ABSTRACT This paper examines the effect of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) international inspection program on companies' financing and investing decisions. Difference-in-differences regression estimates suggest that companies respond to their auditor receiving a “deficiency-free” inspection report by issuing additional external capital amounting to 1.4 percent of assets and increasing investment by 0.5 percent of assets. These effects are larger for (1) financially constrained companies and (2) companies located in countries where there is no regulator or the regulator does not conduct inspections. Further, the effect on financing decisions is stronger in countries with (1) low corruption, (2) strong rule of law, and (3) high regulatory quality. Descriptive evidence suggests that inspections increase the use of financial covenants in debt contracts, which is likely one of the mechanisms through which inspections generate real effects. This paper documents the value of PCAOB inspections in mitigating financing frictions for non-U.S. companies. JEL Classifications: D8; D25; G15; G31; G38; M4; M41; M42. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

We survey 170 inspectors, representing 27% of the inspection staff, from auditor public oversight boards (POBs) in 20 countries to understand whether, how, and why auditors respond to POB oversight. We find that a large majority of inspectors believe that auditors frequently respond to their feedback by changing audit procedures and quality control systems. Inspectors perceive inspections to have broad effects on several aspects of auditing, ranging from documentation to the removal of partners. Some inspectors perceive that auditors place greater weight on keeping fees low than on increasing audit quality. Inspectors also believe that auditors on occasion ‘fix’ closed audit files before an inspection, and in rare instances obtain confidential information about upcoming inspections. Inspectors think that the primary reasons why auditors respond to POB feedback are (1) public disclosure, (2) enforcement capabilities, (3) POBs being perceived as authoritative, and (4) POBs having a culture for detecting auditing deficiencies.

This paper examines whether portfolio disclosure requirements for actively managed investment funds affect the investment decisions of the firms they own. We argue that mandatory portfolio disclosures reduce fund managers' incentive to collect and trade on private information, which reduces the stock price informativeness of their portfolio, and thus portfolio firm managers' ability to learn from their firms' stock prices. Using a difference-in-differences design around the May 2004 SEC regulation requiring more frequent fund disclosure, we find that investment sensitivity to stock price declines for firms with significant ownership held by actively managed funds affected by the regulation. The decline in investment-price sensitivity is concentrated among firms that are (i) owned by funds with larger expected proprietary costs and (ii) more likely to learn from price. Our results suggest that portfolio disclosure requirements have spillover effects on corporate investment by curtailing managers’ opportunities to learn from price.

A fundamental question in accounting is whether and to what extent financial reporting facilitates the allocation of capital to the right investment projects. Over the last two decades, a large and growing body of literature has contributed to our understanding of whether and why financial reporting affects investment decision-making. We review the empirical literature on this topic, provide a framework to organize this literature, and highlight opportunities for future research.

This paper examines the relation between audit market competition and audit quality. We use the staggered introduction of bullet trains in different Chinese cities as shocks to travel time between audit clients and prospective audit firms, which increases the threat of competition for incumbent audit firms. The inception of bullet train connectivity leads to a 4.5 percentage point (pp) increase in the probability of GAAP violations and a 1.7 pp decrease in the probability of modified audit opinions for clients headquartered in connected cities. Bullet train connectivity is also followed by a 1.6 pp decrease in income-decreasing audit adjustments but no change in income-increasing audit adjustments. The negative relation between bullet train connectivity and audit quality is 1) stronger when bullet trains put greater competitive pressure on incumbent auditors and 2) weaker when clients demand high audit quality. Our paper provides plausibly causal evidence that competition lowers audit quality.

ABSTRACT In 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission enacted the Securities Offering Reform (Reform), which relaxes “gun‐jumping” restrictions, thereby allowing firms to more freely disclose information before equity offerings. We examine the effect of the Reform on voluntary disclosure behavior before equity offerings and the associated economic consequences. We find that firms provide significantly more preoffering disclosures after the Reform. Further, we find that these preoffering disclosures are associated with a decrease in information asymmetry and a reduction in the cost of raising equity capital. Our findings not only inform the debate on the market effect of the Reform, but also speak to the literature on the relation between voluntary disclosure and information asymmetry by examining the effect of quasi‐exogenous changes in voluntary disclosure on information asymmetry, and thus a firm's cost of capital.

ABSTRACT We analyze survey responses from nearly 600 corporate tax executives to investigate firms' incentives and disincentives for tax planning. While many researchers hypothesize that reputational concerns affect the degree to which managers engage in tax planning, this hypothesis is difficult to test with archival data. Our survey allows us to investigate reputational influences and, indeed, we find that reputational concerns are important—69 percent of executives rate reputation as important and the factor ranks second in order of importance among all factors explaining why firms do not adopt a potential tax planning strategy. We also find that financial accounting incentives play a role. For example, 84 percent of publicly traded firms respond that top management at their company cares at least as much about the GAAP ETR as they do about cash taxes paid and 57 percent of public firms say that increasing earnings per share is an important outcome from a tax planning strategy. JEL Classifications: D83; G31, M41. Data Availability: Survey responses are confidential. Other data are available from public sources identified in the paper.