Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (14)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (14)
Keywords
- Deutschland (6)
- Bilanzpolitik (4)
- Rechnungslegung (4)
- Audit Quality (3)
- Prüfungshonorare (3)
- Wirtschaftsprüfer (3)
- Wirtschaftsprüfung (3)
- Abschlussprüfer (2)
- Abschlussprüfung (2)
- Aufsichtsrat (2)
Aufgrund der bekannten Probleme der umlagefinanzierten gesetzlichen Rentenversicherung versucht der deutsche Gesetzgeber seit einiger Zeit, die eigenverantwortliche Altersvorsorge zu fördern. Häufig steht dabei die betriebliche Altersversorgung (bAV) im Fokus. In dieser Arbeit wird mittels Experten- und Arbeitnehmerinterviews ausführlich herausgearbeitet, wo zentrale Verbreitungshemmnisse der bAV liegen und wie diese durch Anpassung der steuer- und sozialversicherungsrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen adressiert werden können. Wesentliche Elemente dieser Reformüberlegungen sind in das zum 01.01.2018 in Kraft getretene Betriebsrentenstärkungsgesetz eingeflossen.
Daneben wird in dieser Arbeit mithilfe einer experimentalökonomischen Analyse gezeigt, wie verschiedene Arten der Besteuerung individuelle Sparentscheidungen beeinflussen können. Dabei wird deutlich, dass Individuen die Wirkung einer nachgelagerten Besteuerung häufig nicht korrekt wahrnehmen.
Die Prüfungshonorare branchenspezialisierter Wirtschaftsprüfer in der deutschen Versicherungsbranche
(2021)
Trotz der immensen ökonomischen Bedeutung von Versicherungen für marktwirtschaftlich orientierte Volkswirtschaften haben sich bis dato nur wenige nationale und internationale Forschungsarbeiten dem Abschlussprüfermarkt für Versicherungsunternehmen gewidmet. Die vorliegende Arbeit hat sich dieser Thematik angenommen und liefert empirische Resultate bezüglich des Abschlussprüfermarktes für Versicherungsunternehmen in Deutschland. Neben einer detaillierten Strukturanalyse steht hierbei die Frage im Fokus, ob testierende Prüfungspartner, welche in Bezug auf die deutsche Versicherungsbranche einen hohen Spezialisierungsgrad aufweisen, die Höhe des erhobenen Prüfungshonorars beeinflussen. Dabei wird auch der Tatsache Rechnung getragen, dass in Deutschland gewöhnlich zwei Wirtschaftsprüfer (Links- und Rechtsunterzeichner) mit unterschiedlichen Aufgaben- und Verantwortungsbereichen den Jahres- bzw. den Konzernabschluss testieren.
Die Resultate liefern Evidenz dafür, dass insbesondere Rechtsunterzeichner, denen entweder aufgrund ihres verhältnismäßig hohen Marktanteils bei Abschlussprüfungen in der Versicherungsbranche oder aufgrund ihrer Mitgliedschaft im IDW-Versicherungsfachausschuss ein hoher Spezialisierungsgrad zugesprochen wird, ökonomisch relevante Honoraraufschläge erzielen können.
Die Unabhängigkeit des Abschlussprüfers ist von anhaltender Relevanz, wird jedoch immer wieder in Frage gestellt. Der Fokus von Regulierungsbehörden und Forschung liegt auf kapitalmarktorientierten Unternehmen. Die Unabhängigkeit kann besonders gefährdet sein, wenn Schutzmechanismen, wie z. B. die Haftung oder das Risiko eines Reputationsverlustes, besonders schwach ausgeprägt sind. Es kann abgeleitet werden, dass bei privaten Unternehmen das Risiko eines Reputationsverlustes im Vergleich zu kapitalmarktorientierten Unternehmen geringer ist. Weiterhin ist das Haftungsrisiko für den Abschlussprüfer in Deutschland verglichen mit angelsächsischen Ländern geringer.
Damit untersucht die Arbeit die Unabhängigkeit in einem Umfeld, in dem diese besonders gefährdet ist. Als Surrogat wird die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Going-Concern-Modifikation („GCM“) herangezogen. GCM können als Indikator für die Prüfungsqualität besonders geeignet sein, da sie ein direktes Ergebnis der Tätigkeit des Abschlussprüfers sind und von ihm formuliert und verantwortet werden. Für das Surrogat GCM ist für Deutschland im Bereich der privaten Unternehmen bislang keine Studie bekannt.
In an Arrow-Debreu world of unrestricted access to perfect and competitive financial markets, there is no need for accounting information about the financial situation of a firm. Because information is costless, share- and stakeholders are then indifferent in deposits and securities (e.g., Holthausen & Watts 2001; Freixas & Rochet 2008). How-ever, several reasons exist indicating a rejection of the assumptions for an Arrow-Debreu world, hence there is no perfect costless information. Moreover, the distribu-tion of information is asymmetric, causing follow-through multi-level agency prob-lems, which are the main reasoning for the variety of financial and non-financial ac-counting standards, regulatory and advisory entities and the auditing and rating agency profession. Likewise, these agency problems have been at the heart of the accounting literature and raised the question of whether and how accounting information can help resolve these problems. ...
Banks perform important functions for the economy. Besides financial intermediation, banks provide information, liquidity, maturity- and risk-transformation (Fama, 1985). Banks ensure the transfer of liquidity from depositors to the most profitable investment projects. In addition, they perform important screening and monitoring services over investments hence contributing steadily to the efficient allocation of resources across the economy (Pathan and Faff, 2013). Since banks provide financial services all across the economy, this exposes banks (as opposed to non-banks) to systemic risk: the recent financial crisis revealed that banks can push economies into severe recessions. However, the crisis also revealed that certain bank types appear far more stable than others. For instance, cooperative banks performed better during the crisis than commercial banks. Different business models may reason these performance-differences: cooperative banks focus on relationship lending across their region, hence these banks suffered less from the collapse of the US housing market.
Since cooperative banks performed better during the crisis than commercial banks, it is quite surprising that research concerning cooperative banks is highly underrepresented in the literature. For this reason, the following three studies aim to contribute to current literature by examining three independent contemporaneous research questions in the context of cooperative banks.
Chapter 2 examines whether cooperative banks benefit from revenue diversification: Current banking literature reveals the recent trend in the overall banking industry that banks may opt for diversification by shifting their revenues to non-interest income. However, existing literature also shows that not every bank benefits from revenue diversification (Mercieca et al., 2007; Stiroh and Rumble, 2006; Goddard et al., 2008). Stiroh and Rumble (2006) find that large commercial banks (US Financial Holding Companies) perceive decreasing performance by shifting revenues towards non-interest income. Revenues from cooperative banks differ from those of commercial banks: commercial banks trade securities and derivatives, sell investment certificates and other trading assets. Concerning the lending business, commercial banks focus on providing loans for medium-sized and large companies rather than for small (private) customers. Cooperative banks rely on commission income (fees) from monetary transactions and selling insurances as a source of non-interest income. They generate most of their interest income by providing loans to small and medium-sized companies as well as to private customers in the region. These differences in revenues raise the question whether findings from Stiroh and Rumble (2006) apply to cooperative banks. For this reason, Chapter 2 evaluates a sample of German cooperative banks over the period 2005 to 2010 and aims to investigate the following research question: which cooperative banks benefit from revenue diversification?
Results show that findings from Stiroh and Rumble (2006) do not apply to cooperative banks. Revenue concentration is positive related to risk-adjusted returns (indirect effect) for cooperative banks. At the same time, non-interest income is more profitable than interest income (direct effect). The evaluation of the underlying non-interest income share shows that banks who heavily focus on non-interest income benefit by shifting towards non-interest income. This finding arises due to the fact, that the positive direct effect dominates the negative indirect effect, leading in a positive (and significant) net effect. Furthermore, results reveal a negative net effect for banks who are heavily exposed to interest generating activities. This indicates that shifting to non-interest income decreases risk-adjusted returns for these banks. Consequently, these banks do better by focusing on the interest business. Overall, results show evidence that banks need time to build capabilities, expertise and experience before trading off return and risk efficiently with regard on revenue diversification.
Chapter 3 deals with the relation between credit risk, liquidity risk, capital risk and bank efficiency: There has been rising competition in the European banking market due to technological development, deregulation and the introduction of the Euro as a common currency in recent decades. In order to remain competitive banks were forced to improve efficiency. That is, banks try to operate closer to a “best practice” production function in the sense that banks improve the input – output relation. The key question in this context is if banks improve efficiency at a cost of higher risk to compensate decreasing earnings. When it comes to bank risk, a large strand of literature discusses the issue of problem loans. Several studies identify that banks hold large shares of non-performing loans in their portfolio before becoming bankrupt (Barr and Siems, 1994; Demirgüc-Kunt, 1989). According to efficiency, studies show that the average bank generates low profits and incorporates high costs compared to the “best practice” production frontier (Fiordelisi et al., 2011; Williams, 2004). At first glance, these two issues do not seem related. However, Berger and DeYoung (1997) show that banks with poor management are less able to handle their costs (low cost-efficiency) as well as to monitor their debtors in an appropriate manner to ensure loan quality. The negative relationship between cost efficiency and non-performing loans leads to declining capital. Existing studies (e.g. Williams, 2004; Berger and DeYoung, 1997) show that banks with a low level of capital tend to engage in moral hazard behavior, which in turn can push these banks into bankruptcy.
However, the business model of cooperative banks is based on the interests of its commonly local customers (the cooperative act: § 1 GenG). This may imply that the common perception of banks engaging in moral hazard behavior may not apply to cooperative banks. Since short-term shareholder interests (as a potential factor for moral hazard behavior) play no role for cooperative banks this may support this notion. Furthermore, liquidity has been widely neglected in the existing literature, since the common perception has been that access to additional liquid funds is not an issue. However, the recent financial crisis revealed that liquidity dried up for many banks due to increased mistrust in the banking sector. Besides investigating moral hazard behavior, using data from 2005 to 2010 this study moves beyond current literature by employing a measure for liquidity risk in order to evaluate how liquidity risk relates to efficiency and capital.
Results mostly apply to current literature in this field since the empirical evaluation reveals that lower cost and profit-efficiency Granger-cause increases in credit risk. At the same time, results indicate that credit risk negatively Granger-causes cost and profit-efficiency, hence revealing a bi-directional relationship between these measures. However, most importantly, results also show a positive relationship between capital and credit risk, thus displaying that moral hazard behavior does not apply to cooperative banks. Especially the business model of cooperative banks, which is based on the interests of its commonly local customers (the cooperative act: § 1 GenG) may reason this finding. Contrary to Fiordelisi et al. (2011), results also show a negative relationship between capital and cost-efficiency, indicating that struggling cooperative banks focus on managing their cost-exposure in following periods. Concerning the employed liquidity risk measure, the authors find that banks who hold a high level of liquidity are less active in market related investments and hold high shares of equity capital. This outcome clearly reflects risk-preferences from the management of a bank.
Chapter 4 examines governance structures of cooperative banks: The financial crisis of 2007/08 led to huge distortions in the banking market. The failure of Lehman Brothers was the beginning of government interventions in various countries all over the world in order to prevent domestic economies from even further disruptions. In the aftermath of the crisis, politicians and regulators identified governance deficiencies as one major factor that contributed to the crisis. Besides existing studies in the banking literature (e.g. Beltratti and Stulz, 2012; Diamond and Rajan, 2009; Erkens et al., 2012) an OECD study from 2009 supports this notion (Kirkpatrick, 2009). Public debates increased awareness for the need of appropriate governance mechanisms at that time. Consequently, politicians and regulators called for more financial expertise on bank boards. Accordingly, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision states in principle 2 that “board members should remain qualified, individually and collectively, for their positions. They should understand their oversight and corporate governance role and be able to exercise sound, objective judgement about the affairs of the bank.” (BCBS, 2015). Taking these perceptions into consideration the prevailing question is whether financial experts on bank boards do really foster bank stability?
This chapter aims to investigate this question by referring to the study from Minton et al. (2014). In their study, the authors investigate US commercial bank holding companies between the period 2003 and 2008. The authors find that financial experts on the board of US commercial bank holding companies promote pro-cyclical bank performance. Accordingly, the authors question regulators view of more financial experts on the board leading to more banking stability.
However, Minton et al. (2014) do not examine whether their findings accrue due to financial experts who act in the interests of shareholders or due to the issue that financial experts may have a more risk-taking attitude (due to a better understanding of financial instruments) than other board members.
Supposed that their findings accrue due to financial experts who act in the interests of shareholders. Then financial experts on the board of banks where short-term shareholder interests play no role (cooperative banks) may prove beneficial with regard on bank performance during the crisis as well as in normal times. This would mean that they use their skills and expertise to contribute sustainable growth to the bank. Contrary, if this study reveals pro-cyclical bank performance related to financial experts on the board of cooperative banks, this finding may be addressed solely to the risk-taking attitude of financial experts (since short-term shareholder interests play no role). For this reason, this chapter aims to identify the channel for the relation of financial experts and bank performance by examining the following research question: Do financial experts on the board promote pro-cyclical bank performance in a setting where short-term shareholder interests play no role?
Results show that financial experts on the board of cooperative banks (data from 2006 to 2011) do not promote pro-cyclical bank performance. Contrary, results show evidence that financial experts on the board of cooperative banks appear to foster long-term bank stability. This suggests that regulators should consider ownership structure (and hence business model of banks) when imposing new regulatory constraints for financial experts on the bank board.
Accounting plays an essential role in solving the principal-agent problem between managers and shareholders of capital market-oriented companies through the provision of information by the manager. However, this can succeed only if the accounting information is of high quality. In this context, the perceptions of shareholders regarding earnings quality are of particular importance.
The present dissertation intends to contribute to a deeper understanding regarding earnings quality from the perspective of shareholders of capital market-oriented companies. In particular, the thesis deals with indicators of shareholders’ perceptions of earnings quality, the influence of the auditor’s independence on these perceptions, and the shareholders’ assessment of the importance of earnings quality in general. Therefore, this dissertation examines market reactions to earnings announcements, measures of earnings quality and the auditor’s independence, as well as shareholders’ voting behavior at annual general meetings.
Following the introduction and a theoretical part consisting of two chapters, which deal with the purposes of accounting and auditing as well as the relevance of shareholder voting at the annual general meeting in the context of the principal-agent theory, the dissertation presents three empirical studies.
The empirical study presented in chapter 4 investigates auditor ratification votes in a U.S. setting. The study addresses the question of whether the results of auditor ratification votes are informative regarding shareholders’ perceptions of earnings quality. Using a returns-earnings design, the study demonstrates that the results of auditor ratification votes are associated with market reactions to unexpected earnings at the earnings announcement date. Furthermore, there are indications that this association seems to be positively related to higher levels of information asymmetry between managers and shareholders. Thus, there is empirical support for the notion that the results of auditor ratification votes are earnings-related information that might help shareholders to make informed investment decisions.
Chapter 5 investigates the relation between the economic importance of the client and perceived earnings quality. In particular, it is examined whether and when shareholders have a negative perception of an auditor’s economic dependence on the client. The results from a Big 4 client sample in the U.S. (fiscal years 2010 through 2014) indicate a negative association between the economic importance of the client and shareholders’ perceptions of earnings quality. The results are interpreted to mean that shareholders are still concerned about auditor independence even ten years after the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Furthermore, the association between the economic importance of the client and shareholders’ perceptions of earnings quality applies predominantly to the subsample of clients that are more likely to be financially distressed. Therefore, the empirical results reveal that shareholders’ perceptions of auditor independence are conditional on the client’s circumstances.
The study presented in chapter 6 sheds light on the question of whether earnings quality influences shareholders’ satisfaction with the members of the company’s board. Using data from 1,237 annual general meetings of German listed companies from 2010 through 2015, the study provides evidence that earnings quality – measured by the absolute value of discretionary accruals – is related to shareholders’ satisfaction with the company’s board. Moreover, the findings imply that shareholders predominantly blame the management board for inferior earnings quality. Overall, the evidence that earnings quality positively influences shareholders’ satisfaction emphasizes the relevance of earnings quality.
Chapter 2 concerns the audit market for German credit institutions (excluding savings banks and cooperative banks), and the presented study allows conclusions to be drawn regarding recent concentration levels of this particular audit market. The last reliable (statistical) studies concerning the audit market for German credit institutions were published several years ago (Grothe 2005; Lenz 1996b; Lenz 1997; Lenz 1998). This is surprising because parts of the new regulations concerning the audit market for public-interest entities—which should also apply to credit institutions (European Commission 2006c)—in Europe would require analyses of the audit market concentration to be performed on a regular basis. Therefore, this study begins to fill this research gap, and it reveals that the audit market for German credit institutions was highly concentrated (market leadership: KPMG AG WPG and PricewaterhouseCoopers AG WPG) in 2006 and 2010. Moreover, the findings also highlight that between these years, neither a notable trend toward higher levels of concentration nor a deconcentration process was evident. Finally, it is illustrated that the regulatory requirements for publishing audit fees and the corresponding right to claim exemption (§§ 285 Sentence 1 No. 17, 314 (1) No. 9 Commercial Code) do not allow the calculation of concentration figures that cover the entire audit market for credit institutions. Thus, it will continue to be necessary to use surrogates for audit fees, and analyses reveal that the arithmetic mean of the total business volume (or total assets) of a credit institution and its square root is a very good surrogate for calculating concentration measures based on audit fees.
Chapter 3 seeks to determine whether public oversight of public-interest entities (PIEs) increases audit fees specifically in the financial industry, which is already a highly regulated industry characterized by intense supervision. To answer this question, a sample of 573 German credit institutions is examined over the 2009–2011 period, as not all credit institutions were considered PIEs in Germany (until very recently). First, the results show that a credit institution’s business risk is related to audit fees. In addition, the findings reveal not only that PIE credit institutions pay statistically significantly higher audit fees but also that this effect is economically substantial (representing an audit fee increase of 31.38%). Finally, there are several indications that the relationship between (other) credit institutions’ business risks and audit fees is greater for PIE credit institutions.
Chapter 4 examines the association between the results of auditor ratification votes and perceived external financial reporting quality. As has been recently remarked by Wei et al. (2015), far too little is known about shareholders’ interests in and perceptions of the election, approval or ratification of auditors. Although auditor ratification by shareholders is normally a routine, non-binding action and the voting ratios are in the range of 95% or higher, the SEC emphasized the importance of this process by amending the disclosure requirements for such voting results in 2010 (SEC 2009; SEC 2010). This study demonstrates that the results of auditor ratification votes are associated with market reactions to earnings surprises (SEC registrants; 2010 to 2013). Moreover, there are moderate indications that this effect may be positively related to higher levels of information asymmetry between managers and shareholders, that such voting results contain incremental informational content beyond that of other publicly available audit-related information, and that the time lag between the ratification of an auditor and the earnings announcement influences the vote’s importance. Finally, the study sheds additional light on an overlooked audit-related topic (e.g., Dao et al. 2012; Hermanson et al. 2009; Krishnan and Ye 2005; Sainty et al. 2002), and illustrates its relation to accounting. More importantly, the provided evidence indicates that disclosure of the results of auditor ratification votes might benefit (prospective) shareholders.
Chapter 5 addresses the question of whether and when shareholders may have a negative perception of an auditor’s economic dependence on the client. The results for a Big 4 client sample in the U.S. (2010 to 2014) show that the economic importance of the client—measured at the audit office-level—is negatively associated with shareholders’ perceptions of external financial reporting quality—measured in terms of the earnings response coefficient and the ex ante cost of equity capital—and, therefore, is perceived as a threat to auditor independence. Moreover, the study reveals that shareholders primarily regard independence due to client dependence as a problem for firms that are more likely to be in financially distressed conditions.
Die vorliegende Studie liefert in drei gleichrangigen Teilen empirische Befunde zu den Steuern und Beiträgen auf lokaler Ebene.
In den ersten beiden Teilen wird die Realsteuerpolitik deutscher Kommunen quantitativ datenempirisch und qualitativ in Form einer Expertenbefragung untersucht. Hierbei wird insbesondere der Frage nachgegangen, welche Determinanten das gemeindliche Hebesatzniveau bei der Gewerbesteuer und den Grundsteuern A und B bestimmen.
Der dritte Teil analysiert die Beitragseinnahmen der Industrie- und Handelskammern. Der IHK-Beitrag ist deren zentrale Einnahmeposition und knüpft ebenfalls an der gewerbesteuerlichen Bemessungsgrundlage an. Die Abhängigkeit von einer zum Teil volatilen Bemessungsgrundlage stellt die Kammern bei ihrer Budgetplanung vor große Herausforderungen. Zur Steigerung der Planungsgenauigkeit wurde ein Prognosemodell entwickelt, das einen präziseren Rückschluss auf künftige Beitragseinnahmen zulässt.
The present dissertation includes three research papers dealing with the following banking topics: (dis-) incentives and risk taking, earnings management and the regulation of supervisory boards.
„Do cooperative banks suffer from moral hazard behaviour? Evidence in the context of efficiency and risk“:
We use Granger-causality techniques to evaluate the intertemporal relationships among risk, efficiency and capital. We use two different measures of bank efficiency, i.e., cost and profit efficiency, since these measures reflect different managerial abilities. One is the ability to manage costs, and the other is the ability to maximize profits. We find that lower cost and profit efficiency Granger-cause increases in liquidity risk. We also identify that credit risk negatively Granger-causes cost and profit efficiency. Most importantly, our results show a positive relationship between capital and credit risk, thus displaying that moral hazard (due to limited liability and deposit insurance) does not apply to our sample of cooperative banks. On the contrary, we find evidence that banks with low capital are able to improve their loan quality in subsequent periods. These findings may be important to regulators, who should consider banks’ business models when introducing new regulatory capital constraints.
„Earnings Management Modelling in the Banking Industry – Evaluating valuable approaches“:
Accounting research has separately studied the field of Earnings Management (EM) for non-financial and financial industries. Since EM cannot be observed directly, it is important for every research question in any setting to find a verifiable proxy for EM. However, we still lack a thorough understanding of what regressors can add value to the estimation process of EM in banks. This study tries to close this gap and analyses existing model specifications of discretionary loan loss provisions (LLP) in the banking sector to identify common pattern groups and specific patterns used. Thereupon, we use an US-dataset from 2005-2015 and apply prevalent test procedures to examine the extent of measurement errors, extreme performance and omitted-variable biases and predictive power of the discretionary proxies of each of the models. Our results indicate that a thorough understanding about the methodological modelling process of EM in the banking industry is important. The currently established models to estimate EM are appropriate yet optimizable. In particular, we identify non-performing asset patterns as the most important group, while loan loss allowances and net charge offs can add some value, though do not seem to be indispensable. In addition, our results show that non-linearity of certain regressors can be an issue, which should be addressed in future research, while we identify some omitted and possibly correlated variables that might add value to specifications in identifying non-discretionary LLP. Results also indicate that a dynamic model and endogeneity robust estimation approach is not necessarily linked to better prediction power.
„Board Regulation and its Impact on Composition and Effects – Evidence from German Cooperative Bank“:
This study employs a system GMM framework to examine the impact of potential regulatory intervention regarding the occupations of supervisory board members in cooperative banks. To achieve insights the study proceeds in two different ways. First, the author investigates the changes in board structure prior and following to the German Act to Strengthen Financial Market and Insurance Supervision (FinVAG). Second, the author estimates the influence of Ph.D. degree holders and occupational concentration on bank-risk changes in consideration of the implementation of FinVAG. Therefore, the sample consists of 246 German cooperative banks from 2006-2011. Regarding bank-risk the author applies four different measures: credit-, equity-, liquidity-risk and the Z-Score, with the former three also being addressed in FinVAG. Results indicate that the implementation of FinVAG results in structural changes in board composition, especially at the expense of farmers. In addition, the implementation affects all risk-measures and relations between risk-measures and supervisory board characteristics in a risk-reducing and therefore intended way.
To disentangle the complex relationship between board characteristics and risk measures the study utilizes a two-step system GMM estimator to account for unobserved heterogeneity, and simultaneity in order to reduce endogeneity problems. The findings may be especially relevant for stakeholders, regulators, supervisors and managers.
Nicht börsennotierte Unternehmen stellen in den meisten Volkswirtschaften die Mehrzahl der Unternehmen, leisten einen erheblichen Beitrag zur Wirtschaftskraft der Länder und beschäftigen eine Vielzahl von Arbeitnehmern. Bisher ist jedoch nur in geringem Ausmaß darüber bekannt, welche Rolle die Institution „Abschlussprüfung“ bei diesen Unternehmen spielt. Der bisherige Befund der internationalen und nationalen Prüfungsforschung fokussiert sich überwiegend auf das relativ kleine Prüfungsmarktsegment der börsennotierten Unternehmen, vernachlässigt dabei aber den Markt der nicht börsennotierten Prüfungsmandate.
Die vorliegende Studie beschäftigt sich deswegen mit den Fragen, welche Bedeutung der Institution „Abschlussprüfung“ bei nicht börsennotierten Unternehmen zukommt und wie dieses Segment des Prüfungsmarktes charakterisiert werden kann.
Anhand der Untersuchung von Prüfungshonoraren und der Prüferwahlentscheidung werden Faktoren identifiziert, die das Angebot und die Nachfrage nach Prüfungsqualität bei großen, nicht börsennotierten Unternehmen beeinflussen. Besonders beleuchtet werden die Bedeutung von Agency-Konflikten im Hinblick auf den Prüfungsqualitätsbedarf bei nicht börsennotierten Unternehmen, die Rolle von mittelgroßen Prüfungsgesellschaften und das Angebot und die Erbringung von Nichtprüfungsleistungen.
Die multivariaten Analysen zeigen, dass sich vor allem Agency-Konflikte sowie Größen- und Komplexitätsfaktoren auf Angebot und Nachfrage nach Prüfungsqualität auswirken. Honorarprämien für große und mittelgroße Prüfungsgesellschaften sprechen für eine mehrstufige Qualitätsdifferenzierung innerhalb der Gruppe der Anbieter von Prüfungsleistungen. Auch die gleichzeitige Erbringung von Beratungsleistungen durch den Abschlussprüfer übt einen signifikanten Einfluss aus.
Diese Ergebnisse sprechen dafür, dass die Institution „Abschlussprüfung“ auch bei nicht börsennotierten Unternehmen eine wichtige Rolle spielt. Zudem zeigt die Studie auch, dass sich das Prüfungsmarktsegment für diese Mandate in einigen Punkten wesentlich vom börsennotierten Marktsegment unterscheidet.