As part of its goal to monitor and enhance the quality of information available to investors, the SEC reviews companies' filings to ensure compliance with applicable financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Increased public interest and the substantial costs for both the SEC in reviewing and the companies in responding have led to a rapidly growing body of accounting literature that examines the filing review process. We survey and comment on 80 published and unpublished academic research papers in this literature and identify significant gaps that future research should address. We also summarize the institutional features of the filing review process, aiming to inform future academic studies. Our survey should be of interest to both academics and market participants evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the filing review process.

In this study, we examine the benefits of membership in an accounting firm association, network, or alliance (collectively referred to as “an association”). Associations provide member accounting firms with numerous benefits, including access to the expertise of professionals from other independent member firms, joint conferences and technical trainings, assistance in dealing with staffing and geographic limitations, and the ability to use the association name in marketing materials. We expect these benefits to result in higher-quality audits and higher audit fees (or audit fee premiums). Using hand-collected data on association membership, we find that association member firms conduct higher-quality audits than nonmember firms, where audit quality is proxied for by fewer Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection deficiencies and fewer financial statement misstatements, as well as less extreme absolute discretionary accruals and lower positive discretionary accruals. We also find that audit fees are higher for clients of member firms than for clients of nonmember firms, suggesting that clients are willing to pay an audit fee premium to engage association member audit firms. Finally, we find that member firm audits are of similar quality to a size-matched sample of Big 4 audits, but member firm clients pay lower fee premiums than do Big 4 clients. Our inferences are robust to the use of company size-matched control samples, audit firm size-matched control samples, propensity score matching, two-stage least squares regression, and to analyses that consider changes in association membership. Our findings should be of interest to regulators because they suggest that association membership assists small audit firms in overcoming barriers to auditing larger audit clients. In addition, our findings should be informative to audit committees when making auditor selection decisions, and to investors and accounting researchers interested in the relation between audit firm type and audit quality.

The SEC has long asserted that earnings management practices result in adverse consequences for investors. We examine whether SEC oversight affects firms' accounting quality in terms of earnings management trade‐offs. We expect that increased firm‐specific regulatory scrutiny, in the form of an SEC comment letter, will induce management to switch from accrual‐based earnings management (AEM), which is a main focus of the SEC, to real‐activities‐based earnings management (REM), which is not likely to be commented on in the SEC's review process. Consistent with our predictions, we find that AEM is lower and REM is higher following the receipt of a comment letter, relative to non‐comment‐letter years and a propensity‐score‐matched sample of non‐comment‐letter firms. However, we do not find a significant difference in total earnings management (i.e., the sum of AEM and REM), suggesting that the higher REM acts as a substitute for lower AEM activity. We further find that our results are driven by accounting comments relating to estimates and accruals and not by classification‐only comments, which suggests that a comment letter that does not question specific issues associated with estimates and accruals is not a strong enough signal to induce the firm to change earnings management behavior. Additionally, the shift to REM is attenuated for firms with high institutional ownership. These results collectively suggest that the comment letter process effectively constrains AEM but has the unintended consequence of firms, on average, switching to REM.

Oversight responsibilities for many audit committees (ACs) are evolving to include some of the hottest topics in the boardroom: enterprise risk management, cybersecurity, and environmental, social, and governance reporting. However, certain ACs avoid overseeing these evolving areas, creating significant variation across boards in the assignment of responsibilities. In this study, we seek to understand how ACs respond when environmental changes create new evolving risks that may extend the boundary of their traditional domain. To do so, we interview a diverse set of 29 AC members from U.S. publicly traded companies. We analyze our data through the theoretical lens of collaborative boundary work to identify how ACs respond by extending, blurring, or maintaining their perceived oversight boundaries, the related implications of these decisions, and their key tactics employed to manage AC workload. Our findings should be of interest to boards, investors, and regulators tasked with monitoring AC effectiveness.

We investigate changes in the quality and cost of audit services surrounding PCAOB Rule 3211, which requires disclosure of audit partner names in Form AP. To isolate changes due to Rule 3211 from other confounding factors, we use difference-in-differences analyses with separate control groups, including a group of companies that disclosed partner identities prior to Rule 3211. Our study also incorporates several measures from prior literature to proxy for various dimensions of audit quality. Evidence from the difference-in-differences analyses reveals that any immediate impact of Rule 3211 on audit quality or fees is limited to specific dimensions of audit quality, specific control groups, and/or specific company characteristics. We reach this conclusion after considering alternative research designs and evaluating confidence intervals for statistically insignificant coefficients. We caution that our findings only provide initial evidence and further research is necessary to evaluate other potential impacts of Rule 3211.