Market Concentration of the Big Four Audit Firms: The Feasibility of a Suggested Trade -- Divestiture for Liability Limitations

“No such thing as a failed experiment …. only experiments with unexpected outcomes.”-- American engineer-architect R. Buckminster Fuller

 Is the Big Four’s concentrated control of large company audits a real problem? Persistent voices of concern and attention extend back at least to the 2006 study for the Financial Reporting Counsel (here), recently joined by global leadership of BDO and Grants (here and here).

If so, is there a credible case to incentivize their exchange of market dominance for liability limitations?

Those issues were addressed this month in a paper from the American Antitrust Institute – here. In an all-too-rare burst of clarity, the AAI forthrightly recognizes that:

With pending claims totaling billions of dollars, the Big 4 audit firms face serious threats to their survival…. (L)iability exposure substantially exceeds the combined partner capital of the Big 4 firms… (They) contend that liability limits are necessary to prevent the loss of another Big 4 firm, which would throw the global financial system into chaos. (footnotes omitted)   

The AAI’s suggestion would be a legislated trade-off: “government incentives to break up the Big 4 into smaller, more competitive firms” – namely, a liability cap conditioned on a firm divesting itself of, say, 20% of its domestic revenue and the personnel serving the surrendered clients.

Can’t work – because of the many problems with the underlying but unachievable assumptions. 

But before getting there -- the AAI deserves credit at least for recognizing the completeness of the Big Four’s market dominance – auditing “nearly all of the world’s public companies with annual sales over $250 million” (emphasis in original) – with even tighter limitations on auditor choice in such industries as metals and mining, energy, air transportation and financial services.

Start with the political unacceptability of liability capping at a level that can assure Big Four survival. I have spelled out before (here) the financial limits of the large firms’ private partnership structure and their membrane-thin working capital, under which they cannot withstand litigation shocks above the $1 - $2 billion range – a tiny fraction (by either amount or percentage) of the exposures in their pending lawsuit inventory.

As the AAI paper summarizes, critics of liability protection point to the firms’ average litigation payouts, as a percentage of revenues and as compared to the far larger total of alleged damages. They fail to recognize – as do the arguments for capping from the profession itself -- that averages are meaningless when the “outlier” of a single verdict, falling outside the misleading comfort zone of a bell-curve model, could and would be devastating.   

So: because American politics offers no cover for protection at those levels, that side of the proposed AAI bargain is no solution. What of the other side -- the plausibility of large-scale competitors emerging from the suggested divestiture program? The facts dictate otherwise.

First, an abundance of small practices already exist. Why they have not coalesced into global-scale practices is a long-familiar story of limited geographic scope, expertise, risk appetite and readiness to invest.

Second, the smaller sector does not inspire confidence in its strength or capacity for quality growth to global scale. Of the largest, BDO’s Seidman firm in the US is on a deathwatch, facing the post-appeal enforceability of its $521 million jury verdict in Miami. Grant Thornton – not yet fully disengaged from the Refco matter in which lawyer Joe Collins just received a seven-year prison sentence – now faces the fall-out of being fired by Koss, its public but family-dominated Milwaukee client, whose CFO managed for years to steal amounts in excess of the company’s total net revenue (on which, to read Francine McKenna in unusually high dudgeon, see Re:The Auditors.)

Third, as a practical matter, how would global-scale competition emerge? If a Big Four firm were to hive off a small geography-based practice, that newcomer would suffer handicaps of capacity and expertise no different that those of the current smaller firms.  If a large firm were to shed an entire industry practice, no new competition is added to serve that industry. And if instead, it were to divide a viable large-scale practice, then each of the two sub-practices would be burdened with shortages of expertise, personnel and the capital strength necessary to build to scale and withstand their risks.

In summary, the AAI’s aspirations fall victim yet again to the Nirvana Fallacy – the defect in logic I described (here) in the comparison of a failing situation against an idealized state, without recognizing that the assumed achievement is impossible under real-world limits, flaws and constraints.

The large firms grew that way for service-based reasons. And dreams of expanding the population of pygmies do not, sadly, increase the likelihood of evolving a giant.

At bottom, the AAI’s most seriously under-examined assumption is that the “catastrophic” disintegration of another Big Four firm “would throw the global financial system into chaos.”

Why so? To the contrary, if the now-standard auditors’ report were suddenly not to be obtainable from any source, who would miss it?

Regulators and politicians would have convulsions, to be sure. But as the financial crisis itself has shown, that is daily practice for office-holders in the hermetic confines of Washington and London and Brussels.  

Should the stock exchanges be closed, if a Big Four failure meant that one-quarter of the large listed companies lacked an audit report? Could those companies’ securities be barred from trading? Unthinkable. Out where capital really flows and trade is actually engaged, the world’s markets would shrug, start the process of designing new forms of assurance from a blank page, and move on.

And the splintered pieces of the former Big Four would provide ample building blocks for a new assurance structure – without, pace the AAI, any need or use for the unintended and unpredictable hazards of another failed experiment.

Thanks for joining this dialog. Please share with friends and colleagues. And if not a subscriber, you are invited to sign on at the Home page. 

Comments

[Rick Telberg]

Excellent reasoning! As usual.

But, next question:

What would the new “structure” look like?

And why aren’t smart firms moving there already?

[Jim]

Thanks Rick.

As for why the firms aren’t going there — I’ve written on this — see my archive for July 11, 2009. A very quick summary is that their leaders are hand-cuffed to the present model, unable to break their partners from the revenue and unable in this litigation environment to offer or sell new kinds of assurance to their clients.
As for structure — to avoid catastrophic collapse, one possible scenario is federal chartering, so long as there is a real blank-page approach to the regulatory and liability issues. Again, see my archive for June 10, 2008.