Our interest in this study is the relative informativeness of earnings announcements reported before and after Form 8-K disclosures of the reason for an auditor change. We appeal to several models that predict that the market's response to an earnings surprise is positively related to the perceived precision of the earnings report. We predict that the Form 8-K reason disclosures aid investors in updating their expectations of earnings precision by providing useful information about the financial reporting process that produces the earnings report. For 802 auditor changes from late 1991 through late 1997, the average price response per unit of earnings surprise is lower subsequent to an auditor change for companies that switched for disagreement-related or fee-related reasons and higher for those that switched for service-related reasons. This paper provides further evidence on the effects of differential earnings quality on differences in the returns-earnings relation across companies and over time as well as the efficacy of Form 8-K disclosures of reasons for auditor changes.

Our interest in this study is the relative informativeness of earnings announcements reported before and after Form 8‐K disclosures of the reason for an auditor change. We appeal to several models that predict that the market's response to an earnings surprise is positively related to the perceived precision of the earnings report. We predict that the Form 8‐K reason disclosures aid investors in updating their expectations of earnings precision by providing useful information about the financial reporting process that produces the earnings report. For 802 auditor changes from late 1991 through late 1997, the average price response per unit of earnings surprise is lower subsequent to an auditor change for companies that switched for disagreement‐related or fee‐related reasons and higher for those that switched for service‐related reasons. This paper provides further evidence on the effects of differential earnings quality on differences in the returns‐earnings relation across companies and over time as well as the efficacy of Form 8‐K disclosures of reasons for auditor changes.

Gibbins and Trotman's study both explores reviewer attributes that auditors judge to influence review quality and replicates earlier, largely experimental findings about preparer and reviewer decision behavior. Such exploration and intra‐method replication create opportunities to refine theory and better design future experimental and nonexperimental studies. Naturally, as with any study, the opportunities that this study creates are not without bounds. To help in thinking about these bounded opportunities, this discussion raises four topics that I have entitled “retro‐spective biases”, “stylization perceptions”, “manager styles”, and “real‐time review complexities”. After discussing these topics in turn, I end with a short summary.

The experiment reported in this paper tests a theoretical model of experienced and novice auditors' information use. The model, based on social cognition research, posits that when judgements are sequential, the information encountered first affects the processing of subsequent information. Specifically, initial information that is in line with expectations results in more superficial processing of subsequent information than initial information that violates expectations. The judgements of 13 experienced and 26 novice auditors were analyzed to determine whether the model is descriptive of auditors' judgements in an ill‐structured task setting (real estate valuation). Results lend support for the model. The implications of the results and the model's impact on audit effectiveness are discussed.

Gibbins and Trotman's study both explores reviewer attributes that auditors judge to influence review quality and replicates earlier, largely experimental findings about preparer and reviewer decision behavior. Such exploration and intra-method replication create opportunities to refine theory and better design future experimental and nonexperimental studies. Naturally, as with any study, the opportunities that this study creates are not without bounds. To help in thinking about these bounded opportunities, this discussion raises four topics that I have entitled “retro-spective biases”, “stylization perceptions”, “manager styles”, and “real-time review complexities”. After discussing these topics in turn, I end with a short summary.

This study examines whether the length of the relationship between a company and an audit firm (audit‐firm tenure) is associated with financial‐reporting quality. Using two proxies for financial‐reporting quality and a sample of Big 6 clients matched on industry and size, we find that relative to medium audit‐firm tenures of four to eight years, short audit‐firm tenures of two to three years are associated with lower‐quality financial reports. In contrast, we find no evidence of reduced financial‐reporting quality for longer audit‐firm tenures of nine or more years. Overall, our results provide empirical evidence pertinent to the recurring debate regarding mandatory audit‐firm rotation — a debate that has, to date, relied on anecdotal evidence and isolated cases.