Résumé. Les vérificateurs, les responsables de la réglementation et les universitaires s'intéressent à la pratique du ≪ leurre‐prix ≫ et à sa relation avec l'objectivité du vérificateur. Cette question a même fait l'objet de plusieurs modèles analytiques. Ces théories n'ont cependant jamais été testées, principalement à cause de l'absence de données concrètes relatives à d'importantes variables contextuelles. Les auteurs de la présente étude élaborent un modèle à périodes multiples s'appliquant à la pratique du leurre‐prix et à l'objectivité du vérificateur et l'expérimentent dans des marchés de laboratoire en recourant à la méthodologie de l'économique expérimentale. Leur étude vient enrichir la documentation existante sous deux rapports. D'abord, il s'agit de l'une des premières études à produire une argumentation empirique et à expérimenter la théorie de la relation entre la pratique du leurre‐prix et l'objectivité. Ensuite, le modèle repose sur un raisonnement nouveau relatif à la pratique du leurre‐prix et à sa relation avec l'objectivité du vérificateur. La pratique du leurre‐prix et l'atteinte à l'objectivité, qui se manifestent indépendamment des coûts exogènes des opérations, sont le résultat de la prémisse d'une variation transversale dans les coûts et la qualité de la vérification et d'un avantage relatif à l'information qui échoit à un couple vérificateur attitré‐client en ce qui a trait à l'évolution de ces dimensions de la vérification. Les auteurs ont appliqué le modèle pendant un certain nombre de périodes à des marchés de laboratoire réunissant plusieurs acheteurs et plusieurs vendeurs. Ils ont observé seize de ces marchés dans le but de vérifier la valeur prédictive du modèle en ce qui a trait aux prix et à l'information communiquée. L'expérience est concluante quant à la pratique du leurre‐prix, mais elle n'est pas convaincante en ce qui a trait à la prévision exacte des prix. L'expérience confirme également la validité des prévisions relatives à l'information communiquée, les vendeurs ne s'éloignant de la vérité (et faisant une entorse à l'objectivité) que lorsque les profits supplémentaires qu'ils sont susceptibles d'en retirer sont supérieurs aux coûts supplémentaires que risque d'entraîner la communication d'information inexacte. L'on peut obtenir les données relatives aux marchés de laboratoire utilisées dans le présent document en en faisant la demande aux auteurs.

Abstract. Auditors, regulators, and academics are interested in the pricing practice of “lowballing” and its relationship to auditor independence. Several analytical models have examined these issues. However, these theories have gone untested primarily due to a lack of field data concerning important environmental variables. In this study, a multiperiod model of lowballing and independence is developed and tested in laboratory markets via the experimental economics methodology. The study contributes to the literature in two respects. First, it represents one of the first studies providing empirical evidence and theory testing of the relationship between lowballing and independence. Second, the model presents a new rationale for low‐ball pricing and its relationship to auditor independence. Lowballing and impairment of independence, occurring without exogenous transaction costs, are caused by positing cross‐sectional variation in audit cost and quality and an informational advantage that accrues to an incumbent auditor‐client pair regarding future variation in these audit dimensions. The model is operationalized in a multiperiod laboratory market consisting of multiple sellers and buyers. Sixteen markets are conducted to test price and reporting predictions of the model. The markets strongly exhibit lowballing behavior, but the exact price predictions are generally not supported. The markets also support reporting predictions, with sellers deviating from truthful reporting (impairing their independence) only when additional future profits are greater than the additional cost of misreporting. Data availability. The laboratory market data used in this paper are available from the authors upon request.

[This study tests the competitive equilibrium predictions of a multi-period model of audit pricing and independence in two sets of laboratory markets: a control set consisting of human subjects in the role of auditors contracting with robot clients, and a treatment set in which both auditors and clients are human subjects. The results in all the control-set markets and some of the treatment markets support the predictions of "lowball" pricing and that heterogeneous beliefs among auditors regarding the treatment of a client-reporting issue is a necessary condition for independence impairment. By contrast, several treatment-set markets exhibit cooperative behavior between auditors and clients to achieve jointly beneficial outcomes. This behavior deviates from the price-independence relationship predicted in the competitive equilibrium, exhibiting instead a price-independence relationship that is characterized by an absence of lowballing and frequent independence impairment, even when auditors have homogeneous beliefs.]

Abstract This study tests the competitive equilibrium predictions of a multi-period model of audit pricing and independence in two sets of laboratory markets: a control set consisting of human subjects in the role of auditors contracting with robot clients, and a treatment set in which both auditors and clients are human subjects. The results in all the control-set markets and some of the treatment markets support the predictions of "lowball" pricing and that heterogeneous beliefs among auditors regarding the treatment of a client-reporting issue is a necessary condition for independence impairment. By contrast, several treatment-set markets exhibit cooperative behavior between auditors and clients to achieve jointly beneficial outcomes. This behavior deviates from the price-independence relationship predicted in the competitive equilibrium, exhibiting instead a price-independence relationship that is characterized by an absence of lowballing and frequent independence impairment, even when auditors have homogeneous beliefs.

Abstract We use experimental markets to test the Datar, Feltham, and Hughes (DFH) 1991 model of entrepreneur choice of auditor and retained ownership in initial public offerings (IPOs). DFH predict that entrepreneurs use retained ownership to signal IPO value and substitute high‐quality auditors for retained ownership to signal value as the risk of the IPO increases. Given the mixed support for DFH from archival research, we conduct experimental markets that directly operationalize the model's decision variables, which permits a direct test of whether the model is descriptively valid. In addition, our market setting provides a strong test of this theory by including an alternative Nash equilibrium also present in field settings, one in which only auditor quality is used by entrepreneurs to signal IPO value. Our results suggest that DFH predict entrepreneur behavior in baseline markets where both computerized investors and auditors are programmed to price consistently with the DFH equilibrium. However, the DFH model does not describe behavior when “robot” investors are replaced with human investors in the market. The results suggest that entrepreneurs and investors strategically interact in a manner that leads them away from the DFH equilibrium and toward the alternative Nash equilibrium behavior of entrepreneurs with high‐value assets hiring high‐quality auditors irrespective of IPO risk. Our results imply that the DFH model has limited descriptive validity, document the importance of strategic behavior on market equilibrium formation, and suggest that the mixed results found in prior DFH‐based field studies may reflect the model's low descriptive validity.

Abstract This study uses experimental markets to investigate how moral reasoning influences auditor reporting under different levels of economic incentives. In each multiperiod market, auditor subjects could either (1) misreport low observed outcomes as high and thereby reap economic advantages at the expense of third‐party investors, or (2) truthfully report low observed outcomes as low but thereby forgo the economic advantages of misreporting. We extend the Calegari, Schatzberg, and Sevcik 1998 experimental‐markets setting to incorporate moral reasoning, and test hypotheses based on the economic model of Magee and Tseng 1990 and the neo‐Kohlbergian moral reasoning framework of Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma 1999. We document a significant effect of moral reasoning on auditor behavior. Specifically, we find that misreporting and premium fees are more likely with higher than with lower moral reasoning subjects, and the moral reasoning effect diminishes as economic penalties increase in the market. These findings provide valuable insights for specifying the determinants of auditor misreporting, the observable behaviors that signal its existence, and the institutions that can prevent its occurrence in the market. We conclude that the relation between moral reasoning and behavior is more complex than commonly assumed in the accounting literature, and identify directions for future research.