We examine the relative importance of audit firm versus partner decision styles in key audit matter (KAM) reporting. Standard setters intended KAMs to increase the usefulness of the audit report by requiring the partner‐led engagement team to disclose engagement‐specific information about the most significant judgments they made during the audit. However, stakeholders expressed widespread concern that audit firms' longstanding efforts toward standardization would result in generic KAMs at the audit firm level and provide partners little opportunity or incentive for engagement‐specific reporting. We evaluate this high‐stakes tension between standard setters' goals for audit reporting and auditors' deep‐rooted practices by leveraging data from the United Kingdom, which has required partner identification since 2009 and expanded audit reports since 2013. We find that clients sharing the same partner receive KAMs that are 10% more textually similar than clients with different partners. In contrast, clients sharing the same audit firm receive KAMs that are just 2% more textually similar than clients with different audit firms. This implies that partner decision styles are more important in influencing KAM outcomes than audit firm styles. Collectively, our results suggest that partners make unique KAM reporting judgments, countering concerns that audit firms' efforts toward standardization will yield boilerplate KAMs. This evidence extends the literature on expanded audit reporting and partner decision styles and provides valuable insights into a contemporary issue in audit regulation with broader implications for understanding dynamics within the profession.

In 2017, the PCAOB began requiring audit firm tenure disclosure within the audit report for SEC registrant clients. Many commenters raised the concern that prominent disclosure of firm tenure would lead investors to inappropriately infer a negative relation between audit quality and long tenure. This is particularly troubling given that empirical evidence generally does not support this concern. In our first experiment, we predict and find that disclosing an audit firm's long tenure within the audit report increases investors' perceptions that the audit firm's independence was impaired while conducting the audit. However, we also identify an intervention that mitigates the effects of disclosing long tenure—an accompanying disclosure in the audit report of the firm's adherence to the SEC's mandatory partner rotation requirement. We find that such a disclosure moderates the effect of long tenure disclosure such that in the absence (presence) of a partner rotation disclosure, investors do (do not) perceive increased independence impairment when long firm tenure is disclosed. In a second experiment, we predict and find that long firm tenure disclosure reduces investors' preference to invest in an otherwise quantitatively optimal investment and that this relation is driven, in part, by perceptions of independence impairment. Again, this result is attenuated by partner rotation disclosure. Our results should be useful to regulators in understanding the effects of their disclosure mandate and to audit firms in understanding a practical way in which they might mitigate the implications of such effects.

The study provides large‐scale descriptive evidence on the timing and nature of corporate financial tweeting. Using an unsupervised machine learning approach to analyze 24 million tweets posted by S&P 1500 firms from 2012 to 2020, we find that firms are more likely to tweet financial information around significantly negative or positive news events, such as earnings announcements and the filing of financial statements. This convex U‐shaped relation between the likelihood of posting financial tweets and the materiality of accounting events becomes stronger over time. Whereas research based on early samples concludes that firms are less likely to disseminate financial information on Twitter when the news is bad and material, the symmetric dissemination behavior we find suggests that these conclusions should be revised. We also show that a machine learning algorithm (Twitter‐Latent Dirichlet Allocation) is superior to a dictionary approach in classifying short messages like tweets.

Fiscal‐year‐end cash holdings are an important indicator in external stakeholders' assessment of a firm's liquidity and credit risk. Do fiscal‐year‐end cash holdings reflect a firm's intra‐year liquidity conditions? We observe that firms report significantly higher cash holdings in the fourth fiscal quarter, followed by a subsequent reversal. This pattern is pervasive across industries, persistent over time, and not explained by conventional factors or calendar effects. The extent of the fourth‐quarter cash increase is more pronounced for informationally opaque firms reliant on external markets and those with financial constraints and reduced monitoring. We investigate firms' real, financing, and timing activities that could potentially account for this pattern. Our study suggests that a complete picture of intra‐year cash holdings dynamics is necessary for external stakeholders to fully assess a firm's liquidity and credit conditions.

Recent literature finds that firms led by female CEOs are more likely to be targeted by activist shareholders and that female CEOs are more likely to cooperate with activist shareholders' requests. Our study complements this literature by using two controlled experiments and a series of semi‐structured interviews with CEOs and CFOs to investigate how a CEO's response to shareholder activism influences investors' reactions and whether these reactions differ depending on the gender of the CEO or on how their response is explained. In the first experiment, we find that investors evaluate a firm as less attractive when a female CEO uses an uncooperative response rather than a cooperative response to shareholder activism, absent any explanation for the CEO's response. Conversely, investors evaluate a firm as less attractive when a male CEO uses a cooperative response rather than an uncooperative response. In the second experiment, where there is an added explanation for the CEO response, we find that investors react more positively to a female CEO's uncooperative response when the explanation is more communal (vs. agentic). Our interviews with CEOs and CFOs provide insights into how the gender of firms' leadership may play a role when activist shareholders target firms. Our results collectively suggest that investors rely on gender stereotypes when evaluating the responses of male and female executives to shareholder activism and that these evaluations affect their investment judgments. Our results also suggest a potential alternative explanation for the finding that female CEOs are more likely to cooperate with activist shareholders than are male CEOs. Rather than inherent differences in the management styles of male and female CEOs, responses to activist shareholders may be driven, at least in part, by managers anticipating that they will be penalized by investors for deviating from gender‐stereotypical behavior.

Critics assert that securities class actions are economically burdensome and yield minimal recoveries, whereas proponents claim they deter wrongdoing. We examine key events in the recent Goldman Sachs Supreme Court case to test the net effect of securities litigation risk on shareholder value. We find that investors view securities class actions as value‐increasing. However, the strength of this effect varies based on external monitoring. Investors view securities class actions as more value‐enhancing when institutional ownership is low. We also use this setting to examine the effect of securities litigation risk on mandatory disclosure because the Goldman Sachs case focuses on mandatory disclosure properties. Using a difference‐in‐differences design, we find firm risk factor disclosures become shorter and less similar to industry peers, and they contain more uncertain and weak terms. Overall, our results show nuanced effects of securities litigation risk on shareholder value and firm disclosure.

In this study, we examine auditors' reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) systems that are designed to provide evidence around complex estimates. In an experiment with highly experienced auditors, we find that auditors are more hesitant to rely on evidence from AI‐based systems compared to human specialists, consistent with algorithm aversion. Importantly, we also find that a small amount of control (i.e., providing input to specialists) can mitigate this aversion, though this effect depends on auditors' personal locus of control (LOC). Providing input increases reliance on evidence from AI systems for auditors who believe they have little control over their outcomes (i.e., an external LOC). In contrast, auditors with an internal LOC are particularly hesitant to rely on AI‐based evidence, and providing input has little impact on their reliance. Interviews with experienced auditors corroborate our findings and suggest auditors feel a greater sense of control working with human specialists relative to AI‐based systems. Overall, our results suggest perceived control plays an important role in auditors' aversion to AI and that auditors' individual traits can affect this aversion.