We investigate (1) whether the variation in accounting standards across national boundaries relative to International Accounting Standards (IAS) has an impact on the ability of financial analysts to forecast non‐U.S. firms’ earnings accurately, and (2) whether analyst forecast accuracy changes after firms adopt IAS. IAS are a set of financial reporting policies that typically require increased disclosure and restrict management’s choices of measurement methods relative to the accounting standards of our sample firms’ countries of domicile. We develop indexes of differences in countries’ accounting disclosure and measurement policies relative to IAS, and document that greater differences in accounting standards relative to IAS are significantly and positively associated with the absolute value of analyst earnings forecast errors. Further, we show that analyst forecast accuracy improves after firms adopt IAS. More specifically, after controlling for changes in the market value of equity, changes in analyst following, and changes in the number of news reports, we find that the convergence in firms’ accounting policies brought about by adopting IAS is positively associated with the reduction in analyst forecast errors.

Despite the increasing integration of global capital markets, there is little evidence on the valuation properties of cross-listed, non-U.S. firms' accounting variables. We use the relative performance of the earnings capitalization, the book value, and the residual income valuation models to explore the valuation properties of International Accounting Standards and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles earnings and book values reported by non-U.S., cross-listed firms trading in a common equity market. Using non-U.S./non-U.K. firms whose shares trade on the International Stock Exchange Automated Quotation system in London, we find that the earnings capitalization model is the dominant accounting-based valuation model when crosslisted firms report under International Accounting Standards. In contrast, we find that when cross-listed firms report under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the residual income model is the dominant accountingbased valuation model. Our exploratory study provides insights into the valuation implications of allowing a dual reporting system for foreign registrants trading in a common equity market.

We investigate whether firms with strong corporate governance benefit from higher credit ratings relative to firms with weaker governance. We document, after controlling for firm-specific risk characteristics, that credit ratings are negatively associated with the number of blockholders and CEO power, and positively related to takeover defenses, accrual quality, earnings timeliness, board independence, board stock ownership, and board expertise. We also provide evidence that CEOs of firms with speculative-grade credit ratings are overcompensated to a greater degree than their counterparts at firms with investment-grade ratings, thus providing one explanation for why some firms operate with weak governance.

We use internal control deficiency (ICD) disclosures prior to mandated internal control audits to investigate economic factors that expose firms to control failures and managements’ incentives to discover and report control problems. We find that, relative to non-disclosers, firms disclosing ICDs have more complex operations, recent organizational changes, greater accounting risk, more auditor resignations and have fewer resources available for internal control. Regarding incentives to discover and report internal control problems, ICD firms have more prior SEC enforcement actions and financial restatements, are more likely to use a dominant audit firm, and have more concentrated institutional ownership.

This paper challenges the findings of Frankel et al. (2002) (FJN). The results of our discretionary accruals tests differ from FJN's when we adjust discretionary current accruals for firm performance. In our earnings benchmark tests, in contrast to FJN we find no statistically significant association between firms meeting analyst forecasts and auditor fees. Our market reaction tests also provide different results than those reported by FJN. Overall, our study indicates that FJN's results are sensitive to research design choices, and we find no systematic evidence supporting their claim that auditors violate their independence as a result of clients purchasing relatively more nonaudit services.

The Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) mandates management evaluation and independent audits of internal control effectiveness. The mandate is costly to firms but may yield benefits through lower information risk that translates into lower cost of equity. We use unaudited pre–SOX 404 disclosures and SOX 404 audit opinions to assess how changes in internal control quality affect firm risk and cost of equity. After controlling for other risk factors, we find that firms with internal control deficiencies have significantly higher idiosyncratic risk, systematic risk, and cost of equity. Our change analyses document that auditor‐confirmed changes in internal control effectiveness (including remediation of previously disclosed internal control deficiencies) are followed by significant changes in the cost of equity that range from 50 to 150 basis points. Overall, our cross‐sectional and intertemporal change test results are consistent with internal control reports affecting investors' risk assessments and firms' cost of equity.

This paper investigates the effect of internal control deficiencies and their remediation on accrual quality. We first document that firms reporting internal control deficiencies have lower quality accruals as measured by accrual noise and absolute abnormal accruals relative to firms not reporting internal control problems. Second, we find that firms that report internal control deficiencies have significantly larger positive and larger negative abnormal accruals relative to control firms. This finding suggests internal control weaknesses are more likely to lead to unintentional errors that add noise to accruals than intentional misstatements that bias earnings upward. Third, we document that firms whose auditors confirm remediation of previously reported internal control deficiencies exhibit an increase in accrual quality relative to firms that do not remediate their control problems. Finally, we find firms that receive different internal control audit opinions in successive years exhibit changes in accrual quality consistent with changes in internal control quality. Collectively, our cross-sectional and intertemporal change tests provide strong evidence that the quality of internal control affects the quality of accruals.