute value of discretionary accruals. Discretionary accruals is the residual of a regression of Accruals, defined using the balance sheet method, on gross property, plant and equipment (PP&E, deflated by beginning assets), the year-on-year change in revenues (deflated by beginning assets), one over beginning assets and prior year return on assets (IB deflated by average assets) using the cross-sectional modified Jones model (Dechow et al. 1995; Kothari et al. 2005; Reichelt and Wang 2010)
EarningsVolatility Uncertainty of firm performance. Standard deviations of earnings (IB, scaled by total assets) using four rolling annual observations (t − 3 through t)
CashFlowVolatility Uncertainty of firm performance. Standard deviations of CFO using four rolling annual observations (t − 3 through t)
BookToMarket Book-to-market ratio of company’s shareholder equity
Auditor attributes  
 BigN Dummy variable that takes a value of one for Big N firms and zero otherwise. Arthur Andersen, Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Mitchell, Price Waterhouse, or Touche Ross, and their successors are Big N firms. BigN%, also called Big N’s market concentration, is percentage of sample companies that have a Big N auditor. Following Shu (2000), we identify these firms with an AU variable between one and eight
 Downgrade Dummy variable that takes a value of one if the company changes from a Big N auditor in the previous year to a non-Big N auditor in the current year and zero otherwise
 Upgrade Dummy variable that takes a value of one if the company changes from a non-Big N auditor in the previous year to a Big N auditor in the current year and zero otherwise
Company category  
 Listing year First year in which the company has valid share price (PRCC_F), asset (AT), and auditor (AU) data in Compustat
 Pre-1970s Companies whose listing year is before 1970
 New-lists Companies that are not pre-1970s
 Listing cohorts All of the cohorts listed in a common decade are referred to as a cohort of new companies. Companies are divided into the pre-1970s cohort or a cohort from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, or 2010s
Year category  
 Pre1997 Dummy variable that takes a value of one for observations in years before 1997 and zero otherwise
 Year1997 Dummy variable that takes a value of one for observations in year 1997 and zero otherwise
 Pre-SOX (PeakDotcomBoom) Dummy variable that takes a value of one for observations from years 1998 and 1999 and zero otherwise
 Pre-SOX (DotComCrash) Dummy variable that takes a value of one for observations from years 2000 and 2001 and zero otherwise
 PostSOX Dummy variable that takes a value of one for observations from years 2002 (when the Sarbanes–Oxley Act is enacted), 2003, and 2004 and zero otherwise
 PostPCAOB Dummy variable that takes a value of one for years 2005 (when PCAOB started releasing the first inspection reports), 2006, and 2007 and zero otherwise
 PostAS5 Dummy variable that takes a value of one for years after 2008 (when PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 became effective) and zero otherwise
  1. All continuous variables are winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentiles

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aobdia, D., Enache, L. & Srivastava, A. Changes in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies over time. Rev Quant Finan Acc 56, 715–754 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-020-00907-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Competitive structure
  • Public companies
  • Oligopoly
  • Big N audit firms
  • Audit risks
  • Audit quality
  • Dot-com boom and bust

JEL Classification

  • M4
  • M41
  • M49