Search

The Big 4 have acquired numerous consulting firms since the late 2000s, and regulators are concerned that a focus on consulting practices could negatively affect audit quality through audit firm culture. Audit firms counter by arguing that expertise gained through consulting can improve knowledge brought to audits. Using a difference-in-differences design, restatements as an audit quality proxy, and enterprise resource planning- (non-enterprise resource planning-) related acquisitions as a proxy for audit- (non-audit-) related acquisitions, we find nuanced support for both positions, depending on acquisition type. Audit quality increases (decreases) at the local office level after the acquisition of consulting firms that provide services that relate (do not relate) to the audit. Semi-structured interviews of 17 highly-experienced audit practitioners suggest that consulting firm acquisitions positively (negatively) affect audit quality through expertise transfer (shifting the culture towards commercialism) when acquisitions are (are not) audit-related. Thus, the effect of consulting firm acquisitions on audit quality appears to depend on how closely the acquired services are related to the audit.

These data analyses have been co-submitted to Accounting, Organizations, and Society with the research article “The Revival of Large Consulting Practices at the Big 4 and Audit Quality ” [2]. The purpose of these data analyses is to assist readers of the research article in obtaining further detailed analyses performed therein regarding the channels through which audit quality is affected by consulting firm acquisitions. These analyses include 1) the timing of the effects of consulting firm acquisitions on audit quality; 2) the size of the consulting firm acquisition's effect on audit quality; 3) whether acquisitions differentially affect restatement breadth; 4) whether results are due to the PCAOB targeting offices that acquire consulting practices; and 5) whether consulting firm acquisitions affect national audit firm audit quality. These analyses can inform future research on audit quality by providing insights that may be useful in developing research ideas and performing extensions of these analyses. Some data used in these analyses are available via a subscription to the Wharton Research Data Service while other data are publicly available via search of Google, and, with subscription, via search of Factiva, and the Capital IQ database.

This study examines the possibility of a nonlinear association between auditor-provided non-audit services (NAS) and audit quality. The effect of NAS on audit quality has been a long-standing debate among academics and regulators. One view is that NAS can potentially create economic bonding between the auditor and client, lowering audit quality. Another view is that NAS creates knowledge spillover, improving audit quality. Our unique approach provides evidence of a nonlinear association between NAS and audit quality, where client misstatement rates are higher for audit offices with both high and low levels of NAS. We also find a nonlinear association between NAS provision and both missed material weaknesses and meeting or beating analysts’ consensus forecast by a small amount. This study should be of interest to audit firms, audit committees, and regulators because it advances our understanding of the effects of NAS on audit quality.