This paper analyzes the auditor choices for a sample of 2,333 predominantly small and mid-sized Finnish firms. Finland requires virtually all commercial enterprises to have a financial statement audit, but allows the smallest firms to choose from four types of audit firms: first tier international firms, first tier national firms, second tier local auditors and non-certified auditors. We find that among the smallest firms, the choice to hire a certified auditor relates to the level of complexity in the organization as measured by size and extent of workforce. For firms that must use a certified auditor, we find that the choice between a first tier and second tier firm is related to size, the extent of debt financing, and complexity associated with being a member of an associated group. Finally, in the upper end of the market, the decision to hire a large international firm relates to size, the need for financing, be it equity or debt, and complexity due to a broad labour force. This pattern is interesting because it indicates that the need for a higher quality auditor is driven first by complexity, then as the firm grows, it is supplemented by the use of debt financing and ultimately by the need to raise equity as well as debt financing.

This study investigates the implicit financial incentives of individual Big 4 audit partners by examining the association between a partner's compensation and characteristics of the audit firm, audit partner, and individual partner clientele for Big 4 firms in Sweden. Using tax and financial data for individual audit partners and clients, our empirical findings indicate that there is significant variation in the implicit determinants that are associated with compensation across the Big 4. We find that audit partners’ compensation is positively associated with the size of their clientele or the number of publicly traded clients, both of which represent revenue‐generating opportunities. Similarly, compensation and developing an industry specialization are positively related. In three firms, gaining clients is clearly related to an increase in compensation, while losing a client is associated with a reduction in partner income in only one firm. We find that audit partner income is more sensitive to performance‐related incentives, such as attracting new clients, as partners progress in their career. Finally, we find evidence that audit failures, proxied by reporting errors related to issuing a going concern opinion, are associated with lower compensation. These results should be of interest to the auditing profession, audit firms, and regulators when they consider the effects of implicit incentives of partner compensation on audit quality.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract