There has been a strong growth in accounting firms' provisions of nonaudit services to their audit clients. To date, however, there have been few studies into the determinants of this joint provision of audit and nonaudit services. One reason for the paucity of research is the lack of publicly available data with which to empirically examine relationships and test theories. However, recent legislation in the United Kingdom requires publication of nonaudit fees paid to a company's auditor, and this disclosure provides the data with which to investigate the joint provision of consultancy and audit services. A model is developed that seeks to explain a company's decision to hire nonaudit services from the auditor. The model argues that companies that face potentially high agency costs purchase relatively smaller amounts of nonaudit services from their auditor. High agency‐cost companies require independent audits in order to reassure investors and creditors; the provision of joint services, which increases the economic bonding of the auditor to the client, may jeopardize independence or the appearance of independence. The model is tested using data observations from 500 companies, and the results indicate that companies that have higher agency‐cost proxies are associated with smaller purchases of nonaudit services from their auditors.

In this paper, we investigate whether, and how, audit effectiveness differentiation between Big 6 and non‐Big 6 auditors is influenced by a conflict or convergence of reporting incentives faced by corporate managers and external auditors. In so doing, we incorporate into our analysis the possibility that managers self‐select both external auditors and discretionary accruals, using the two stage “treatment effects” model. Our results show that only when managers have incentives to prefer income‐increasing accrual choices are Big 6 auditors more effective than non‐Big 6 auditors in deterring/monitoring opportunistic earnings management. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find Big 6 auditors are less effective than non‐Big 6 auditors when both managers and auditors have incentives to prefer income‐decreasing accrual choices and thus no conflict of reporting incentives exists between the two parties. The above findings are robust to different proxies for opportunistic earnings management and different proxies for the direction of earnings management incentives.

This study uses a unique institutional setting in China to investigate empirically the association between the organizational form of CPA firms (unlimited liability versus limited liability) and the reporting conservatism of auditors. Based on a sample of 5,007 audits of Chinese listed companies from the period of 2000 to 2004, we find that auditors in unlimited liability partnership firms are more likely to issue modified audit opinions than are auditors in limited liability CPA firms. This auditor conservatism stems from distressed firms with going-concern opinions, and we find no statistical evidence that partnerships give more modified opinions for non-distressed firms. In addition, auditors are less likely to issue modified reports after they incorporated the firm in the limited liability form. These analyses support our hypothesis that a limited liability regime induces lower auditor reporting conservatism. Our study contributes to the broader debate on liability reform in the auditing profession.