The Importance of Business Development Incentives to Audit Partners: Evidence from the Propensity to Issue Modified Opinions to Group-Affiliated Audit Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY We analyze a unique incentive motivating audit partners to pursue new revenue streams from potential audit clients related to incumbent clients. In auditing clients belonging to business groups, a partner who issues a modified audit opinion (MAO) to a group-affiliated client risks losing not only that client but also the opportunity to extend their audit services to other member companies. We document that partners are less likely to render MAOs to group-affiliated clients when other group members are large relative to the partners’ client portfolio, and this relation intensifies when the incumbent group-affiliated clients themselves are economically less important. We also find that partners who issue MAOs to group-affiliated clients underperform in attracting new clients from the same business group. Further, investors perceive that audit quality is higher in these partners’ non-group-affiliated clients, reflecting that reputation protection forces discipline partners to resist the temptation to issue unwarranted clean opinions. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: M42.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".