We propose a new measure of accounting reporting complexity (ARC) based on the count of accounting items (XBRL tags) disclosed in 10-K filings. The preparation and disclosure of more accounting items is complicated because it requires greater knowledge of authoritative accounting standards. This aspect of complexity can increase the likelihood of mistakes, incorrect application of GAAP, and can ultimately lead to less credible financial reports. Consistently, we find that ARC is associated with a greater likelihood of misstatements and material weakness disclosures, longer audit delay, and higher audit fees. In comparison to commonly used measures of operating and linguistic complexity, the associations between ARC and these outcomes are more consistent, exhibit greater explanatory power, and have stronger economic significance. These and additional validation and robustness tests suggest that ARC more completely reflects accounting complexity. In addition, ARC exhibits several advantageous properties, including across- and within-firm variation, availability for the universe of SEC filers, and a direct connection to accounting, inherent in its derivation from detailed accounting disclosures. Finally, because it relies on a comprehensive set of detailed accounting data, ARC broadly captures accounting complexity, while, at the same time, it can be disaggregated into account-specific measures of complexity. JEL Classifications: M41; M43. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the paper. A similar version of ARC, based on company XBRL filings that were downloaded directly from the SEC, is available at http://www.xbrlresearch.com.

PCAOB inspections repeatedly indicate deficiencies in audits of fair-value (FV) estimates, prompting regulators to improve the related auditing standards. We predict that auditor task-specific FV expertise, gained from work experience during the audit of FV measurements, can contribute to higher audit quality. Utilizing FV-related restatements and comment letters, we find that expertise in auditing Level 3 FV estimates at the office level is associated with greater FV audit quality. Level 2 FV expertise or national level FV expertise is not associated with higher FV audit quality. Following the receipt of a comment letter, we further find that auditor FV expertise is associated with lower comment letter remediation costs and higher FV disclosure quality. Finally, we find that the value relevance of Level 3 FV disclosures increases with the extent of auditor FV expertise. Collectively, our results highlight that auditor fair value expertise contributes to the credibility and usefulness of FV disclosures.

This study examines the association between corporate governance and disclosures of material weaknesses (MW) in internal control over financial reporting. We study this association using MW reported under Sarbanes-Oxley Sections 302 and 404, deriving data on audit committee financial expertise from automated parsing of member qualifications from their biographies. We find that a lower likelihood of disclosing Section 404 MW is associated with relatively more audit committee members having accounting and supervisory experience, as well as board strength. Further, the nature of MW varies with the type of experience. However, these associations are not detectable using Section 302 reports. We also find that MW disclosure is associated with designating a financial expert without accounting experience, or designating multiple financial experts. We conclude that board and audit committee characteristics are associated with internal control quality. However, this association is only observable under the more stringent requirements of Section 404.

We propose a pairwise measure of financial statement benchmarking (FSB) that captures the degree of overlap in the financial statement line items reported by two firms. We validate FSB by showing its association with actual peer choices of analysts and corporate boards. We then test the practical implications of FSB in the context of strategic peer selection by these parties. We find that analyst (board) chosen peers with low pairwise FSB are more likely to be strategic selections and that the set of peers assembled by an analyst (board) collectively having low FSB is associated with more optimistic earnings forecasts (higher CEO overpay). We also demonstrate alternative applications of FSB by aggregating the pairwise measure at the firm level and decomposing it into finer financial statement-specific components. Our evidence suggests that FSB can be a relevant tool for those using benchmarking applications, including practitioners and academics. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the paper.

Calls from practice suggest that audit committee members with industry expertise can improve audit committee effectiveness. Nevertheless, regulators and the extant literature have focused on the financial expertise of the audit committee. We posit that audit committee industry knowledge is valuable because accounting guidance, estimates, and oversight of the external auditor are often linked to a company's operations within a particular industry. Taking a holistic view, we examine two measures of financial reporting quality (financial restatements and discretionary accruals) and two measures of external auditor oversight (audit and nonaudit fees). As predicted, we find that audit committee members who are both accounting and industry experts perform better than those with only accounting expertise. We also find that in certain instances, supervisory experts who are also industry experts perform better than supervisory experts alone. Overall, these results suggest that industry expertise, when combined with accounting expertise, can improve the effectiveness of the audit committee in monitoring the financial reporting process. Data Availability: All data are gathered from publicly available sources.

We use large, detailed data on individual auditor employment to examine the antecedents of turnover decisions and subsequent career paths of diverse individuals in public accounting—namely women and racial/ethnic minority groups (Asian, Black, and Hispanic). Despite investments in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) recruiting by firms, we observe a higher likelihood of turnover among diverse auditors. Consistent with the principle of homophily, we find that same-group representation is crucial in retaining diverse auditors. These individuals are less likely to leave when surrounded by peers and leaders of the same group and are more likely to join an organization with greater same-group representation. We also find that most individuals leave the audit profession, but those who stay longer have higher seniority later in their careers—suggesting that extended tenure could mutually benefit firms and individuals. Our findings offer valuable insight for firms seeking to promote DEI while improving retention rates.

This study uses difference-in-differences (DiD) analyses to examine the consequences of adopting the U.S. critical audit matter (CAM) disclosure requirement for preparers and users of financial reports. The CAM requirement is one of the largest expansions of the U.S. audit report since the 1940s. We document significant changes to financial statement footnotes referenced by CAMs, which suggests an indirect consequence where management disclosure changes in areas that are expected to be scrutinized following auditor-provided disclosure. Results also suggest that, on average, CAM disclosures do not provide incremental information to the market. To further examine market reaction, we develop well-specified prediction models for the expected number and subject areas of CAMs. We find limited initial evidence that the market reacts negatively when unexpected CAMs are disclosed. Overall, our findings provide insights on the new CAM standard and particularly demonstrate its relevance to management disclosure decisions and to the market.