This paper investigates the effects on audit quality and audit fees of requiring the engagement partner to sign the audit report in the United Kingdom (U.K.). The effect of requiring the engagement partner to sign the audit report is timely since the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) is considering mandating a similar requirement in the United States (U.S.). In the first year after the introduction of the signature requirement, we find a significant decline in abnormal accruals and the propensity to meet an earnings threshold, and we find a significant increase in the incidence of qualified audit reports and in earnings informativeness. In addition, audit fees are significantly higher in the post-signature period than in the pre-signature period. Moreover, we compare U.K. firms with a matched sample of U.S. firms and firms in other European countries in periods both before and after the U.K. adopted a signature requirement. Our results are generally consistent with the argument of improved audit quality in U.K. firms after the signature requirement is adopted. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources identified in the text.

We investigate whether ineffective internal control over financial reporting has implications for firm operations by examining the association between inventory-related material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and firms' inventory management. We find that firms with inventory-related material weaknesses have systematically lower inventory turnover ratios and are more likely to report inventory impairments relative to firms with effective internal control over financial reporting. We also find that inventory turnover rates increase for firms that remediate material weaknesses related to inventory tracking. Remediating firms also experience increases in sales, gross profit, and operating cash flows. Finally, we assess the generalizability of our findings by examining all material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting, regardless of type, and provide evidence that firms' returns on assets are associated with both their existence and remediation. Collectively, our findings support the general hypothesis that internal control over financial reporting has an economically significant effect on firm operations.

Audits of internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) are typically “integrated” with the audit of the financial statements (FSs)—both audits are conducted by the same audit firm, which designs procedures to satisfy the objectives of both audits simultaneously. A common assumption is that integrating the two audits is more effective and efficient than performing them separately. However, this assumption has not been tested empirically. Using a sample of Chinese companies that employ different audit firms for their FS and ICFR audits (i.e., nonintegrated auditors), we find evidence that challenges this assumption. Specifically, we find ICFR audit quality is higher for nonintegrated audits compared to integrated audits. Moreover, total audit fees are lower for nonintegrated audits, despite higher ICFR audit fees.

We investigate changes in the quality and cost of audit services surrounding PCAOB Rule 3211, which requires disclosure of audit partner names in Form AP. To isolate changes due to Rule 3211 from other confounding factors, we use difference-in-differences analyses with separate control groups, including a group of companies that disclosed partner identities prior to Rule 3211. Our study also incorporates several measures from prior literature to proxy for various dimensions of audit quality. Evidence from the difference-in-differences analyses reveals that any immediate impact of Rule 3211 on audit quality or fees is limited to specific dimensions of audit quality, specific control groups, and/or specific company characteristics. We reach this conclusion after considering alternative research designs and evaluating confidence intervals for statistically insignificant coefficients. We caution that our findings only provide initial evidence and further research is necessary to evaluate other potential impacts of Rule 3211.