The same network auditor, family business groups and earnings manipulation: an evidence from emerging market

Purpose This paper aims to examine whether family business groups’ (FBG) having the same network auditor among their affiliates mitigates earnings manipulation (EM). Design/methodology/approach This paper used unbalanced panel data from the years 2010–2019. The sample of the study is composed of 327 nonfinancial listed Pakistan Stock Exchange firms, consisting of 187 FBG-affiliated firms and 140 nonaffiliated firms. The ordinary least square and generalized least square regressions have been used to check the hypothesized relationship. Furthermore, the propensity score matching technique is used to ascertain comparable companies’ features and to control the potential endogeneity problem. Finally, the results are robust to various measures of EM and FBG’ proxies. Findings The findings of the study show that the same network auditor is reducing EM in FBG affiliates. In addition, the BIG4 same network auditors are also instrumental in constraining EM as compared to non-BIG4 audit firms. Overall, the results of this study depict that the same network auditor in FBG’s affiliated firms significantly influences EM. These results are robust with respect to generalized least squares and the endogeneity problem. Research limitations/implications This research study has two important implications for the interested parties. First, although the authors find in this research study that the same network auditor is negatively associated with EM in the FBG-affiliated firms, however, FBG-affiliated firms might use opportunistically the real activity manipulation. Second, regulators highlight the change in audit partner/firm rotation, though the study findings indicate that regulators and practitioners may consider the benefits associated with the same network auditors for FBG. Originality/value This research study adds a new investigation to previous literature by examining the role of the same network auditors in the EM of the FBG’ affiliates. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to bring new knowledge by investigating the role played by the same network auditors along with the BIG4 same network audit firms in constraining EM in FBG.