Using the market values of audit partners’ houses as a measure of their personal wealth, we find that wealthier U.S. partners provide higher-quality audits, as evidenced by fewer material restatements, fewer material SEC comment letters, and higher audit fees. A battery of falsification tests shows that these findings are not driven by the matching of wealthier partners with clients with higher financial reporting quality. Our additional analyses suggest two explanations: greater personal wealth both incentivizes partners to exert more effort in delivering high-quality audits and reveals partners’ audit competence.

As of November 2016, SEC Regulation (“Reg”) AB II requires issuers of certain types of asset‐backed securities (“ABS”) to disclose the credit‐risk attributes of each asset in the underlying pool, a substantial expansion of prior disclosure requirements. We examine how ABS issuers’ asset‐level disclosures under Reg AB II affect the (e)valuation of ABS by investors and credit rating agencies. Using difference‐in‐differences models that compare affected and unaffected types of ABS, we find that these disclosures improve the ability of initial ABS yields and credit ratings to predict the performance of the underlying assets. These results are concentrated in deals with above‐median risk layering in the underlying assets and complexity in the tranching of credit risk. We further find that asset‐level disclosures are associated with lower yields. Lastly, we provide evidence that most prospective ABS investors download asset‐level information during the price formation period prior to ABS issuance.

Whether audit firms should disclose financial statements is controversial among investors, practitioners, and regulators. The debate centers on whether audit firms’ financial statements provide information about audit quality. Using hand-collected data from U.K. audit firms’ financial statements, we construct four measures that capture audit firms’ resource investments (i.e., human capital, workplace environment, technologies) and risk exposures (i.e., litigation provisions). We find that increases in audit firms’ staff costs, investments in tangible assets and IT software, and reductions in litigation provisions are associated with improved audit quality. The information in audit firms’ financial statements is not contained in their transparency reports or regulatory inspection reports. Additional tests show that increases in audit firms’ staff costs and tangible assets, as well as reductions in litigation provisions, are associated with improved audit efficiency.