Measuring productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency changes of CPA firms prior to, and following the Sarbanes–Oxley Act

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2008.11.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper investigates productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change for a group of the 56 largest CPA firms in the US from the period 1996–1999 through the period 2003–2006, where the former preceded, and the latter followed, enactment of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX). Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is used to calculate Malmquist indices of three measures of interest: productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change. Results indicate that CPA firms, on average, experienced a productivity growth of approx. 17% from the pre- to post-SOX period. Consistent with the finding of Banker et al. [Banker RD, Chang H, Natarajan R. Productivity change, technical progress and relative efficiency change in the public accounting industry. Management Science 2005;51:291–304], this productivity gain can be attributed primarily to technical progress rather than a change in relative efficiency. In addition, results indicate that the “Big 4” firms underperformed their non-Big 4 counterparts in both productivity growth and technical progress.

Introduction

In response to a wave of fraudulent corporate reporting and accounting scandals, Congress passed the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) which aims to enhance corporate governance, improve auditor independence, and increase the transparency, as well as reliability, of financial reporting (see Chang et al. [1].) There are four main sections of SOX that affect accounting firms. Section 101 establishes a new private regulatory board, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), that sets the standards for auditing and related attestation services provided to public companies; Section 201 restricts auditors from providing certain consulting services to their audit clients; Section 203 deals with mandatory audit partner rotation; Section 404 requires corporate management to assess the effectiveness of its internal control system over financial reporting, as well as auditors to oversee this process and attest to managements’ assessments.

Although these four sections are expected to change the landscape of the public accounting industry, Sections 201 and 404 have more direct and specific effects on accounting firms’ services and, hence, on their productivity and efficiency. For example, the former Section 201 of SOX prohibits an auditor from providing the following services to its audit clients: bookkeeping, financial information systems design and implementation, appraisals or valuation, actuarial and internal audit outsourcing, management and human resources, broker/dealer and investment banking, and legal or expert services unrelated to the audit function (Chang et al. [1]).

Levitt [2] argues that non-audit activities, i.e., management advisory services (MAS), are lucrative and yield higher margins than do audit fees. Because these services are more productive in generating revenues for the same level of human resource (HR) inputs [3], such a restriction on MAS services can decrease the productivity and/or efficiency of CPA firms.

In contrast, Section 404 requires that auditors evaluate a company's internal control system, and report on management's assessment of the system as part of its overall audit engagement. These new requirements create opportunities for accounting firms to generate incremental revenues from additional audit procedures and consulting services. For example, auditors can charge more for additional stages in an analysis, resulting in increased revenues. Further, many companies hire CPA firms, other than their own auditors, as consultants to document or update and test their internal control systems, as required by Section 404.

Clearly, this, alone, could increase the consulting service revenues of accounting firms [1]. Indeed, a recent survey by Financial Executives International [4] of 217 firms with revenues of at least $5 billion found that they spent an average of $4.36 million (in 2004) to comply with Section 404. Additional audit fees paid for attestation of the system represented an average increase of 57% vs. “normal” levels over the regular financial statement audit fees in the period. With such incremental revenues, accounting firms are thus expected to improve their productivity and efficiency by offering Section 404 compliance services.

In a related development, as documented in Dopuch et al. [5], non-audit services appear to affect the efficiency and effectiveness of audit services. Since provision of the former offers auditors access to information they could not otherwise obtain the efficiency and effectiveness of audits could be improved through knowledge spillover [6]. However, according to Whisenant et al. [7], the pricing of audit and MAS services, at least for pre-SOX performances, were independent. Davis et al. [8] and Dopuch et al. [5], on the other hand, both found that audit fees charged by accounting firms are positively correlated with the joint provision of audit and non-audit services. Yet, others argue that, with knowledge spillover, audit firms are willing to share cost savings with their clients and charge a lower rate for their services [9], [10]. With the elimination of selected complementary services, the pricing of remaining services likely changes. This, in turn, affects the overall productivity and efficiency of accounting firms.

Although the new regulatory setting outlined above has significantly changed the playing field of accounting firms, and affected their practices and service mixes, there is little empirical research on how such changes have impacted accounting firms’ productivity. For example, many prior studies have focused on how SOX affects auditor independence and audit fees (e.g., Lai [11], Griffin and Lont [12]; Raghunandan and Rama [13]). A review of the relevant literatures suggests that only Chang et al. [1] has specifically examined the impact of SOX on the productivity of accounting firms. Using annual survey data for 57 large CPA firms in the US for the period from 2000 to 2005, these authors, Chang et al. [1], found that the fee productivity of CPA firms in transforming human resources into service revenues increased in the post-SOX period. However, they did not distinguish between changes in the frontier that determines what is possible, and the actual utilization of these possibilities in terms of efficiency.

Toward this end, the current paper follows Banker et al. [3] in using the Malmquist productivity index to estimate changes in productivity and efficiency of CPA firms under selected circumstances. Specifically, we analyze the extent to which a change in the productivity of accounting firms can be explained by a shift in their production technology (i.e., technical progress) and changes in their efficiency relative to peers (i.e., relative efficiency change).

Utilizing a group of 56 of the largest CPA firms in the US for the periods 1996–1999 (pre-SOX) and 2003–2006 (post-SOX), we found that US accounting firms, on average, experienced a productivity growth of approx. 17% from the pre-SOX to post-SOX period. This is consistent with the finding of Chang et al. [1] who observed a significant increase in the production efficiency of accounting firms following the passage of SOX. Further, consistent with the results of Banker et al. [3], we also found that the productivity gain of accounting firms may be attributed primarily to technical progress (19.9%). Finally, our results indicate that “Big 4” firms underperformed their non-Big 4 counterparts in both productivity growth and technical progress following passage of SOX. See also Fusco [14] who reported that 557 companies changed from use of Big 4 to mid-tier audit firms post-SOX, while only 55 changed in a reverse manner.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly describes data envelopment analysis (DEA) and the Malmquist productivity index. Section 3 contains our empirical estimations, including a description of the sample data and a discussion of the empirical results, while Section 4 concludes the paper.

Section snippets

Data envelopment analysis and the Malmquist productivity index

Productivity change for professional services firms is typically measured in terms of total revenue per employee. Nevertheless, this measure is not wholly appropriate for accounting firms because they employ three different categories of professional staff, partners, professionals, and other employees, to generate three types of outputs, accounting and auditing, taxation, and consulting services. To accommodate such a multiple outputs and inputs production scenario, we propose use of the

Data, sample, and related information

In preparing for our empirical estimations, we collected data on the outputs and inputs of CPA firms from Accounting Today's annual surveys of the 100 largest accounting firms. After excluding observations for non-CPA firms (such as H&R Block and Padgett Business Services), and firms with missing values, our final sample consisted of 56 CPA firms that appear consistently over the 8-year period 1996–2006, excluding 2000–2002.6

Conclusion

There has been considerable change in the public accounting industry in recent years, especially following enactment of SOX. In this paper, we followed Banker et al. [3] and use DEA to calculate the Malmquist productivity index for a meaningful sample of US accounting firms. The Malmquist index enabled us to distinguish between changes in performance due to changes in technology in general, and changes in performance under specified technologies.

Using a balanced panel of data from the 56

Acknowledgements

Professor Cooper would like to acknowledge support for his research provided by the IC2 Institute of The University of Texas at Austin. Acknowledgement is also due to two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.

References (28)

  • A. Emrouznejad et al.

    Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: a survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA

    Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

    (2008)
  • A. Craswell et al.

    Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations

    Journal of Accounting and Economics

    (1995)
  • H. Chang et al.

    How has the Sarbanes–Oxley act affected CPA Firm fee productivity? Working paper

    (2007)
  • A. Levitt

    Renewing the covenant with investors

    (May, 10, 2000)
  • R.D. Banker et al.

    Productivity change, technical progress and relative efficiency change in the public accounting industry

    Management Science

    (2005)
  • Financial Executives International. Sarbanes–Oxley compliance costs exceed estimates. Press Release: March 21,...
  • N. Dopuch et al.

    Independence in appearance and fact: an experimental investigation

    Contemporary Accounting Research

    (2003)
  • D. Simunic

    Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence

    Journal of Accounting Research

    (1984)
  • S. Whisenant et al.

    Evidence on the joint determination of audit and non-audit fees

    Journal of Accounting Research

    (2003)
  • L.R. Davis et al.

    Audit effort, audit fees, and the provision of nonaudit services to audit clients

    The Accounting Review

    (1993)
  • D. Simunic

    The pricing of audit services: theory and evidence

    Journal of Accounting Research

    (1980)
  • J. Francis et al.

    Audit prices, product differentiation and scale economies: further evidence from the Australian market

    Journal of Accounting Research

    (1986)
  • K.W. Lai

    The Sarbanes–Oxley Act and auditor independence: preliminary evidence from audit opinion and discretionary accruals. Working paper

    (2003)
  • P. Griffin et al.

    An analysis of audit fees following the passage of Sarbanes–Oxley. Working paper

    (2005)
  • Cited by (16)

    • Operating efficiency of accounting firms based on different perspectives of human resource structures

      2023, Asia Pacific Management Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      Chang, Chen, Tsai, and Yang (2009a) conducted a study on 52 accounting firms from 1993 to 2002 and found that the value of investments in information technology is the most important factor contributing to the improvement of the production efficiency of accounting firms in Taiwan. Chang, Choy, Cooper, Parker, and Ruefli (2009b) used DEA and the Malmquist Index to compare the efficiency, productivity, and technological advancement of 56 U.S. accounting firms before and after the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the U.S. and found that after this Act was passed, the overall increase in productivity is attributable mainly due to technological progress rather than improved efficiency. This outcome is particularly evident in the Big Four firms.

    • Scale and scope economies in Korean accounting firms around Sarbanes-Oxley regulations

      2022, Journal of Asian Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      The paucity of evidence on production efficiency is mainly attributable to a lack of firm-level data. For instance, Chang, Choy, Cooper, Parker, and Ruefli (2009a) investigated productivity growth for a group of the 56 largest accounting firms in the United States from the period 1996–1999 (pre-SOX) through the period 2003–2006 (post-SOX). They adopted the Malmquist productivity index and found that accounting firms experienced a productivity growth of approximately 17% from the pre-SOX to post-SOX period.

    • A hybrid multiple criteria decision making model of sustainability performance evaluation for Taiwanese Certified Public Accountant firms

      2018, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      After a number of accounting and auditing scandals such as those related to Enron in the early 2000s, Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firms, which offer auditing services by professional auditors to other organizations (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2016), are now exposed to intense pressure from more rigorous regulations and a growing number of global alliances (Chang et al., 2009a, 2011).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +1 215 895 6979; fax: +1 215 895 6279.

    2

    Tel.: +1 215 895 2147; fax: +1 215 895 6279.

    3

    Tel.: +1 704 521 9116.

    View full text