In 2005–2006, the PCAOB imposed restrictions on auditors' tax services in order to strengthen auditor independence and improve audit quality. The restrictions resulted in a significant drop in auditor-provided tax services (APTS). To test the impact on audit quality, I partition the sample into a treatment group (companies whose APTS purchases dropped significantly when the restrictions were introduced) and a control group (companies whose APTS purchases were relatively unaffected) and I measure audit quality using the incidence of accounting misstatements, tax-related misstatements, and auditors' going-concern opinions. Using a difference-in-differences design, I find no change in audit quality for the treatment group relative to the control group after the restrictions are imposed.

Theory suggests that managers issue earnings forecasts to reduce information asymmetry. An earnings forecast is more effective in reducing information asymmetry if it contains earnings news that is relatively more informative about the firm's value. We hypothesize that a manager is more likely to issue an earnings forecast if investors perceive that earnings are more informative. We measure earnings informativeness by estimating the firm's earnings response coefficient (ERC) in quarters prior to the forecast issuance decision. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that the firm's historic ERC is positively associated with management's issuance of earnings forecasts.

We find that over six hundred auditors with fewer than 100 SEC clients exit the market following SOX. Compared to the non-exiting auditors, the exiting auditors are lower quality, where quality is gauged by: (1) avoidance of AICPA peer reviews and failure to comply with PCAOB rules, and (2) severity of the peer review and inspection reports. In addition, clients of exiting auditors receive higher quality auditing from successor auditors, as captured by a greater likelihood of receiving going concern opinions. Our results suggest that the PCAOB inspections improve audit quality by incentivizing low quality auditors to exit the market.

This study examines whether audit adjustments are a mechanism that links the effect of mandatory internal control audits (MICAs) on financial reporting quality. We argue that the requirement for auditors to publicly disclose internal control weaknesses exacerbated auditor-client conflicts and that this resulted in auditors being less likely to detect (and correct) misstatements in their clients' pre-audit financial statements. Consistent with this argument, we find significant reductions in audit adjustments following the staggered introduction of MICAs using data from China. We find the reductions in audit adjustments are associated with significant increases in material misstatements following the introduction of MICAs. In contrast, we find that the introduction of MICAs led to a significant reduction in material misstatements among clients that did not experience reductions in audit adjustments. Overall, the two effects offset each other, which explains why financial reporting quality did not improve, on average, following the introduction of MICAs.

Exploiting a natural experiment in which voluntary audits replace mandatory audits for U.K. private companies, we analyze whether imposing audits suppresses valuable information about the types of companies that would voluntarily choose to be audited. We control for the assurance benefits of auditing to isolate the role signaling plays by focusing on companies that are audited under both regimes. These companies experience no change in audit assurance, although they can now reveal for the first time their desire to be audited. We find that these companies attract upgrades to their credit ratings because they send a positive signal by submitting to an audit when this is no longer legally required. In contrast, companies that dispense with being audited suffer downgrades to their ratings because avoiding an audit sends a negative signal and removes its assurance value. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources.

This study examines whether China's weak institutional environment results in lower-quality audits by the Big 4 firms. We find that the Big 4 assign their less experienced partners to companies that are listed only in China compared with clients cross-listed in Hong Kong. The Big 4 are less likely to issue modified audit reports, and they charge lower audit fees for clients that are listed only in China. Finally, companies listed only in China have larger signed abnormal accruals than do companies cross-listed in Hong Kong. Overall, we conclude that the weak institutional environment in China results in the Big 4 firms providing lower-quality audits to companies that are listed only in China.

Opponents of mandatory rotation argue that a change of partner is bad for audit quality, as it results in a loss of client-specific knowledge. On the other hand, proponents argue that a change of partner is beneficial, as it results in a positive peer review effect and a fresh perspective on the audit. We test the impact of mandatory partner rotation on audit quality using a unique dataset of audit adjustments in China. Our results suggest that mandatory rotation of engagement partners results in higher quality audits in the years immediately surrounding rotation. Specifically, we find a significantly higher frequency of audit adjustments during the departing partner's final year of tenure prior to mandatory rotation and during the incoming partner's first year of tenure following mandatory rotation.