I examine whether bank regulators and external auditors have conflicting effects on loan loss provision timeliness, an accounting choice associated with important economic consequences and a potential conflict between regulators and auditors. In the absence of the other group, auditors and strict regulators are each positively associated with timeliness. However, audits are negatively associated with timeliness when strict regulators are present, consistent with a conflict for which auditors are the dominating group as audited banks attain a similar level of timeliness regardless of the extent of regulatory scrutiny. Collectively, this suggests that regulators and auditors differentially influence loan loss provisions.

This paper examines whether public bank managers change both the composition and classification of their investment portfolios after SFAS 157. We first show that non-agency mortgage-backed securities (MBSNA) are the asset class most likely to be measured using level 3 inputs, which are based on unobservable information. We then find that relative to a control sample of private banks, public banks altered their investment portfolios in a manner that reduced the percentage of MBSNA holdings for which SFAS 157 disclosures are required. Taken together, this evidence is consistent with public banks attempting to avoid disclosure of level 3 assets through changes in both asset composition and classification.

Employing a novel control function regression method that accounts for the endogenous matching of banks and executives, we find that equity portfolio vega, the sensitivity of executives’ equity portfolio value to their firms’ stock return volatility, leads to systemic risk that manifests during subsequent economic contractions but not expansions. We further find that vega encourages systemically risky policies, including maintaining lower common equity Tier 1 capital ratios, relying on more run-prone debt financing, and making more procyclical investments. Collectively, our evidence suggests that executives’ incentive-compensation contracts promote systemic risk-taking through banks’ lending, investing, and financing practices.

We examine whether auditor scrutiny over the allowance for loan losses (ALL) is associated with bank lending decisions. Using PCAOB inspection findings over the ALL to capture increases in auditor scrutiny, we find that auditor scrutiny is associated with a larger ALL for homogeneous loans (i.e., residential mortgages and consumer loans) but not for heterogeneous loans (i.e., commercial real estate; commercial and industrial loans). We next find that auditor scrutiny is associated with a shift in lending away from homogeneous loans, consistent with auditor scrutiny reducing the relative attractiveness of homogeneous loans. These findings suggest that policymakers and audit regulators can indirectly affect bank lending by exercising their authority in ways that affect auditor scrutiny. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from the sources discussed in the paper.