IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausact/v25y2015i3p262-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Exploratory Study of Profit Reporting Differences of Publicly Owned Professional Service Firms and Partnerships

Author

Listed:
  • Mark E. Pickering

Abstract

type="main"> There has been a trend for large professional service firms (PSFs) to move away from the traditional partnership structure to other ownership forms such as publicly owned companies. Research on the relative performance of these ownership forms has been constrained by the lack of availability of financial information for partnerships, and proxy revenue-based measures used have resulted in conflicting findings. This paper seeks to guide future research by exploring accounting reporting differences between partnerships and publicly owned PSF companies in order to identify adjustments required for comparison and implications for performance measures used. This paper reviews the literature and examines the annual reports of two Australian publicly owned accounting companies and one large accounting partnership; pre-initial public offering pro forma reporting in the prospectus of one of the companies identifies significant profitability reporting differences across ownership forms. The findings also suggest that the lower revenue per professional and per person for publicly owned PSFs found in prior studies may be offset by significantly lower salary costs. The paper concludes that significant value can be achieved by further analysis of profitability across ownership forms and suggests data requirements to inform the development of further case studies and large-scale surveys of financial performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark E. Pickering, 2015. "An Exploratory Study of Profit Reporting Differences of Publicly Owned Professional Service Firms and Partnerships," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 25(3), pages 262-278, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausact:v:25:y:2015:i:3:p:262-278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/auar.12050
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rodolphe Durand & Vicente Vargas, 2003. "Ownership, organization, and private firms' efficient use of resources," Post-Print hal-00480849, HAL.
    2. Magdy Farag & Rafik Elias, 2011. "Relative audit fees and client loyalty in the audit market," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(1), pages 79-93, July.
    3. Morris, Timothy & Empson, Laura, 1998. "Organisation and expertise: An exploration of knowledge bases and the management of accounting and consulting firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 609-624.
    4. James R. Faulconbridge & Daniel Muzio, 2009. "The financialization of large law firms: situated discourses and practices of reorganization," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(5), pages 641-661, September.
    5. Rodolphe Durand & Vicente Vargas, 2003. "Ownership, Organization, and Private Firm's efficient use of resources," Post-Print hal-00699294, HAL.
    6. Mark Pickering, 2010. "Benefits Expected by Accounting Firm Partners Selling their Firms to Publicly Listed Companies," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 20(4), pages 358-371, December.
    7. Yves Gendron & Roy Suddaby & Sandy Q. Qu, 2009. "Professional–Organisational Commitment: A Study of Canadian Professional Accountants," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 19(3), pages 231-248, September.
    8. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    9. William S. Schulze & Michael H. Lubatkin & Richard N. Dino & Ann K. Buchholtz, 2001. "Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 99-116, April.
    10. Tyrone M. Carlin & Nigel Finch, 2009. "Discount Rates in Disarray: Evidence on Flawed Goodwill Impairment Testing," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 19(4), pages 326-336, December.
    11. Kathleen Herbohn, 2005. "Job Satisfaction Dimensions in Public Accounting Practice," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 18(2), pages 63-82, September.
    12. Kathleen Herbohn, 2005. "Job Satisfaction Dimensions in Public Accounting Practice," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 18(2), pages 63-82, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Carney, 2005. "Corporate Governance and Competitive Advantage in Family–Controlled Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(3), pages 249-265, May.
    2. David G. Sirmon & Jean–Luc Arregle & Michael A. Hitt & Justin W. Webb, 2008. "The Role of Family Influence in Firms’ Strategic Responses to Threat of Imitation," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 32(6), pages 979-998, November.
    3. Mike Peng & Yi Jiang, 2006. "Family Ownership And Control In Large Firms: The Good, The Bad, The Irrelevant ??? And Why," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp840, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    4. Erbetta, Fabrizio & Menozzi, Anna & Corbetta, Guido & Fraquelli, Giovanni, 2013. "Assessing family firm performance using frontier analysis techniques: Evidence from Italian manufacturing industries," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 106-117.
    5. Weiping Liu & Haibin Yang & Guangxi Zhang, 2012. "Does family business excel in firm performance? An institution-based view," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 965-987, December.
    6. James J. Chrisman & Jess H. Chua & Reginald A. Litz, 2004. "Comparing the Agency Costs of Family and Non–Family Firms: Conceptual Issues and Exploratory Evidence," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 28(4), pages 335-354, July.
    7. Danny Miller & Isabelle Le Breton‐Miller & Richard H. Lester, 2011. "Family and Lone Founder Ownership and Strategic Behaviour: Social Context, Identity, and Institutional Logics," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 1-25, January.
    8. Alfredo De Massis & Josip Kotlar & Pietro Mazzola & Tommaso Minola & Salvatore Sciascia, 2018. "Conflicting Selves: Family Owners' Multiple Goals and Self-Control Agency Problems in Private Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 42(3), pages 362-389, May.
    9. Minh, Thanh Nguyen & Quang, Tuyen Tran, 2022. "The effects of corporate social responsibility on firm efficiency: Inside the matrix of corporate finance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(PB).
    10. Hanousek, Jan & Kočenda, Evžen & Shamshur, Anastasiya, 2015. "Corporate efficiency in Europe," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 24-40.
    11. Sumit Majumdar & Davina Vora & Ashok Nag, 2012. "Legal form of the firm and overseas market choice in India’s software and IT industry," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 659-687, September.
    12. Isabel-María García-Sánchez, 2010. "The effectiveness of corporate governance: board structure and business technical efficiency in Spain," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 18(3), pages 311-339, September.
    13. Maria Giuseppina Bruna & Rey Dang & Marie-José Scotto & Aymen Ammari, 2019. "Does board gender diversity affect firm risk-taking? Evidence from the French stock market," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(4), pages 915-938, December.
    14. Isabelle Le Breton–Miller & Danny Miller, 2006. "Why Do Some Family Businesses Out–Compete? Governance, Long–Term Orientations, and Sustainable Capability," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(6), pages 731-746, November.
    15. Yusuf, Fatima & Yousaf, Amna & Saeed, Abubakr, 2018. "Rethinking agency theory in developing countries: A case study of Pakistan," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 281-292.
    16. Sabri Boubaker & Riadh Manita & Wael Rouatbi, 2021. "Large shareholders, control contestability and firm productive efficiency," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 591-614, January.
    17. Yan Ling & Franz W. Kellermanns, 2010. "The Effects of Family Firm Specific Sources of TMT Diversity: The Moderating Role of Information Exchange Frequency," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 322-344, March.
    18. Corten, Maarten & Steijvers, Tensie & Lybaert, Nadine, 2017. "The effect of intrafamily agency conflicts on audit demand in private family firms: The moderating role of the board of directors," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 13-28.
    19. Achleitner, Ann-Kristin & Braun, Reiner & Schraml, Stephanie & Welter, Juliane, 2009. "Goal structures in family firms: empirical evidence on the relationship between firm and family goals," CEFS Working Paper Series 2009-08, Technische Universität München (TUM), Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies (CEFS).
    20. Xu, Jia & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Influence of social media on operational efficiency of national scenic spots in china based on three-stage DEA model," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 374-388.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ausact:v:25:y:2015:i:3:p:262-278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1035-6908 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.