IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v26y2021i2d10.1007_s11142-020-09569-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneity in expertise in a credence goods setting: evidence from audit partners

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Aobdia

    (Northwestern University)

  • Saad Siddiqui

    (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board)

  • Andres Vinelli

    (Georgetown University)

Abstract

We examine the heterogeneity of experts in a credence goods setting. In our analytical model, clients are uncertain about how much effort experts need to provide to solve their problem, which is either simple or difficult. Experts have varying degrees of expertise. Less qualified experts are equally effective at solving simple problems but less effective at solving difficult ones. We show that clients pay a fee premium to more qualified experts, even for simple problems. This premium increases with the probability that the client has a difficult problem. We empirically test the model predictions in the context of partner industry expertise for the U.S. operations of the Big Four audit firms. We find, consistent with the model, a positive association between partner industry specialization and audit fees, even for simple audits, and a negative association between partner specialization and the client’s probability of restatements only for difficult audits. The industry specialization premium is higher in industries with higher proportions of difficult audits. Consistent with credence good agency issues, the specialization premium for simple audits is mitigated when information asymmetry between client and auditor is lower.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Aobdia & Saad Siddiqui & Andres Vinelli, 2021. "Heterogeneity in expertise in a credence goods setting: evidence from audit partners," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 693-729, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:26:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11142-020-09569-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-020-09569-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-020-09569-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-020-09569-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Steven D. Levitt & Chad Syverson, 2008. "Market Distortions When Agents Are Better Informed: The Value of Information in Real Estate Transactions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(4), pages 599-611, November.
    2. Brant E. Christensen & Steven M. Glover & Thomas C. Omer & Marjorie K. Shelley, 2016. "Understanding Audit Quality: Insights from Audit Professionals and Investors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(4), pages 1648-1684, December.
    3. Lennox, Clive & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2010. "Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of audit firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 84-103, February.
    4. David Dranove & Daniel Kessler & Mark McClellan & Mark Satterthwaite, 2003. "Is More Information Better? The Effects of "Report Cards" on Health Care Providers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(3), pages 555-588, June.
    5. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.
    6. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    7. Palmrose, Zoe-Vonna & Richardson, Vernon J. & Scholz, Susan, 2004. "Determinants of market reactions to restatement announcements," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 59-89, February.
    8. Winand Emons, 1997. "Credence Goods and Fraudelent Experts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(1), pages 107-119, Spring.
    9. Chevalier, Judith & Ellison, Glenn, 1997. "Risk Taking by Mutual Funds as a Response to Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(6), pages 1167-1200, December.
    10. Suraj Srinivasan, 2005. "Consequences of Financial Reporting Failure for Outside Directors: Evidence from Accounting Restatements and Audit Committee Members," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 291-334, May.
    11. Toshiaki Iizuka, 2012. "Physician Agency and Adoption of Generic Pharmaceuticals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2826-2858, October.
    12. Karla M. Johnstone & Jean C. Bedard, 2004. "Audit Firm Portfolio Management Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 659-690, September.
    13. Jonathan Gruber & Maria Owings, 1996. "Physician Financial Incentives and Cesarean Section Delivery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 99-123, Spring.
    14. Balachandran, Bv & Ramakrishnan, Rts, 1987. "A Theory Of Audit Partnerships - Audit Firm Size And Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 111-126.
    15. Timothy B. Bell & Monika Causholli & W. Robert Knechel, 2015. "Audit Firm Tenure, Non‐Audit Services, and Internal Assessments of Audit Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 461-509, June.
    16. Mikko Zerni, 2012. "Audit Partner Specialization and Audit Fees: Some Evidence from Sweden," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 312-340, March.
    17. Mark S. Beasley & Joseph V. Carcello & Dana R. Hermanson & Terry L. Neal, 2009. "The Audit Committee Oversight Process," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 65-122, March.
    18. Henry S. Schneider, 2012. "Agency Problems and Reputation in Expert Services: Evidence from Auto Repair," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 406-433, September.
    19. Krista Fiolleau & Kris Hoang & Karim Jamal & Shyam Sunder, 2013. "How Do Regulatory Reforms to Enhance Auditor Independence Work in Practice?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 864-890, September.
    20. Emons, Winand, 2001. "Credence goods monopolists," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(3-4), pages 375-389, March.
    21. Kenneth J. Reichelt & Dechun Wang, 2010. "National and Office‐Specific Measures of Auditor Industry Expertise and Effects on Audit Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 647-686, June.
    22. Toshiaki Iizuka, 2007. "Experts' agency problems: evidence from the prescription drug market in Japan," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 844-862, September.
    23. Titman, Sheridan & Trueman, Brett, 1986. "Information quality and the valuation of new issues," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 159-172, June.
    24. Simunic, Da, 1984. "Auditing, Consulting, And Auditor Independence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 679-702.
    25. John C. Coates IV, 2007. "The Goals and Promise of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 91-116, Winter.
    26. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    27. Jenni Kallunki & Juha‐Pekka Kallunki & Lasse Niemi & Henrik Nilsson & Daniel Aobdia, 2019. "IQ and Audit Quality: Do Smarter Auditors Deliver Better Audits?†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1373-1416, September.
    28. Thomas N. Hubbard, 1998. "An Empirical Examination of Moral Hazard in the Vehicle Inspection Market," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(2), pages 406-426, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ya-Fang Wang & Yu-Chu Hsieh, 2023. "Credit Rating and Board Evaluation of Family Firms," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), International Hellenic University (IHU), Kavala Campus, Greece (formerly Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology - EMaTTech), vol. 16(1), pages 7-18, October.
    2. Elizabeth Carson & Roger Simnett & Ulrike Thürheimer & Ann Vanstraelen, 2022. "Involvement of Component Auditors in Multinational Group Audits: Determinants, Audit Quality, and Audit Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 1419-1462, September.
    3. Alexander Erlei & Lukas Meub, 2024. "Technological Shocks and Algorithmic Decision Aids in Credence Goods Markets," Papers 2401.17929, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    4. Gipper, Brandon & Hail, Luzi & Leuz, Christian, 2021. "Determinants and career consequences of early audit partner rotations," CFS Working Paper Series 676, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    5. Yi-Hsing Liao & Hua Lee & Chao-Jung Chen, 2023. "The informational role of audit partner industry specialization," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 69-109, January.

    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. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    2. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Beardsley, Erik L. & Imdieke, Andrew J. & Omer, Thomas C., 2021. "The distraction effect of non-audit services on audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2).
    4. Daniel Aobdia, 2020. "The Economic Consequences of Audit Firms’ Quality Control System Deficiencies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 2883-2905, July.
    5. Shivaram Rajgopal & Suraj Srinivasan & Xin Zheng, 2021. "Measuring audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 559-619, June.
    6. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Daniel Aobdia & Luminita Enache & Anup Srivastava, 2021. "Changes in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies over time," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 715-754, February.
    8. Yi-Hsing Liao & Hua Lee & Chao-Jung Chen, 2023. "The informational role of audit partner industry specialization," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 69-109, January.
    9. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.
    10. Timothy B. Bell & David B. Bryan, 2021. "Effectiveness, efficiency, and fee premiums in audits led by industry specialist partners," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 4513-4572, September.
    11. Goldman, Nathan C. & Harris, M. Kathleen & Omer, Thomas C., 2022. "Does task-specific knowledge improve audit quality: Evidence from audits of income tax accounts," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. David Bardey & Denis Gromb & David Martimort & Jérôme Pouyet, 2020. "Controlling Sellers Who Provide Advice: Regulation and Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 409-444, September.
    13. Lu, Fangwen, 2014. "Insurance coverage and agency problems in doctor prescriptions: Evidence from a field experiment in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 156-167.
    14. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    15. Ben Greiner & Le Zhang & Chengxiang Tang, 2017. "Separation of prescription and treatment in health care markets: A laboratory experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 21-35, December.
    16. Wu, Bingxiao, 2019. "Physician agency in China: Evidence from a drug-percentage incentive scheme," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 72-89.
    17. Lamar Pierce & Michael W. Toffel, 2013. "The Role of Organizational Scope and Governance in Strengthening Private Monitoring," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1558-1584, October.
    18. Toshiaki Iizuka, 2012. "Physician Agency and Adoption of Generic Pharmaceuticals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2826-2858, October.
    19. Guangming Gong & Liang Xiao & Si Xu & Xun Gong, 2019. "Do Bond Investors Care About Engagement Auditors’ Negative Experiences? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 779-806, September.
    20. Kuo, Nan-Ting & Li, Shu & Du, Ya-Guang & Lee, Cheng-Few, 2022. "Does individual auditor quality contribute to firm value? Evidence from the market valuation on corporate cash holdings," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 135-153.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Expert-client agency costs; Credence goods; Audit; Industry specialization; Audit partners; Audit fees;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure

    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:spr:reaccs:v:26:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11142-020-09569-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.