This paper investigates three potential explanations for the puzzlingly weak value relevance of oil and gas asset present values documented in prior research: measurement error, model misspecification, and time-period idiosyncrasy. I operationally define the magnitude of measurement error as the measurement error variance, estimated using an errors-in-variables two-stage regression model similar to that used by Barth (1991) and Choi et al. (1997). I find that (1) measurement error in the present value measure of oil and gas assets is on average less than the measurement error in the historical cost asset measure; (2) oil and gas assets measured at present value explain significantly more across-firm and across-time variation in stock prices than do oil and gas assets measured at historical cost; and (3) model misspecification partially accounts for the puzzlingly weak reported value relevance of the present value measure in prior research.

We examine whether the December 2007 PCAOB disciplinary order against Deloitte affected Deloitte's switching risk, audit fees, and audit quality relative to the other Big 4 firms over a three-year period following the censure. Our findings suggest that the PCAOB censure was associated with a decrease in Deloitte's ability to retain clients and attract new clients, and a decrease in Deloitte's audit fee growth rates. However, methodologies used in extant archival studies yield little or no evidence to suggest that Deloitte's audit quality was different from that of the other Big 4 firms during a three-year window either before or after the censure. Overall, our results suggest that the PCAOB censure imposed actual costs on Deloitte. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.