ABSTRACT To restore investors’ confidence in the reliability of corporate financial disclosures, the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 mandated stricter regulations and arguably increased auditors’ liability. In this paper, we analyze the effects of increased auditor liability on the audit failure rate, the cost of capital, and the level of new investment. We focus on a setting in which, with imperfect auditing, a firm has better information than investors about its prospects and seeks to raise capital for new investments in a lemons market. The equilibrium analysis derives corporate reporting and investing choices by the firm, attestation opinions by the auditor, and valuation by rational investors. Three empirically testable predictions emerge: although increasing auditor liability decreases the audit failure rate and the cost of capital for new projects, it also decreases the level of new profitable investments.

ABSTRACT We analyze the role of accounting information in debt contracting when the lender has private information that can assist in the borrower's investment decision. The lender might have acquired private information during the due diligence process or via past lending relationships. We show that the borrower has a stronger incentive to engage in a suboptimal investment decision (i.e., asset substitution) ex post when the lender lacks incentive to truthfully reveal this information. We identify conditions under which, ex ante, the borrower can incorporate accounting signals in the debt contract to mitigate the effect of the lender's private information and improve the borrower's investment efficiency. Our analysis offers an alternative explanation for the use of performance pricing in debt contracts. JEL Classifications: G21; G32; M41; M48.

This paper explores the effects of public information such as accounting earnings in a competitive lending setting with risk shifting. Debt financing creates incentives for borrowers to take on excessive risks, in particular in bad states of the world. If a privately informed inside creditor bids against outside creditors to extend a loan, public information levels the playing field, which affects the bidding and risk shifting. Nonetheless, a perfect public signal would yield the least efficient outcome: introducing some measurement noise alleviates risk shifting by subjecting outside creditors to the winner’s curse, allowing borrowers in bad states cheaper access to loans. However, for pessimistic priors about the borrower, greater public signal precision can alleviate risk shifting, at the margin. We discuss implications for financial reporting regulations along the business cycle and for creditor turnover.

Abstract Conventional wisdom suggests that audit engagement partner name disclosure benefits investors by informing them about the partners' performance. However, such public disclosure of the identity of the audit partners may also intensify competition for audit talent in the labor market. To examine the economic consequences of audit partner identification, we build a two‐period model in which an audit firm matches partners to clients. The audit partner identification broadens a partner's outside options in the labor market, making talent retention more costly. If the talent‐retention cost is substantial, audit partner identification may cause an audit firm to adjust its partners' compensation packages and mismatch the partners and clients, which may lead to lower audit quality. Overall, we identify unintended consequences of audit partner identification by examining its impact on the audit labor market, and we provide economic reasons for the mixed empirical findings.

ABSTRACT In this study, we show that when a firm needs external financing, information quality has real effects via financing contracts on the firm's input to influence its operational outcome. Interestingly, we find that higher information quality decreases overall efficiency. Our analysis highlights the importance of considering the role of information quality in the presence of the firm's input decision upon financing contracts. In particular, information quality has a feedforward effect on the firm's real input decision via financing contracts, which in turn has a feedback effect on financing contracts and overall efficiency.

ABSTRACT Conventional wisdom holds that joint audits would improve audit quality by enhancing audit evidence precision because “Two heads are better than one.” Our paper challenges this wisdom. We show that joint audits by one big firm and one small firm may impair audit quality, because, in that situation, joint audits induce a free‐riding problem between audit firms and reduce audit evidence precision. We further derive a set of empirically testable predictions comparing audit evidence precision and audit fees under joint and single audits. This paper, the first theoretical study of joint audits, contributes to a better understanding of the economic consequences of joint audits on audit quality.