This paper investigates the common, yet previously opaque, practice of using foreign audit firms (component auditors) to conduct portions of audit work for U.S. public companies. U.S. regulators have expressed concern for the transparency and quality of audits using component auditors. Employing data disclosed in the newly mandated PCAOB Form AP, we find that component auditor use is largely structural, determined by the size and complexity of clients' multinational operations. We do not find that the mere use of component auditors is detrimental to audit outcomes, but rather the amount of work conducted by component auditors is associated with lower audit quality (i.e., higher likelihood of misstatement), higher likelihood of nontimely reporting, and higher audit fees, which collectively suggest that component auditor engagements are associated with adverse outcomes. Furthermore, we find that only the work performed by less competent component auditors and those facing geographic and cultural/language barriers, including significant geographic and cultural distance, weak rule of law, and low English language proficiency, is associated with adverse audit outcomes. Overall, these findings provide initial archival evidence that the use of certain component auditors on U.S. multinational audits is associated with audit coordination issues, which suggests that PCAOB Form AP disclosures provide relevant information.

Considerable prior research investigates whether the extent of insider presence on corporate boards is detrimental. However, the majority of past research treats all inside directors as a homogenous group. This study considers that issue in the context of chief financial officers (CFO) serving on their own company's board. Our research is important because individuals in different executive roles bring different skills and knowledge to board interactions, highlighting the potential for differential contributions. As prior research does not specifically distinguish CFOs from other board insiders, the potential benefits of knowledge sharing due to increased communication with other board members may have been masked. Specifically, the CFO is directly responsible for the quality of the financial reporting process and can therefore be associated with specific outcome measures. Our results show that the percentage of CFOs serving on their own boards is not large, likely due to the perspective (consistent with agency theory and reflected in independence guidelines) that company insiders on boards could promote their own best interest at the expense of shareholders. Contrary to this perception, we find that companies whose CFO has a seat on the board are associated with higher financial reporting quality (i.e., a lower likelihood of reporting a material weaknesses in internal controls or having a financial restatement, and better accruals quality). Yet, we also find potential drawbacks in that CFOs with a board seat tend to have higher excess compensation and lower likelihood of termination following poor performance, signaling greater entrenchment. While our results provide information to companies considering appointing the CFO to the board, both costs and benefits are demonstrated, and thus we conclude that each board should consider this decision based on its own circumstances and composition.

Boards of directors and compensation committees predominantly use financial measures reflecting executive managerial duties as inputs to executive compensation decisions. Yet, despite the fact that Holmstrom (1979) suggests that any readily available performance measure should be considered in executive compensation decisions, there is little research on the link between executive compensation and non-financial performance measures. We develop and test a model of chief financial officer (CFO) compensation with specific emphasis on the link between the disclosure of internal control material weaknesses (ICMW), a non-financial performance measure reflecting CFO fiduciary duties, and CFO compensation. Since internal controls are under the direct responsibility of the CFO, the disclosure of an ICMW reflects poorly on his/her performance. As a baseline, we find that ICMW disclosures lead to decreases in CFO compensation (bonus, equity, and total). Of greater interest, we find that CFOs at firms with stronger governance experience larger compensation decreases upon ICMW disclosures compared to CFOs at firms with weaker governance. In addition, CFOs at firms with greater costs of financial statement misreporting experience larger compensation decreases upon ICMW disclosures compared to CFOs at firms with lower costs of misreporting. Taken together, these results contribute to the relatively sparse literature on CFOs by illustrating the importance of CFO fiduciary duties and the interaction of those duties, in terms of firm governance and misreporting costs, with changes in CFO compensation.