We examine determinants of weaknesses in internal control for 779 firms disclosing material weaknesses from August 2002 to 2005. We find that these firms tend to be smaller, younger, financially weaker, more complex, growing rapidly, or undergoing restructuring. Firms with more serious entity-wide control problems are smaller, younger and weaker financially, while firms with less severe, account-specific problems are healthy financially but have complex, diversified, and rapidly changing operations. Finally, we find that the determinants also vary based on the specific reason for the material weakness, consistent with each firm facing their own unique set of internal control challenges.

We quantify measurable benefits and costs of exempting firms from auditor oversight of internal control effectiveness disclosures. We measure the benefit of exemption as an aggregate 388 million in audit fee savings from 2007–2014. The costs stem from internal control misreporting: an aggregate 719 million of lower operating performance due to non-remediation and a $935 million delay in aggregate market value decline due to the failure to disclose ineffective internal controls. The audit fee savings benefit shareholders of all exempt firms, whereas the costs are borne by shareholders of only a fraction of exempt firms (the internal control misreporters).

Researchers have used various measures as indications of “earnings quality” including persistence, accruals, smoothness, timeliness, loss avoidance, investor responsiveness, and external indicators such as restatements and SEC enforcement releases. For each measure, we discuss causes of variation in the measure as well as consequences. We reach no single conclusion on what earnings quality is because “quality” is contingent on the decision context. We also point out that the “quality” of earnings is a function of the firm’s fundamental performance. The contribution of a firm’s fundamental performance to its earnings quality is suggested as one area for future work.

This paper examines why CFOs become involved in material accounting manipulations. We find that while CFOs bear substantial legal costs when involved in accounting manipulations, these CFOs have similar equity incentives to the CFOs of matched non-manipulation firms. In contrast, CEOs of manipulation firms have higher equity incentives and more power than CEOs of matched firms. Taken together, our findings are consistent with the explanation that CFOs are involved in material accounting manipulations because they succumb to pressure from CEOs, rather than because they seek immediate personal financial benefit from their equity incentives. AAER content analysis reinforces this conclusion.