Using unique disclosures from the insurance industry, we identify instances where auditors plausibly allow clients to opportunistically utilize discretion in accounting estimates to manipulate losses to reported profits (i.e., auditor lenience). Auditing standards and SEC guidance state that auditors should consider whether a misstatement shifts a loss to a profit as a qualitative factor when evaluating the materiality of misstatements. We find that audit office lenience is positively associated with subsequent market share changes. The effect is driven by increases in the likelihood of keeping existing, non-manipulating clients. In generalizability tests, we find similar inferences in the banking industry when using bank-specific disclosures and across all industries when measuring auditor lenience using likelihood of issuing going-concern opinions. These results highlight settings where auditors may be rewarded for lenience, specifically when management values financial reporting discretion and auditors can avoid publicized audit failures.

ABSTRACT Despite issuing extensive guidance related to the evaluation of accounting estimates, the PCAOB continues to identify deficiencies related to the audit of estimates through their inspections process. We examine whether PCAOB inspections lead to more accurate audited accounting estimates, defined as those that more closely match economic reality, by examining a significant estimate within the banking industry. We find that in contrast with the PCAOB's goal of more accurate and unbiased estimates, allowance for loan losses (ALL) estimates become less accurate and more conservative with higher levels of ALL‐related inspection findings for public company audits. We find no evidence of auditor response to PCAOB inspection findings for private‐company audits, which are not subject to PCAOB inspection. Overall, our findings cast doubt on the efficacy of PCAOB inspections in improving estimate accuracy and suggest that firms are managing inspection risk to the potential detriment of audit quality.

Abstract A primary argument against fair value measurement is the lack of verifiability, where verifiability is defined as consensus in measurement by independent parties. We evaluate this argument by investigating trends in the consensus of reported fair values. Our findings indicate that consensus increased between 2005 and 2019, as evidenced by reductions in the fair value range and standard deviation. Further analyses suggest that enhanced data availability—driven by public dissemination of trade information—serves as a mechanism for this trend. We also document that securities subject to testing by larger external auditors with more resources to take advantage of enhanced data availability are associated with a stronger trend in increasing consensus. Finally, this trend appears to be stronger in situations when management has a heightened opportunity to record a biased estimate. While conventional arguments express concern over management’s ability to manipulate fair values, our results demonstrate patterns consistent with improved verifiability.

Abstract We use unique disclosures in the insurance industry to examine whether client-engaged specialists (i.e., external actuaries) affect opportunism within the claim loss reserve. Using a fixed-effects approach, we find that external actuaries significantly affect the opportunism in the claim loss reserve, approaching half the effect of the auditor. With respect to actuary characteristics, we find a positive (negative) association between actuary permissiveness (actuary size) and opportunism in the claim loss reserve. In additional analyses, we find that the relation between actuary permissiveness and claim loss reserve opportunism is stronger when insurers have incentives to opportunistically manage the claim loss reserve. This relation continues to persist in the presence of high-quality auditors. Overall, we provide evidence suggesting that client-engaged external actuaries can be used to support opportunistic claim loss reserve estimates.

We examine whether peer audit choices influence a bank's decision to obtain an audit voluntarily. We find that the likelihood of a bank voluntarily obtaining an audit is significantly associated with the audit decisions of peers. The relation is stronger when the peers are more salient due to closer geographic proximity, similarity in loan portfolio, and similarity in size. In addition, we find that peer influence on a bank's audit decision is moderated by the bank's existing level of assurance. Specifically, banks already obtaining a lower level of assurance are less likely to begin an audit in response to peer influence. We also find no evidence that peer influence extends to banks' decisions to cease obtaining an audit. Overall, our findings are consistent with peer influence significantly influencing banks' decisions to begin obtaining an audit.

ABSTRACT We examine whether auditor scrutiny over the allowance for loan losses (ALL) is associated with bank lending decisions. Using PCAOB inspection findings over the ALL to capture increases in auditor scrutiny, we find that auditor scrutiny is associated with a larger ALL for homogeneous loans (i.e., residential mortgages and consumer loans) but not for heterogeneous loans (i.e., commercial real estate; commercial and industrial loans). We next find that auditor scrutiny is associated with a shift in lending away from homogeneous loans, consistent with auditor scrutiny reducing the relative attractiveness of homogeneous loans. These findings suggest that policymakers and audit regulators can indirectly affect bank lending by exercising their authority in ways that affect auditor scrutiny. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from the sources discussed in the paper. JEL Classifications: G21; M42; M48.

ABSTRACT Auditor credibility is important in the banking industry due to the opacity of bank assets and the use of financial statements by external parties to facilitate monitoring. Depositors monitor and discipline bank behavior, but they can also contribute to the spread of shocks from one bank to another. We argue that depositors perceive bank failure as an audit failure, which reduces their assessment of auditor credibility. We document that exposure to failure through the audit firm is associated with lower uninsured deposit growth following the failure, consistent with depositors perceiving failures as a negative signal of auditor credibility. We further document that this association is stronger when depositors perceive connection to failure to reflect a pervasive issue within the audit firm. Collectively, our results suggest that depositors consider accounting signals at other banks in assessing financial reporting credibility. JEL Classifications: G21; M41; M42.

ABSTRACT We exploit a regulatory change to examine whether bank regulator strictness is affected when regulators no longer rely on external assurance. In the absence of external assurance, we find that banks report higher nonaccrual loans, higher troubled debt restructurings, and both a timelier loan loss provision and higher quality allowance for loan loss reserve. Further, regulators spend more days performing targeted bank examinations for banks affected by the regulatory change. We do not find evidence of operational deterioration, but rather the findings are consistent with increased regulator strictness over the reporting of problem assets, particularly during targeted examinations. Overall, our results suggest that regulators become stricter when they can no longer rely on the work of external auditors and that third-party assurance is an imperfect substitute for direct regulatory monitoring. Data Availability: Bank regulatory rating and examination dates are confidential and were obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. All other data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: G21; G28; M42.