Marleen Willekens

Journal of Accounting Research p. 1-63 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12569

Audit theory and regulation assumes that auditors’ commercial motivation threatens audit quality. In this registered report, we use data from two Big Four firms in the Netherlands and provide empirical evidence on the relation between auditors’ commercial motivation and (1) compensation, (2) total audit effort, and (3) audit quality. We proxy commercial motivation as the time that individual auditors report allocating to commercial activities. We hypothesize that auditors’ commercial effort is positively related to compensation and we find mixed support. Next, we hypothesize that auditors’ commercial effort is negatively related to the audit effort but we find no support. Turning to audit quality, we hypothesize a negative direct relation between auditors’ commercial effort and audit quality but we find no support. We also predict a positive indirect relation in which auditors’ commercial effort increases quality control reliance leading to higher audit quality. We find some support for this hypothesis but only when we use technical consultations to proxy for quality control. Auditors with greater commercial effort maintain quality because they rely more on technical consultations. In sum, our study challenges the assumption that auditors’ commercial effort threatens audit quality and questions the need for additional regulation to constrain commercial motivation.

Accounting Horizons 38(2) p. 197-224 Doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/HORIZONS-2021-150

Accounting Review 96(6) p. 129-152 Doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2018-0109

Economic incentives are fundamental for understanding auditor behavior. In this paper, we investigate the association between the extent of partners’ fee-based compensation, partners’ observable net wealth, and audit quality. Using a sample of Belgian Big 4 audit firms and their predominantly private clients, our results suggest a negative association between audit quality and partner fee-based compensation, and a positive association between audit quality and partner observable net wealth. Moreover, our results show that the latter association is most significant when a partner is carrying a lot of debt, which indicates that a partner’s financial situation may affect audit quality. The extent of fee-based incentives also varies among partners of the same audit firm. Furthermore, partner and client characteristics differ based on the extent of fee-based compensation. Our findings should be of interest to regulators and audit firms as they suggest that audit partner’s economic incentives significantly affect audit quality.

Journal of Accounting Research 59(5) p. 1651-1688 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12406

Competition in audit markets is an important topic but direct tests of market competition have been limited. In this paper, we examine how audit firms behave when they are confronted with competition from another firm in a wide range of industry segments in a local market. Sharing a large number of market segments can lead to mutual forbearance among audit rivals. Such mutual forbearance is likely to manifest as higher audit fees in a market because rivals are hesitant to aggressively compete in the face of potential competitive retaliation. Using a sample of 25,662 observations from 2004 to 2015, we find evidence that supports this argument as proxied by the extent that audit firms compete in the same industries in the same locations. This result persists after controlling for several tight fixed-effects specifications based on time, location, industry, and market segments. In supplementary tests, we also find that the likelihood of client switching is negatively associated with the multi-industry contact of the incumbent, but clients that do switch are more likely to choose an alternative audit firm that confronts the predecessor auditor in fewer market segments. Our evidence is consistent with mutual forbearance among rival audit firms when confronted with the same competitor in different market segments.

Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X20966249

This study examines whether auditor market power is associated with audit quality. Regulators around the world have repeatedly expressed concerns about the high levels of supplier concentration, the limited number of audit suppliers in the audit market, and the potential adverse consequences of their (alleged) market power. Using U.S. data from 2009 to 2017, we examine the effect on audit quality of two competing measures of auditor market power: (a) a “traditional” market concentration measure (Herfindahl index) and (b) a competing measure derived from spatial competition theory (i.e., market share distance from the closest competitor). Following Aobdia, we infer audit quality from two measures of financial reporting quality: (a) the level of absolute abnormal accruals, and (b) the incidence of financial statement restatements. Our results indicate that industry market share distance is positively associated with audit quality, but we do not find an association between market concentration and audit quality. In addition, we find that the positive association between market share distance and audit quality only holds when the incumbent auditor is a market leader, although industry leadership itself is not significantly associated with audit quality. These findings suggest that audit quality is positively affected by a market leader’s industry market share dominance over its competitors rather than by industry specialization per se.