ABSTRACT This article investigates whether investors respond to explanatory language (EL) added to unqualified audit reports. Although prior research finds an association between auditor EL and lower financial reporting quality, surveys suggest that many investors limit their attention to the unqualified nature of the opinion. We use three‐day abnormal returns and abnormal trading volume to measure investor response to EL in unqualified audit reports issued from 2000 to 2014. We find little evidence to indicate that investors respond to auditor EL at the audit report release date. In further analyses, we find that the lack of investor response is attributable both to incomplete investor reactions (55 percent of EL occurrences) and previous incorporation of EL (40 percent of EL occurrences). Overall, the results support policymakers’ initiatives to improve the usefulness of unqualified audit reports.

ABSTRACT According to auditing standards, explanatory language added at the auditor's discretion to unqualified audit reports should not indicate increased financial misstatement risk. However, an auditor is unlikely to add language that would strain the auditor-client relationship absent concerns about the client's financial statements. Using a sample of 30,825 financial statements issued with unqualified audit opinions during 2000–2009, we find that financial statements with audit reports containing explanatory language are significantly more likely to be subsequently restated than financial statements without such language. We find that this positive association is driven by language that references the division of responsibility for performance of the audit, adoption of new accounting principles, and previous restatements. In addition, we find that (1) “emphasis of matter” language that discusses mergers, related-party transactions, and management's use of estimates predicts restatements related to these matters, and that (2) the financial statement accounts noted in the explanatory language typically correspond to the accounts subsequently restated. In sum, our results suggest that present-day audit reports communicate some information about financial reporting quality.

ABSTRACT This study examines whether material corporate events that occur during the year-end closing process constrain management's and the auditor's resources and inhibit them from providing high-quality financial reports. For a sample of U.S. company financial reports issued during 2000–2013, we identify material corporate events using Type II subsequent event footnote disclosures (i.e., material events that occur in year t+1, but prior to the issuance of the year t financial statements, yet do not affect amounts recognized in year t). We find that Type II subsequent events are associated with lower financial reporting quality, as measured by the need to subsequently restate the year t financial statements. The increased restatement likelihood only occurs when managers are resource-constrained. Auditors can mitigate the increased restatement risk, but only when they allocate more resources to the engagement. Our results underscore the importance of resource management in the financial reporting and audit processes.