Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Paul K. Chaney
Debra C. Jeter
Vanderbilt
University
Pamela Erickson Shaw
Investor Management
Corporation
1 The term "Big 8" (as opposed to "Big 6") is used throughout the
remainder of the paper because our sample observations were drawn
from periods preceding the merger of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells
and Touche Ross into the firm Deloitte
& Touche, and the merger of Ernst and Whinney and Arthur Young
into the firm Ernst & Young.
2 The auditee' s desire for higher audit quality (or lack thereof) is a
complex issue, as clients prefer a standard opinion but also wish to
avoid liability losses; see Simunic (1980) for a model that recognizes
the interdependence of auditee and auditor economic interests.
3 For a complete description of specific states allowing and banning
solicitation in each year, see Jeter and Shaw (1995).
For additional facts regarding specific court cases, see Chaney et al.
(1995).
4 For example, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has
argued that the alignment between clients and audit firms in allowed
markets reflects more fully the available information regarding fees and
services as compared to banned markets.
181 The Accounting Review, July 1997
Chaney, Jeter and Shaw-Client-Auditor Realignment and Restrictions on
Auditor Solicitation 435
Client Change
Internal growth or change is expected to increase the probability
that a client will change auditors, even if that client was correctly
aligned with its low-cost auditor before such growth or change. Changes
in client operations can erode the incumbent auditor's competitive
advantage that stems from the incumbent being familiar with the client's
operations and reporting systems. If the client experiences rapid
growth, consequent increases in complexity of operations and
financing are likely to disrupt the cost advantage of the incumbent,
and another auditor could become the low-cost provider. A client
experiencing severe contraction is also a potential candidate for
realignment, as a nonincumbent could be better suited for the client's
new scale of operations. Similarly, a change in profitability could
indicate that a change in auditor is desirable. For example, a poor return
on assets is expected to serve as a leading indicator of contraction
Chaney, Jeter and Shaw--Client-Auditor Realignment and Restrictions on Auditor Solicitation 184
(Johnson and Lys 1990) while an increasing return on assets serves to
indicate future expansion. Clients planning major security offerings often
realign to take advantage of an auditor viewed as having expertise
and/or reputation deemed beneficial in obtaining the external
financing. We expect a positi ve relation between realignment and each
of the following variables that reflect changing auditee characteristics,
measured as absolute values:
(1) asset growth after the realignment decision (if the change in
operations is anticipated by the client, then client-initiated realignments
will be more strongly related to growth measured after the decision than
to growth measured before the decision date );6
(2) the change in return on assets from the pre-realignment
decision period to the post- realignment period;
(3) the change in new financing from the pre-realignment
decision period to the post- realignment period.
Realignment Model
The realignment model is (firm-specific subscripts have been
omitted for convenience):
R = ao + aIDS + a2GrowA + a3dRA +
a4dNFin + a.Mktshr
+ a6Size + a.Recint + aglnvint + a9For + e
(1)
where:
Policy 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Allowed 6 6 9 10 19 21 23 31 3
Banned" 19 17 17 14 14 12 10 9 8
Oral 1 2 2 3 3 4
Banned"
"Number of states in which all forms of direct solicitation were
prohibited.
bNumber of states in which oral direct solicitations were prohibited and
written direct solicitation was allowed.
Banned Market
Allowed Market
Non- Realig Te
Realigning ning st
Sample Size 12,138 30
Variables Mea Median Mea Median Means Media
DS ns
0.59 s ns
0.70 s 15.344* ns
Realignment 0.00 1.00
GrowN 0.08 0.103 0.12 0.143 - -
~Ab 0.03 0.036 0.05 0.060 - -
dNFin h 0.04 0.050 0.06 0.078 - -4.761
Mktshr (Sales) 0.14 0.099 0.14 0.104 0.771 0.954
Mktshr 0.1 0.097 0.13 0.097 0.747 0.249
Size" 127.4 112.618 48.0 41.372 8.790* 7.891
Invint 0.1 0.146 0.16 0.147 0.585 0.009
Recint 2.1 0.991 2.66 0.983 -0.124 -0.227
For 0.3 0.18 19.855*
03 4 *
Panel B: Variables by State Solicitation Status
TABLE 3
(Continued)
market while the change in growth and the change in new financing
are smaller in the banned market. The incumbent auditor's market share
is larger in the allowed market than in the banned market. Clients are
slightly larger and more receivables-intensive in the banned market,
while clients in the allowed markets are more inventory intensive.'?
Differences across banned and allowed markets in variables expected
to influence realignment activity indicate the need for multi variate
analysis. Consequently, we turn to the results of the logistic regression.
Results of the logistic regression are reported in table 4. The
significance of the direct solicitation variable (DS) is a direct test of the
Chaney, Jeter and Shaw-Client-Auditor Realignment and Restrictions on Auditor Solicitation 189
TABLE
4
Logistic Regression
Results
Effect of Direct Solicitation on
Realignment Decisions
TABL
ES
Logistic Regression Results Under Alternative
Sampling Specifications
Predicted Parameter
Variable Sign Estimate
Probability
Predicted Parameter
Variable Sign Estimate
Probability
TABLE
6
Auditor Switches Before and After the Year of the Change in
Solicitation Policy
Mean Percentage of
Firms Switching
Before Change After Change
T-test Prob.
states in the analysis does not alter the basic finding that switches
occur more frequently in allowed states than in banned states among
Big 8 auditors.
Next, we limit our sample to those states for which we have
information related to the year of the change in solicitation policy and
compare the realignment rates before and after the year of the change.
Table 6 presents the mean rates for three-, five- and seven-year periods
before and after the year of the change in solicitation policy. In each
comparison, there were more switches after the change than before
(significantly more for the five- and seven-year comparisons). The
interpretation of these findings must be tempered by the realization
that realignment rates increased during the 1980s in both banned and
allowed markets, as indicated in table 2. However, the increase was more
dramatic in those states which changed solicitation policy. The increase
was over three times greater in the states which changed solicitation
policy as compared to states which did not change their policy over the
same time period. For samples of firms in states which did not change
solicitation policy, the mean switching rate increased by about 40-45
percent (from 1.46% for five "before" years to 2.07% for five "after"
years for the "banned throughout" sample; and from 2.36% to 3.44% for
the "allowed throughout" sample). In contrast, the increase was 141 % for
the change sample (from 1.34% before the change to 3.23% after). 14
We conduct another test aimed at controlling state-specific factors
that may intluence the tendency of firms to switch auditors. Recognizing
the possibility that the environments of states that banned and allowed
solicitation during our test period might differ in ways unrelated to
solicitation policy, we compared switching rates between the two sets of
states in a time period when all states allowed solicitation. As indicated
in the appendix, all states lifted the ban on solicitation by the early
1990s. Therefore, we computed the percentage of switches in the years
1992 and 1993, but we categorized the observations from each state
based on the state's former (1983) status as allowed or banned. If we still
found differences in those years, it would suggest that a force other than
solicitation was at work. In 1992, switches in the market labeled as
allowed in 1983 were slightly higher than in markets labeled as banned in
1983. However, the difference was not significant, based on the Pearson
Chi-square. In 1993 the pattern reversed, with slightly more switches that
year in the group labeled as previously banned than in the previously
allowed group; again the difference was not significant. We repeated the
comparison using 1984 categories (instead of 1983), with similar results.
15
16We tried other cutoffs, such as w'ithin one or two years of the change,
but the variable was not significant. Thus. we find no evidence of
relatively more frequent switches in the early years after the policy
change than in later periods.
17Por many industries there may not be a single "specialist," and
industry share may be fairly equally divided among several auditors.
We use the term "specialist" loosely to indicate those auditors with
the heaviest concentrations of clients, client assets or client sales in a
particular industry.
181nparticular, we find evidence of significantly more switches in
wholesalers (SIC codes 5000-5299) at the 0.0 I level;
and transportation and public utilities (SIC codes 4000-4999) at the
0.10 level; and significantly fewer switches in instruments and
miscellaneous manufacturing (SIC codes 3800-3999) at the 0.05
level, all in comparison to services (SIC codes 7000 up). We examined
a distribution of each SIC code by banned and allowed market and
found that most industries (including the four mentioned above) were
represented very close to our overall proportions (40 percent in the
banned market and 60 percent in the allowed market).
194 The Accounting Review, July 1997
TABLE
7
Size Effects on the Impact of Solicitation on
Realignment Decisions
Allowed
Markets:
$ $ 84.789
Mean 119.82 9.141
size 1
Median 101.1
size 90
Model .00
Concordant 66.8%
Pairs
All definitions are the same as those in table 3, with the
exception of DS*Sz defined as follows: Sz 1 if the firm
is in the bottom size quartile of the Big 8 sample; 0
otherwise;
DS*Sz = 1 if the firm in in the bottom size quartile and if direct
solicitation allowed; 0 otherwise.
markets) and to provide insight into the effects of increased
competition on client-auditor alignment. Proponents of direct solicitation
claim that clients make more informed choices when audit firms are
allowed to self-select and solicit prospecti ve clients, while opponents
argue that auditors in allowed markets will resort to cutthroat competition
to lure or keep clients, leading to a decline in audit quality. However,
for such a decline in audit quality to occur, economic incentives must
exist for auditors to reduce their level of effort. Jeter and Shaw (1995)
suggest that such incentives do not exist, as both the incumbent and the
nonincumbent are motivated to optimize their total costs of providing
the audit plus any potential litigation and reputation damage.
Nonetheless, the possibility remains that ourresults could be attributable to
nonincumbents offering lower bids because they are willing to assume
greater risk and provide a lower quality audit. In this regard, however, it is
important to recall that Jeter and Shaw (1995) provide evidence that
auditors in the allowed market are more likely than those in the banned
market to issue a nonstandard report when such a report is warranted.
This evidence suggests that at least one dimension of audit quality is
not impaired in the allowed market.
We have argued that solicitation can make a difference in realignment
decisions if clients in
banned states do not invite nonincumbents to submit proposals and if net
economies are available (i. e., the cost savings from switching auditors
exceeds any transactions costs incurred in re- alignment). Our empirical
finding that realignment occurs with significantly greater frequency in
the allowed market suggests that these two conditions are frequently
satisfied; that is, clients do not always invite, and clients are sometimes
misaligned. The evidence presented here suggests that allowing direct
solicitation in the audit market leads to improved client-auditor alignment
and
reduced inefficiencies.
APPENDIX
Institutional Background
The debate over the costs and benefits of alternative solicitation
policies was initiated by the
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Reports, Accounting and Management
(Metcalf Committee,
1977). One area of concern discussed in their report was the
restriction of the "free tlow of information" by bans on advertising
and solicitation within the profession. Restricting these activities was
viewed as detrimental to the public interest because users of accounting
services were deprived of information needed to "properly evaluate the
types, amounts, and prices of services offered by the accounting
profession."
The AICPA's Commission on Auditors' Responsibilities, the Cohen
Commission (1978), was less enthusiastic about lifting bans on
advertising and solicitation, expressing concern about the profession's
ability to create a balance of professionalism and independence in a
highly competitive environment. The Commission asserted that
pressures to acquire or maintain audit clients affect adversely the quality
of work performed by individuals auditing particular clients because
accounting firms often cut costs to the point where the integrity of the
independent audit is impaired.
Professional groups (e.g., the AICPA) and the courts distinguish
between advertising and direct uninvited solicitation as follows: direct
solicitation is defined as targeting specific clients or client groups, while
advertising is solicitation of a general nature. The question of the legality
of bans on advertising by professional groups was decided by the Supreme
Court, which held that bans on advertising by groups including
pharmacists and attorneys violated first amendment protection of
commercial speech. In the late seventies, the state boards of accountancy
and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
removed bans on advertising as well as most of the restrictions on
advertising activities other than those which convey "false,
misleading, or deceptive messages" (Rule 502, AICPA Code of
Professional Ethics, 1978).
In contrast to the Supreme Court's rulings on advertising, the Court
held in 1978 in Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar (a case involving bans on
direct uninvited solicitation by lawyers) that first amendment protection
does not extend to bans on direct uninvited solicitation. The Court argued
that direct uninvited solicitation leads to deception of consumers;
since direct solicitation is targeted to a specific client or client group
rather than to the general public, misleading inferences are more likely
than in advertisement because fewer people see the claims. Thus,
professional accounting groups, e.g., the AICPA, the National Association
of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) and state boards of
accountancy, were left to choose their own policies on direct
solicitation. The AICPA continued to ban the practice (thus prohibiting its
members from directly soliciting clients) until 1979 when, in response
to a threat by the Justice Department to file a complaint, the
membership of the AICPA voted to allow direct uninvited solicitation.
Nonetheless many state boards retained their bans well beyond 1979.
The Justice Department
threatened action against several state boards of accountancy and filed
a complaint against the Louisiana State Board of Accountancy, charging
the Board with engaging in a combination and conspiracy in unreasonable
restraint of interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section One of
the Sherman Act. A U.S. District Court dismissed this suit in 1987, finding
that the State Board was exempt from antitrust laws under the state
action exemption doctrine because the state legislature authorized,
reviewed and approved the rules. However, in 1989, Florida's ban on oral
direct uninvited solicitation was held to be unconstitutional by a federal
appeals court. In the early
1990s, all remaining states lifted their bans on direct solicitation. In
1993 the Supreme Court upheld the 1989 decision of the federal appeals
court.
REFERENC
ES
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (the
Cohen Commission). 1978. Commission
on Auditors' Responsibilities: Report. Conclusions, and
Recommendations. New York: AICPA.
---. 1978. Code of Professional Ethics: Rule 502, Interpretation
(later renamed Code of Professional
Conduct). New York: AICPA.
Balvers, R, B. McDonald, and R Miller. 1988. Underpricing of new
issues and the choice of auditor as a signal of investment banner
reputation. The Accounting Review (October): 605-622.
Bell, T., and R. H. Tabor. 1991. Empirical analysis of audit uncertainty
qualifications. Journal of Accounting
Research (Autumn): 350-370.
Chaney, P., D. Jeter, and P. Erickson Shaw. 1995. Direct solicitation and
large audit firm dominance in the audit market. Auditing: A Journal
of Theory & Practice 14: 19-33.
Commerce Clearing House. 1984-1989. Accounting Law
Reports. Riverwoods, IL: CCH.
Danos, P., and J. W. Eichenseher. 1982. Audit industry dynamics:
Factors affecting changes in client- industry shares. Journal of
Accounting Research (August): 604-616.
DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of
Accounting and Economics (December):
183-200.
Deis, D., and G. Giroux. 1992. Determinants of audit quality in the
public sector. The Accounting Review
(July): 462-479.
Eichenseher, J. 1984. The effects of foreign operations on domestic
auditor selection. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance:
195-209.
Francis, J. R, and D. T. Simon. 1987. A test of audit pricing in the
small-client segment of the U.S. audit
market. The Accounting Review (January): 145-157.
Gigler, F., and M. Permo. 1995. Imperfect competition in audit markets
and its effect on the demand for audit- related services. The
Accounting Review (April): 317-336.
Imhoff, E. A., Jr. 1988. A comparison of analysts' accounting quality
judgments among CPA firms' clients.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 182-191.
Jeter, D. and P. Erickson Shaw. 1995. Solicitation and auditor reporting
decisions. The Accounting Review
(Spring): 293-315.
Johnson, W. B., and T. Lys. 1990. The market for audit services: Evidence
from voluntary auditor changes.
Journal of Accounting and Economics 12: 281-308.
Palmrose, Z. 1986. Audit fees and auditor size. Journal of Accounting
Research (Spring): 97-110.
---. 1988. An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality.
The Accounting Review (January):
55-73.
Simon, D., and J. Francis. 1988. The effects of auditor change on audit
fees: Tests of price cutting and price recovery. The Accounting
Review (April): 255-269.
Simunic, D. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence.
Journal of Accounting Research
(Spring): 161-190.
U.S. Congress. 1977. Senate Subcommittee on Reporting, Accounting,
and Management of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
(Metcalf Committee). Improving the Accountability of Publicly
Owned Corporations and Their Auditors. Committee Print: 95th
Congress 1st Session.
Wall Street Journal. 1995. Midsize accountants lose clients. (November
14): 1.