Profit sharing in audit partnerships
Academics call the problem that arises when individuals in a partnership take actions inconsistent with the partnership's collective interest the "moral hazard problem". This thesis examines how an audit partnership (i.e., partners as a whole) uses profit sharing rules to induce op...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Others |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2009
|
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/2429/13534 |
id |
ndltd-UBC-oai-circle.library.ubc.ca-2429-13534 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-UBC-oai-circle.library.ubc.ca-2429-135342018-01-05T17:36:50Z Profit sharing in audit partnerships Liu, Xiaohong Academics call the problem that arises when individuals in a partnership take actions inconsistent with the partnership's collective interest the "moral hazard problem". This thesis examines how an audit partnership (i.e., partners as a whole) uses profit sharing rules to induce optimal partner behavior in performing various tasks, and thereby maximize the welfare of the partnership. The analysis is undertaken in different market structures: a competitive market and an oligopolistic market, which are intended to capture the different markets for the non-Big Five audit firms and the Big Five audit firms. Non-cooperative game theory is used to analyze the strategic interaction of partners within a partnership, as well as the strategic interaction of firms when the market is an oligopoly. In the oligopolistic market setting, it is assumed that clients are different in that the efficient audits of different types of clients require different effort profiles (i.e., different mix of auditors' effort-inputs); however, it is too costly, if not impossible, for an independent party like a court to verify each client's type, and thus client type cannot be used for partner compensation purposes. Under this assumption, I derive conditions under which there exists an equilibrium where audit firms strategically choose different profit sharing rules to specialize in different types of clients, and thereby earn positive economic profits. As a result of specialization, firms have different clienteles, and may provide audits of different quality and charge different audit fees for the same type of client. The analytical results help explain the observed differences in compensation plans among the Big Five audit firms, and provide insights into the differences in the audit services provided by the Big Five firms. This thesis also provides some empirical evidence consistent with the theory developed in this study. Business, Sauder School of Graduate 2009-10-01T23:59:23Z 2009-10-01T23:59:23Z 2002 2002-11 Text Thesis/Dissertation http://hdl.handle.net/2429/13534 eng For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use. 6692036 bytes application/pdf |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
English |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
description |
Academics call the problem that arises when individuals in a partnership take actions
inconsistent with the partnership's collective interest the "moral hazard problem". This thesis
examines how an audit partnership (i.e., partners as a whole) uses profit sharing rules to
induce optimal partner behavior in performing various tasks, and thereby maximize the
welfare of the partnership.
The analysis is undertaken in different market structures: a competitive market and an
oligopolistic market, which are intended to capture the different markets for the non-Big Five
audit firms and the Big Five audit firms. Non-cooperative game theory is used to analyze the
strategic interaction of partners within a partnership, as well as the strategic interaction of
firms when the market is an oligopoly.
In the oligopolistic market setting, it is assumed that clients are different in that the
efficient audits of different types of clients require different effort profiles (i.e., different mix
of auditors' effort-inputs); however, it is too costly, if not impossible, for an independent party
like a court to verify each client's type, and thus client type cannot be used for partner
compensation purposes. Under this assumption, I derive conditions under which there exists
an equilibrium where audit firms strategically choose different profit sharing rules to
specialize in different types of clients, and thereby earn positive economic profits. As a result
of specialization, firms have different clienteles, and may provide audits of different quality
and charge different audit fees for the same type of client. The analytical results help explain
the observed differences in compensation plans among the Big Five audit firms, and provide
insights into the differences in the audit services provided by the Big Five firms. This thesis
also provides some empirical evidence consistent with the theory developed in this study. === Business, Sauder School of === Graduate |
author |
Liu, Xiaohong |
spellingShingle |
Liu, Xiaohong Profit sharing in audit partnerships |
author_facet |
Liu, Xiaohong |
author_sort |
Liu, Xiaohong |
title |
Profit sharing in audit partnerships |
title_short |
Profit sharing in audit partnerships |
title_full |
Profit sharing in audit partnerships |
title_fullStr |
Profit sharing in audit partnerships |
title_full_unstemmed |
Profit sharing in audit partnerships |
title_sort |
profit sharing in audit partnerships |
publishDate |
2009 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/2429/13534 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT liuxiaohong profitsharinginauditpartnerships |
_version_ |
1718589389068566528 |