We examine whether audit partner individualism reduces earnings comparability in the United States. We argue that individualistic audit partners are more likely to deviate from internal working rules and allow clients more flexibility in making accounting choices, consequently decreasing their clients' earnings comparability. Using a novel partner‐level measure of individualism, we find that within individual Big 4 audit firms, earnings are less comparable between a company audited by an individualistic partner and a company audited by a non‐individualistic partner, relative to a pair of companies that are each audited by a non‐individualistic partner. Our inferences are robust to a changes analysis, a falsification test, and a propensity score matching procedure. We also find that the effect of partner individualism is less salient when the audit firm is under more stringent regulatory monitoring and when clients are more important, but more salient when individualistic partners are more confident about being different. Further analyses suggest that our main inferences are robust to controlling for differences in partners' cultural backgrounds and using client‐pairs audited by the same audit partner. Collectively, our study provides novel evidence on the role of auditor individualism in earnings comparability.

This study examines whether PCAOB inspection reports are useful for signaling the risk of misstatements in future periods and the extent to which different types of audit deficiencies predict future misstatements. We find that, after the inspection report is issued, PCAOB‐identified audit deficiencies are positively associated with future misstatements for the audit firm's entire client portfolio. When we examine different types of deficiencies, we find that an auditor's failure to understand the client's accounting procedures or policies is the most detrimental type of deficiency for future reporting quality. We also examine the deficiency types for Big 4 versus non–Big 4 firms separately. The results show that an auditor's failure to understand the client's accounting procedures or policies is the only deficiency type that is positively associated with future misstatements for Big 4 firms. For non–Big 4 firms, however, future misstatements are predicted by an auditor's failure to understand the client's accounting procedures or policies, inadequate substantive testing, and inadequate going‐concern assessments. Our study has important implications given the concerns raised by auditors regarding the usefulness of PCAOB inspections.

We examine whether auditor political connections are associated with the SEC's oversight of audit clients . Specifically, we test whether auditors' political action committee contributions are associated with three SEC oversight actions: comment letters, investigations, and Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAERs). Consistent with higher political connections inducing heightened scrutiny from the SEC, we find that the clients of auditors with higher political connections are more likely to receive comment letters and face SEC investigations. However, conditional on SEC investigation, we find no association between auditor political connections and the issuance of AAERs. We consider heightened attention from investors and analysts toward audit clients as one possible mechanism leading to increased SEC scrutiny because auditor political connections could be perceived as a red flag. Using EDGAR downloads and the number of earnings forecast revisions, we document evidence consistent with the existence of this mechanism. These findings add to our understanding of how auditor political connections could influence SEC oversight over audit clients.

We examine how common institutional investors (CIIs) facilitate the financial reporting comparability (FRC) of US firms. Common ownership increases FRC of firms that are directly owned by CIIs (via a direct effect) and has positive spillover effects on other firms in the same industry. We find spillover effects in two types of firms: (1) those that are commonly owned by different institutional investors but are connected through common firms, and (2) those that do not have any common ownership. These results suggest that the effect of common ownership goes beyond commonly owned firms and extends to non‐commonly owned firms. Furthermore, we find two mechanisms for the direct and spillover effects of common ownership on reporting comparability: firms' hiring of common auditors and their adoption of similar accounting practices. Overall, we provide comprehensive evidence on how common institutional ownership benefits the comparability of financial reporting in the United States.