This study investigates the relation between founding family ownership and earnings quality using data from the Standard & Poor's 500 companies. Existing literature has documented that financial reporting is of higher quality when firms have stronger corporate governance mechanisms and when there is greater demand for quality financial reporting. I provide two competing theories of the effect of founding family ownership on the demand and supply of earnings quality: the entrenchment effect and the alignment effect. The empirical results show that, on average, founding family ownership is associated with higher earnings quality. In particular, I find consistent evidence that founding family ownership is associated with lower abnormal accruals, greater earnings informativeness, and less persistence of transitory loss components in earnings. In addition, the results suggest a nonlinear relation between family ownership and earnings quality.

Abstract Recent studies indicate dividends are associated with higher‐quality earnings. Our study extends the literature by examining whether dividends' information is associated with auditors' assessment of their clients' earnings quality. Our results show that auditors charge lower fees to dividend‐paying clients than to nondividend‐paying clients and the average fee discount ranges from 6.0 to 10.6 percent. More importantly, we find dividends have an interactive effect with respect to earnings persistence and earnings manipulation: the negative association between audit fees and earnings persistence is more pronounced for dividend firms; and dividend payouts mitigate the positive relation between earnings manipulation risk and audit fees. Our results imply dividends reduce audit risk by enhancing clients' earnings quality information. We contribute to the literature by showing that auditors reflect the earnings quality information content of firms' dividend policies in their pricing decisions.

Abstract We examine whether audit partner individualism reduces earnings comparability in the United States. We argue that individualistic audit partners are more likely to deviate from internal working rules and allow clients more flexibility in making accounting choices, consequently decreasing their clients' earnings comparability. Using a novel partner‐level measure of individualism, we find that within individual Big 4 audit firms, earnings are less comparable between a company audited by an individualistic partner and a company audited by a non‐individualistic partner, relative to a pair of companies that are each audited by a non‐individualistic partner. Our inferences are robust to a changes analysis, a falsification test, and a propensity score matching procedure. We also find that the effect of partner individualism is less salient when the audit firm is under more stringent regulatory monitoring and when clients are more important, but more salient when individualistic partners are more confident about being different. Further analyses suggest that our main inferences are robust to controlling for differences in partners' cultural backgrounds and using client‐pairs audited by the same audit partner. Collectively, our study provides novel evidence on the role of auditor individualism in earnings comparability.

ABSTRACT This study investigates whether PCAOB inspections of foreign auditors affect global financial reporting comparability. Foreign auditors may adjust audit methodologies to address PCAOB inspection findings, which could affect financial reporting of local clients. Exploiting both within‐ and cross‐country variation in PCAOB inspections, we predict and find that non‐US‐listed foreign companies' financial reporting becomes more comparable to their US and non‐US industry peers after their auditors undergo an initial inspection. However, there is a decrease in comparability compared to local peers whose auditors have not been inspected. Subsample tests suggest that the improvement in comparability is driven by (i) auditors that satisfactorily address deficiencies and (ii) auditors that do not publicly push back against deficiencies. The effects are dampened after local audit regulators begin inspection programs. Overall, our evidence suggests that the PCAOB international inspection program affects audit methodologies of inspected auditors in a consistent way, improving comparability across jurisdictions. The improved comparability implies that the PCAOB international inspection program may unintentionally help meet accounting regulators' goals of cross‐country financial reporting convergence, which potentially promotes efficient cross‐country capital allocation.

We provide evidence on the preliminary effects of mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards ( IFRS ) on accounting quality for a relatively broad set of firms from 20 countries that adopted IFRS in 2005 relative to a benchmark group of firms from countries that did not adopt IFRS matched on the strength of legal enforcement, industry, size, book‐to‐market, and accounting performance. Relative to these benchmark firms, we find that IFRS firms exhibit significant increases in income smoothing and aggressive reporting of accruals, and a significant decrease in timeliness of loss recognition; however we do not find significant differences across IFRS and benchmark firms in meeting or beating earnings targets. Our findings contrast with findings in earlier studies which suggest that IFRS adoption leads to increased accounting quality. Our findings primarily hold for firms in strong enforcement countries, which suggests that enforcement mechanisms in these countries were not able to counter the initial effects of greater flexibility in IFRS relative to domestic GAAP .

ABSTRACT: This study investigates whether the agency conflicts inherent in a dual class ownership structure are associated with the level of firms' tax avoidance. Dual class ownership presents a unique agency problem because insiders control a majority of the votes of a firm despite having claims to a minority of the firm's cash flows. We examine the level of tax avoidance for a sample of dual class firms and find that the extent of tax avoidance declines as the difference between voting rights and cash flow rights increases. We also compare the level of tax avoidance of dual class firms to a sample of propensity matched single class firms and find that dual class firms engage in less tax avoidance as the wedge between insiders' voting rights and cash flow rights increases. These findings are consistent with dual class ownership entrenching managers and allowing them to perform at a suboptimal level. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified in the paper.

ABSTRACT This study investigates whether the tax-specific industry expertise of the external audit firm influences its clients' level of tax avoidance. Our results suggest that clients purchasing tax services from their external audit firm engage in greater tax avoidance when their external audit firm is a tax expert. Because the external audit firm potentially influences clients' tax avoidance activities via the provision of tax consulting services and the financial statement audit, we also examine whether the overall expertise (i.e., the combined tax and audit expertise) of the external audit firm is associated with tax avoidance. We find that the external audit firm's overall expertise is generally associated with greater tax avoidance, which suggests that overall experts are able to combine their audit and tax expertise to develop tax strategies that benefit clients from both a tax and financial statement perspective. In combination, our results suggest that the tax-specific industry expertise of the external audit firm plays a significant role in its clients' tax avoidance. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified in the article.

The pricing of Big 5 industry leadership in the U.S. audit market is investigated using audit fee disclosures for the 2000–2001 fiscal years and the joint nationalcity framework in Ferguson et al. (2003). There is a significant fee premium of 19 percent on those engagements where Big 5 auditors are both the nationally top-ranked auditor and the city-level industry leader in the city where the client is headquartered, indicating that national and city-specific industry leadership jointly affect auditor reputation and pricing. However, there is never a premium in any tests for auditors that are national industry leaders alone without also being city-specific industry leaders, indicating that national leadership by itself does not result in a premium. The evidence is mixed with respect to city-specific industry leaders alone that are not also national industry leaders. While there is a premium of 8 percent in the primary tests, this result is inconclusive as it does not hold in all sensitivity analyses.