ABSTRACT This study examines the impact of ex ante litigation risk on auditor hiring and retention. Using employee data from LinkedIn, we find ex ante accounting-related litigation risk is associated with fewer auditors joining and more auditors leaving an audit office, whereas we fail to find any impact of nonaccounting litigation risk. Moreover, ex ante accounting-related litigation risk is associated with audit firms' hiring less experienced and less educated auditors, suggesting ex ante litigation risk impacts the quality of auditing hires. We also find that the impact of ex ante litigation risk is concentrated in audit offices with more outside job opportunities and in those that are more susceptible to changes in litigation risk. Our results highlight the impact of ex ante litigation risk on audit labor supply, providing insights concerning the unintended consequences of increasing auditors' legal liability. Data Availability: All data used in this study are based on publicly available information obtained through the services or authors cited in the manuscript. JEL Classifications: M42.

This paper studies voluntary disclosures that firms have suspended, resumed, or completed their open market repurchase programs. Voluntary disclosures of repurchase status updates are common and value‐relevant. They also inform subsequent repurchase activities: voluntary disclosers are more likely to complete their repurchase programs and to initiate new repurchase programs than firms with undisclosed repurchase status changes. Moreover, firms that disclose repurchase suspensions experience larger returns to subsequent repurchase authorizations, consistent with a reward for establishing a reputation for transparency via voluntary bad news disclosure. Finally, exploiting a change in repurchase reporting requirements, we document that voluntary updates are less frequent when mandatory disclosure increases. An important exception, however, is when macroeconomic uncertainty is high, such as during the Great Recession and the COVID‐19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT We hypothesize and find that financial reporting quality at the foreign subsidiaries of US multinational companies (MNCs) is higher when the MNC's principal auditor engages a component auditor to audit the foreign subsidiary on its behalf. An important innovation of this study is that we focus on comparing the financial reporting quality of equivalent subsidiaries with and without component auditor work. Our approach contrasts with extant studies that examine the consequences of variation in the total amount of component auditor work at the MNC level. Our results are important for two reasons. First, we provide an alternative view on the consequences of component auditor use compared to the emerging literature in this area, which typically finds a negative association between the extent of component auditor use and financial reporting quality at the MNC level. Thus, we show that a different research design, conducted at the level at which component auditors actually perform their work, yields different inferences. Second, we demonstrate that using component auditors on US MNC group audits is an avenue through which US auditing institutions can affect financial reporting quality in foreign locations. We also reconcile our subsidiary‐level results to the MNC level by introducing a new MNC‐level component auditor “coverage” variable. Overall, we highlight that the best way to audit a foreign subsidiary is likely to be with a component auditor in the local country, which informs the debate surrounding recently proposed PCAOB guidance.