Using unique data on trading commission payments to mutual fund rating companies (MFRCs) by mutual funds in China, this paper investigates whether the conflicts of interest arising from trading commission payments bias MFRCs’ mutual fund star ratings and hence affect their informativeness. We find the rating of a mutual fund is more optimistic when the MFRC either (i) receives trading commission fees from the mutual fund or (ii) can potentially receive fees in the future. The paper further shows that the usefulness of ratings in terms of predicting a fund’s future performance is negatively impacted by conflicts of interest. There is also evidence that investors can see through the problem, responding less enthusiastically (in terms of fund flows) to the ratings of conflicted MFRCs. We further find that the introduction of a rating qualification system that aims to improve mutual fund rating quality exacerbates the rating bias.

ABSTRACT The engagement quality review is a key component of an audit firm's quality control system. This study leverages unique data on individual engagement quality reviewers (EQRs) to examine how previous shared working experience between EQRs and engagement partners affects audit quality. While prior research suggests that within‐firm network ties between predecessor and successor partners facilitate knowledge transfer, we find that prior shared working experience between EQRs and engagement partners is associated with lower audit quality. Mechanism tests indicate that such experience is associated with a higher likelihood of regulatory enforcement actions related to deficiencies in audit procedures, insufficient evidence, and a lack of professional skepticism. We also find that such experience corresponds with higher materiality thresholds, suggesting reduced scrutiny during audit planning and execution. Additional analyses reveal that these adverse effects primarily arise when previous shared working relationships did not produce adverse outcomes, when EQRs are not audit industry leaders, and when they face lower reputational risk. These findings are especially salient given that EQRs’ previous shared working experience with engagement partners appears to weigh heavily in EQR assignments. Overall, our study provides important insights into the implications of EQR independence and the determinants of engagement quality review effectiveness.