ABSTRACT We examine the use of intuition versus analytical thinking in auditor risk assessment using a task that requires auditors to assess a group of impairment indicators. We expect that auditor intuition, rooted in the subconscious, more likely reacts to impairment indicator risk than does auditor analytical thinking. Results from two different experiments support this expectation for less‐experienced audit seniors. These seniors are more likely to assess step‐zero impairment indicators as signaling potential impairment when prompted to think intuitively versus analytically . In contrast, a third experiment finds that experienced seniors are more likely to assess step‐zero impairment indicators as signaling potential impairment when prompted to think analytically versus intuitively . This is consistent with the more experienced but still non‐expert seniors possessing developed analytical thinking, but struggling to effectively use their intuition. Our results inform theory by suggesting under what conditions auditor intuition and analytical thinking produce differential risk sensitivity. Furthermore, our results inform practice, given regulators' stated focus on auditor skepticism and impairment assessments.

ABSTRACT This study provides evidence that binary signals in audit reports are unable to fully communicate underlying risks that are inherently continuous in nature. Specifically, we find that companies whose audit reports signal an improvement in internal control effectiveness relative to the prior year are still more likely to subsequently restate the current year's financial statements than companies with no material weaknesses in either year. Similarly, companies deemed to no longer have substantial doubt of continuing as a going concern are still more likely to declare bankruptcy than companies with no going concern opinion in either year. Results in both settings suggest the presence of residual risk that cannot be communicated through a binary audit report, despite the fact that auditors recognize the risk, as evidenced by higher audit fees and longer audit report lags. Our findings are strongest when the reported improvement is more pronounced, and our results hold in matched samples. Our study provides empirical evidence that supports recent regulatory efforts to improve the content of the audit report and offers suggestions for future research.

ABSTRACT Using proprietary data from a global accounting firm, we investigate the determinants of auditors' interim effort as well as the impact of interim effort on audit quality, client disclosure timeliness, audit hours, and audit fees. Public statements from accounting firms and regulators suggest various benefits from accelerating auditor effort, but these claims remain largely untested. We find that interim effort is higher for large, complex clients that require integrated audits of both financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. With respect to consequences, we find that allocating relatively more work to the interim period is associated with a reduced likelihood of late 10‐K filings, decreased total audit hours, and higher fees. Although increasing interim period effort is not, on average, associated with a reduced likelihood of misstatement, we do find that current period material weaknesses are less likely with greater interim work. Thus, greater interim effort appears to facilitate the remediation of internal control deficiencies before year‐end. We also show that the benefits of increased interim period effort allocation are much stronger—including improved audit quality—when manager and partner interim involvement is high. Overall, our study provides important new insights on audit production and highlights benefits of reduced hours for auditors, earlier identification of control deficiencies for clients, and more timely financial reports for investors.

Abstract In this study, we leverage judgment decomposition and information acquisition theories to develop and test an intervention to improve group auditors' identification of and response to component‐level qualitative risk. Improving group auditors' response to qualitative risk is important because (1) group audits are prevalent today and require multiple qualitative risk assessments, (2) auditors have historically overlooked qualitative risks, and (3) prior interventions have failed to improve auditors' response to qualitative risk. In an experiment with 88 audit partners and managers, we find that a hybrid risk assessment approach that combines elements of judgment decomposition and notetaking improves auditors' group audit planning decisions. Specifically, auditors utilizing our hybrid approach are better able to identify and respond to component‐level qualitative risks than auditors who use a holistic approach. Importantly, the improvement in qualitative risk response does not come at the expense of auditors' response to quantitative risk.

ABSTRACT We investigate the effect of executives and directors with prior banking crisis experience on bank outcomes around the global financial crisis (GFC). Executives and directors with previous experience leading banks through a bank crisis may have been uniquely able to understand the risks, recognize the warnings signs early, and thus respond more effectively to the GFC. Controlling for other executive, director, and bank‐level characteristics, we examine whether bank performance, risk taking, and accounting quality in the period immediately before and during the GFC are affected by having executives or directors who previously served as bank executives or directors during the 1980s/1990s banking crisis (80s/90s crisis). Overall, we find that banks led by these crisis‐experienced executives and directors exhibit stronger performance, lower risk taking, and higher accounting quality in the period around the GFC. These effects are strongest among bank leaders for whom the 80s/90s crisis was most salient. Results are robust to propensity‐matched samples and other analyses performed to rule out alternative explanations. Our results suggest these individuals were able to learn from prior crisis experience.

Abstract Projects seeking to define, measure, and evaluate audit quality are on the agendas of auditing standards setters as well as audit firms. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ( PCAOB ) currently provides information regarding audit quality through the release of inspection reports, and the Board intends to establish and report audit quality indicators. To provide additional perspective on audit quality, we obtain auditors' and investors' views, definitions, and indicators of audit quality. We find that investors' definitions of audit quality focus more on inputs to the audit process than do auditors', and that investors view the number of PCAOB deficiencies as an indicator of overall firm quality. We find a consensus that auditor characteristics may be the most important determinants of audit quality, and that restatements may be the most readily available signal of low audit quality. We relate responses to a general audit quality framework, provide support for archival audit research, and identify additional disclosures that participants suggest could signal audit quality. Taken together, we provide evidence regarding the construct of audit quality in the post‐ SOX environment, evaluate many of the audit quality indicators proposed by the PCAOB , and suggest avenues for future research.