IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effects of Mandatory Auditor Rotation on Low Balling Behavior and Auditor Independence


  • Christopher Bleibtreu

    () (Department of Economics, University of Konstanz, Germany)

  • Stephan Ulrike Stefani

    () (Department of Economics, University of Konstanz, Germany)


Accounting Oversight Board have suggested the implementation of the external audit firm rotation. The aims of this proposal are to increase auditor independence and to decrease the high level of supplier concentration in the audit market. However, proponents of this regulation raise the concern that learning effects are destroyed, which causes inefficiencies in terms of both audit quality and audit fees. In the present paper, we use a market matching model adopted from Salop (1979) to analyze the effects of the external rotation. In particular, we assume that both industry expertise (i.e., the audit firm's specialization in auditing clients with specific characteristics) and the auditor's experience with a certain client (i.e., learning cost effects) determine an audit firm's direct audit costs. Our model allows determining the optimal matching between audit firms and clients in a situation with and without the existence of the mandatory audit firm rotation rule. Our results indicate that mandatory auditor changes decrease audit firms' profit contributions derived from clients the audit firm is quite well specialized in. The decrease in these profit contributions is particularly severe if learning costs play a dominant role. For clients the audit firm is less specialized in, however, the implementation of the external rotation even increases audit firms’ profit contributions, since it can demand comparably high audit fees when the most efficient audit firm is precluded from auditing these clients due to its cooling-off. (1) If audit firms have strong time preferences, audit firms will choose a lowballing strategy; audit firms may regard the external rotation as favorable only if learning costs are sufficiently low. If, in contrast, learning effects are important, audit firms' total profit contributions decrease, and the equilibrium number of audit firms also decreases. An increase in supplier concentration, however, is clearly in contrast to the aims of the EU Commission. (2) If audit firms apply low discount rates and thus follow a waiting strategy, the external rotation increases audit firms' total profit contributions and indeed decreases supplier concentration. With respect to our audit quality measure, we find that audit firm rotation increases audit quality only if audit firms try to re-acquire their clients as fast as possible, i.e., if they use a lowballing strategy for clients they are not well specialized in (i.e., if the discountrate is high). If, in contrast, audit firms are patient enough to wait until the maximum duration of their competitors has expired, audit quality is predicted to decrease due to the implementation of the external rotation.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Bleibtreu & Stephan Ulrike Stefani, 2013. "The Effects of Mandatory Auditor Rotation on Low Balling Behavior and Auditor Independence," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2013-14, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
  • Handle: RePEc:knz:dpteco:1314

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Sattar A. Mansi & William F. Maxwell & Darius P. Miller, 2004. "Does Auditor Quality and Tenure Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 755-793, September.
    2. Christopher Humphrey & Asad Kausar & Anne Loft & Margaret Woods, 2011. "Regulating Audit beyond the Crisis: A Critical Discussion of the EU Green Paper," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 431-457, June.
    3. Reiner Quick, 2012. "EC Green Paper Proposals and Audit Quality," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 17-38, June.
    4. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
    5. Quick, Reiner, 2012. "EC Green Paper Proposals and Audit Quality," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 60560, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    6. Arrunada, Benito & Paz-Ares, Candido, 1997. "Mandatory rotation of company auditors: A critical examination," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-61, March.
    7. Christopher Bleibtreu & Ulrike Stefani, 2012. "The Interdependence Between Audit Market Structure and the Quality of Financial Reporting: The Case of Non-Audit Services," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2012-01, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    8. Jeff Boone & Inder K. Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2012. "Audit Market Concentration and Auditor Tolerance for Earnings Management," Working Papers 0014, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Auditing; Mandatory Auditor Rotation; Auditor Independence; Low Balling; Audit Market Concentration;

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:knz:dpteco:1314. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Office Ursprung) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.