[The literature on the audit market has suggested that a valued attribute of audits is implicit insurance. The insurance stems from the investor's right to recover from auditors the losses sustained by relying on audited financial statements that contain misrepresentations. This "insurance hypothesis" has proven difficult to test empirically, despite the widespread evidence of litigation against auditors. In this paper we provide some empirical support, showing that investors assign a value to the right to recover investment losses from the auditor. We examine the effect on stock prices of Laventhol & Horwath (L&H) clients of two related events: first, the disclosure of their auditor's bankruptcy, and second, the appointment of a successor auditor. L&H's bankruptcy is a rare instance in which the insurance protection provided by the auditor was suddenly withdrawn and the ability of investors to recover losses from the auditor was significantly curtailed. We argue that the value assigned by investors to the right to recover potential losses from the auditor is a component of the stock price, and hypothesize that it varies with the likelihood that the right will be exercised. It is expected to increase with increasing magnitude of stock price declines and to be greater for recent initial public offerings (IPOs) than for seasoned securities. The results suggest that the disclosure of L&H's bankruptcy had an adverse effect on market prices of L&H clients. As hypothesized, the effect varied with previously incurred price declines, and was greater for IPOs. To more distinctly separate insurance and monitoring effects, we also examined the market reaction to clients' announcements of a replacement auditor. No significant reaction was observed, which is consistent with the insurance hypothesis. Overall, the results of the paper provide some empirical support for the theory that investors view the audit product as including insurance against potential investment losses.]

[An important differentiating attribute of the audit product is believed to be the credibility that the auditor is perceived to bring to an audit engagement. This study uses the context of the initial public offering (IPO) to investigate auditor credibility. It is contended that information asymmetry problems lead to a demand for credible auditors in companies going public. Entrepreneurs have incentives to signal their knowledge of favorable future earnings by selecting reputable auditors. Since there is limited information available on firms going public, employing credible auditors can convey monitoring cost advantages as well. Investment bankers also have a preference for credible auditors since they rely on audited financial statements in certifying the value of the firm and determining whether to underwrite the offering. In the present study, we consider auditor credibility in IPOs from the perspective of the client and the investment banker. If there is an increased demand for auditor credibility at the time of the IPO, there should be a significant number of credibility-increasing auditor changes prior to the offering. Furhter, if the investment banker benefits from having a more credible auditor sign off on statements prepared by the client, this should be reflected in the investment banker's fee structure. The empirical analysis is performed on companies that went public in 1985 and 1986. Relatively few auditor changes are observed prior to the offering. However, among those companies making auditor changes, there is a clear preference for more credible auditors. Logistic regression analysis shows that companies with prestigious investment bankers are more likely to change away from local auditors to more credible CPAs. The type of underwriting arrangement employed is also significant, consistent with an investment banker preference for credible auditors. A regression analysis is conducted, using the 1985 and 1986 IPOs, modeling investment banker compensation as a function of several factors, including type of auditor employed by the issuing firm. In the case of "firm commitment" offerings, the auditor type is found to be significant. Clients seem to be charged a smaller investment banking fee if they are associated with Big Eight auditors. There is no apparent auditor effect in the case of "best efforts" offerings. The evidence generally supports the hypothesis that investment bankers and their clients have a preference for credible auditors for the IPO.]

Abstract Reviews the book "Product Differentiation in Auditing: Auditor Choice in the Market for Unseasoned New Issues," by Dan A. Simunic and Michael T. Stein.

Cost allocation, Production process costs, Joint costs, Common costs

Abstract While the debt‐contracting literature has extensively examined financial covenants, there has been little attention paid to audit‐related covenants. We focus on a covenant that restricts the borrower from receiving a going‐concern audit report ( GCAR covenant). We hypothesize that a debt agreement is more likely to include a GCAR covenant as the borrower's credit quality decreases and the length of the loan period increases, and that it is more likely to impose a covenant restricting the choice of auditor when the debt includes a GCAR covenant. Also, we expect that an audit client with a GCAR covenant will be charged a higher audit fee and is more likely to receive a going‐concern audit report. We test these hypotheses on a sample of firms that issue private debt. Our results generally support our hypotheses. Our study suggests that lenders rely on the auditor's assessment in contracting, and audit‐related covenants influence auditor behavior.

Abstract An important differentiating attribute of the audit product is believed to be the credibility that the auditor is perceived to bring to an audit engagement. This study uses the context of the initial public offering (IPO) to investigate auditor credibility. It is contended that information asymmetry problems lead to a demand for credible auditors in companies going public. Entrepreneurs have incentives to signal their knowledge of favorable future earnings by selecting reputable auditors. Since there is limited information available on firms going public, employing credible auditors can convey monitoring cost advantages as well. Investment bankers also have a preference for credible auditors since they rely on audited financial statements in certifying the value of the firm and determining whether to underwrite the offering. In the present study, we consider auditor credibility in IPOs from the perspective of the client and the investment banker. If there is an increased demand for auditor credibility at the time of the IPO, there should be a significant number of credibility-increasing auditor changes prior to the offering. Further, if the investment banker benefits from having a more credible auditor sign off on statements prepared by the client, this should be reflected in the investment banker's fee structure. The empirical analysis is performed on companies that went public in 1985 and 1986. Relatively few auditor changes are observed prior to the offering. However, among those companies making auditor changes, there is a clear preference for more credible auditors. Logistic regression analysis shows that companies with prestigious investment bankers are more likely to change away from local auditors to more credible CPAs. The type of underwriting arrangement employed is also significant, consistent with an investment banker preference for credible auditors. A regression analysis is conducted, using the 1985 and 1986 IPOs, modeling investment banker compensation as a function of several factors, including type of auditor employed by the issuing firm. In the case of "firm commitment" offerings, the auditor type is found to be significant. Clients seem to be charged a smaller investment banking fee if they are associated with Big Eight auditors. There is no apparent auditor effect in the case of "best efforts" offerings. The evidence generally supports the hypothesis that investment bankers and their clients have a preference for credible auditors for the IPO.