The new audit regulation came into force in Poland in 2017 and imposed mandatory audit rotation. The new regulation aims to strengthen the auditor's independence but it might also affect concentration on the audit market. The aim of this paper was to analyse whether mandatory audit rotation has a potential to reduce the audit market concentration in Poland. The sample included 198 capital groups with the parent company listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. The own compilation was prepared based on the audit opinions which included information about appointed audit firms in the period 2011-2017 (1,386 observations in total). The paper includes the analysis of audit tenures, their length, frequency of changing the audit firm and direction of the changes (to Big-4 or to Non-Big-4). The results showed that the biggest capital groups tend to appoint Big-4 audit firms and if they change auditor-they choose another firm from the Big-4. Additionally, the high number of short-term tenures (up to five years) suggests that Big-4 firms have strong bargaining power and they benefit more from the rotation of the clients rather than from their retention. The findings significantly contribute to the hypothesis that mandatory audit rotation will not reduce the concentration on the audit market in Poland. The findings might be valuable for the regulators and supervisory authorities responsible for the monitoring of the concentration level on the audit market.
The aim of this article is to compare and contrast three different approaches towards non-audit services (henceforth “NAS”) based on: 1) researchers’ views, 2) the EU regulation, and 3) the provision of NAS by the Big-4 firms operating in twenty-seven EU member states. Therefore, the article includes: (i) a literature review of various NAS aspects, (ii) an analysis of the EU reform in terms of NAS, and (iii) an empirical analysis of NAS fees which have been disclosed in the Big-4 transparency reports for the period 2017-2019.The literature review shows: a) lack of consensus between researchers about the potential consequences of the NAS provision in general, b) quite limited or little evidence of the consequences of the NAS restrictions as part of the EU audit reform, c) ambiguity in terms of the NAS definition itself which results mainly from insufficient NAS disclosures and lack of a detailed NAS split.The EU regulators addressed these concerns only in very narrow aspects, i.e., through: (1) the NAS black list, (2) the NAS cap, and (3) the strong emphasis on public-interest entities (henceforth “PIEs”). What is more, NAS disclosure requirements in the transparency reports are limited only to two categories.Finally, the results of the empirical study indicate the significant differences at the NAS fee level among the EU member states. The analysis shows a particular importance of NAS fees from other clients as a substantial revenue stream for the Big-4 firms. The results suggest also a significant increase in this category in 2018 when NAS fees from other clients increased by net EUR809 million (13%). However, this strong trend was not confirmed in the following year.All in all, the study underlines deficiency in proper NAS disclosure and reporting which might be observed also in the case of transparency reports. All findings of this study may be another argument for regulators to address the problem of NAS in more detail starting from their advice on a NAS taxonomy which might be used then as a point of reference. It would be also beneficial for researchers exploring the NAS aspect and, thus, may enhance data and results comparability between studies. Additional disclosure requirements like NAS provided to PIEs or a recurring or non-recurring character of NAS would also support the better understanding and evaluation of the consequences of the EU audit reform.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.