Larger offices of Big 4 auditors are predicted to have higher quality audits for SEC registrants due to greater in-house experience in administering such audits. We test this prediction by examining a sample of 6,568 U.S. firm-year observations for the period 2003–2005 and audited by 285 unique Big 4 offices. Results are consistent with larger offices providing higher quality audits. Specifically, larger offices are more likely to issue going-concern audit reports, and clients in larger offices evidence less aggressive earnings management behavior. These findings are robust to extensive controls for client risk factors and to controls for other auditor characteristics. While the evidence suggests audit quality is higher on average in larger Big 4 offices, we make no claims that audit quality is unacceptably low in smaller offices.

We examine the financial reporting practices of small privately held businesses that are not subject to SEC regulation. Specifically, we determine the factors associated with the production and use of financial statements for firms that have discretion in the preparation of financial statements and do not face the demands of public equity markets. In addition, for firms that prepare financial statements, we determine the factors associated with the sophistication of the financial statements in terms of whether the financials are compiled, reviewed, and/or audited by a professional accountant and whether the firm produces accrual-based financial statements. Finally, we examine the potential benefits afforded firms producing financial statements, having audited financial statements, and having accrual-based financial statements. We find that firms with audited financial statements benefit in the form of greater access to credit and that firms with accrual-based financial statements benefit in the form of a lower cost of credit.

We investigate the use, determinants, and earnings effects of special purpose vehicles (SPVs). Based on a proxy of SPV activity that can be applied to a broad cross-section of firms over time, we find a two-and-a-half fold monotonic increase in the percentage of firms using at least one SPV during the eight-year period from 1997 through 2004. Tobit regressions of the determinants of SPV use show that SPV activity increases with financial reporting incentives and economic and tax motivations, but strong corporate governance tends to mitigate their use. In addition, the evidence is consistent with SPVs arranged for financial reporting purposes being associated with earnings management, whereas the same does not appear to be the case for SPVs set up mainly for economic, tax, and other reasons.

Prior research has separately examined pretax earnings management activities that have current taxable income consequences (book-tax “conforming earnings management”) and those that do not have current taxable income consequences (book-tax “nonconforming earnings management”). Our study documents the prevalence of, and then investigates the firm-specific characteristics that impact the choice between, these earnings management strategies. We utilize a sample of firms that restated their earnings downward due to accounting irregularities and thus can be presumed to have managed earnings upward. We find that nonconforming earnings management is more prevalent and that firms trade off the net present value of tax benefits against the net expected detection costs associated with nonconforming earnings management. In particular, firms having NOL carryforwards, using a high-quality auditor, or engaging in the most egregious misstatements rely less on nonconforming earnings management strategies. We also find that book-tax differences are useful in predicting restatements.