Paper Author: Andrew Kitto and William A. Ciconte III
Abstract: This paper investigates the competitiveness of the U.S. audit market and the effects of competition on audit quality. Using a proprietary database of auditor realization rates, we provide the first empirical
assessment of abnormal profit persistence in the U.S. audit market following methodology from the industrial organization literature. We find consistent evidence that that abnormal profits persist over time and are not quickly driven
back to competitive returns by market forces. Our tests suggest that audit market concentration is a key determinant of persistence and that audit offices that achieve greater profit persistence are less likely to lose clients. Interestingly,
we fail to find any evidence that profit persistence is associated with lower quality; rather, we document that it is negatively related to instances of financial restatements and discretionary accruals. Our results have significant
policy implications and contribute to the longstanding debate in the academic literature on the consequences of high concentration. Although our findings support critics' claims that audit markets lack sufficient competition, they
are inconsistent with the notion that entrenchment leads to lower audit quality. In fact, our findings imply that auditors may use market power to constrain aggressive financial reporting decisions.
To inquire about this paper, please email: [email protected]
The economic research fellows and staff economists generate high-quality working papers that inform the oversight activities of the PCAOB and are disseminated to stimulate discussion and critical comment to the benefit of the public. Working papers are preliminary materials that have not been approved by the Board and reflect only the views of the author(s).
The research topics of economic research fellows, including a description of any nonpublic data sets required for research, are presented to the Board for approval and research papers are reviewed to confirm that the topic of the paper is consistent with the researcher's proposal. That review does not, however, encompass an evaluation of the conclusions reached by researchers.