In 2005–2006, the PCAOB imposed restrictions on auditors' tax services in order to strengthen auditor independence and improve audit quality. The restrictions resulted in a significant drop in auditor-provided tax services (APTS). To test the impact on audit quality, I partition the sample into a treatment group (companies whose APTS purchases dropped significantly when the restrictions were introduced) and a control group (companies whose APTS purchases were relatively unaffected) and I measure audit quality using the incidence of accounting misstatements, tax-related misstatements, and auditors' going-concern opinions. Using a difference-in-differences design, I find no change in audit quality for the treatment group relative to the control group after the restrictions are imposed.

Theory suggests that managers issue earnings forecasts to reduce information asymmetry. An earnings forecast is more effective in reducing information asymmetry if it contains earnings news that is relatively more informative about the firm's value. We hypothesize that a manager is more likely to issue an earnings forecast if investors perceive that earnings are more informative. We measure earnings informativeness by estimating the firm's earnings response coefficient (ERC) in quarters prior to the forecast issuance decision. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that the firm's historic ERC is positively associated with management's issuance of earnings forecasts.

A company officer is an "alumnus" if he previously worked for an audit firm. Iyer, Bamber, and Barefield (1997) find that alumni have ties with their former audit firms and alumni are more inclined to provide economic benefits to former firms if they have stronger ties. If the alumnus is a senior corporate officer, the alumnus may benefit his former firm by recommending that the company appoint the firm as its auditor. However, the company's audit committee may be concerned that officer-auditor ties threaten audit quality. Therefore, an independent audit committee may not sanction the appointment of the officer's former firm. This study investigates (a) whether companies tend to appoint officers' former audit firms, and (b) whether independent audit committees mitigate this tendency. We document that companies appoint officers' former firms more often than they appoint alternative audit firms. However, companies are less likely to appoint officers' former firms if audit committees are more independent. This suggests that independent audit committees strengthen audit quality by deterring affiliations between audit firms and officers. © CAAA.

We find that over six hundred auditors with fewer than 100 SEC clients exit the market following SOX. Compared to the non-exiting auditors, the exiting auditors are lower quality, where quality is gauged by: (1) avoidance of AICPA peer reviews and failure to comply with PCAOB rules, and (2) severity of the peer review and inspection reports. In addition, clients of exiting auditors receive higher quality auditing from successor auditors, as captured by a greater likelihood of receiving going concern opinions. Our results suggest that the PCAOB inspections improve audit quality by incentivizing low quality auditors to exit the market.

We investigate whether Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspections affect the quality of internal control audits. Our research design improves on prior studies by exploiting both cross-sectional and time-series variation in the content of PCAOB inspection reports, while also controlling for audit firm and year fixed effects, effectively achieving a difference-in-differences research design. We find that when PCAOB inspectors report higher rates of deficiencies in internal control audits, auditors respond by increasing the issuance of adverse internal control opinions. We also find that auditors issue more adverse internal control opinions to clients with concurrent misstatements, who thus genuinely warrant adverse opinions. We further find that higher inspection deficiency rates lead to higher audit fees, consistent with PCAOB inspections prompting auditors to undertake costly remediation efforts. Taken together, our results are consistent with the PCAOB inspections improving the quality of internal control audits by prompting auditors to remediate deficiencies in their audits of internal controls.

This study examines whether audit adjustments are a mechanism that links the effect of mandatory internal control audits (MICAs) on financial reporting quality. We argue that the requirement for auditors to publicly disclose internal control weaknesses exacerbated auditor-client conflicts and that this resulted in auditors being less likely to detect (and correct) misstatements in their clients' pre-audit financial statements. Consistent with this argument, we find significant reductions in audit adjustments following the staggered introduction of MICAs using data from China. We find the reductions in audit adjustments are associated with significant increases in material misstatements following the introduction of MICAs. In contrast, we find that the introduction of MICAs led to a significant reduction in material misstatements among clients that did not experience reductions in audit adjustments. Overall, the two effects offset each other, which explains why financial reporting quality did not improve, on average, following the introduction of MICAs.

Exploiting a natural experiment in which voluntary audits replace mandatory audits for U.K. private companies, we analyze whether imposing audits suppresses valuable information about the types of companies that would voluntarily choose to be audited. We control for the assurance benefits of auditing to isolate the role signaling plays by focusing on companies that are audited under both regimes. These companies experience no change in audit assurance, although they can now reveal for the first time their desire to be audited. We find that these companies attract upgrades to their credit ratings because they send a positive signal by submitting to an audit when this is no longer legally required. In contrast, companies that dispense with being audited suffer downgrades to their ratings because avoiding an audit sends a negative signal and removes its assurance value. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources.