We use unique disclosures in the insurance industry to examine whether client-engaged specialists (i.e., external actuaries) affect opportunism within the claim loss reserve. Using a fixed-effects approach, we find that external actuaries significantly affect the opportunism in the claim loss reserve, approaching half the effect of the auditor. With respect to actuary characteristics, we find a positive (negative) association between actuary permissiveness (actuary size) and opportunism in the claim loss reserve. In additional analyses, we find that the relation between actuary permissiveness and claim loss reserve opportunism is stronger when insurers have incentives to opportunistically manage the claim loss reserve. This relation continues to persist in the presence of high-quality auditors. Overall, we provide evidence suggesting that client-engaged external actuaries can be used to support opportunistic claim loss reserve estimates.

A primary argument against fair value measurement is the lack of verifiability, where verifiability is defined as consensus in measurement by independent parties. We evaluate this argument by investigating trends in the consensus of reported fair values. Our findings indicate that consensus increased between 2005 and 2019, as evidenced by reductions in the fair value range and standard deviation. Further analyses suggest that enhanced data availability—driven by public dissemination of trade information—serves as a mechanism for this trend. We also document that securities subject to testing by larger external auditors with more resources to take advantage of enhanced data availability are associated with a stronger trend in increasing consensus. Finally, this trend appears to be stronger in situations when management has a heightened opportunity to record a biased estimate. While conventional arguments express concern over management’s ability to manipulate fair values, our results demonstrate patterns consistent with improved verifiability.

ABSTRACT Auditor credibility is important in the banking industry due to the opacity of bank assets and the use of financial statements by external parties to facilitate monitoring. Depositors monitor and discipline bank behavior, but they can also contribute to the spread of shocks from one bank to another. We argue that depositors perceive bank failure as an audit failure, which reduces their assessment of auditor credibility. We document that exposure to failure through the audit firm is associated with lower uninsured deposit growth following the failure, consistent with depositors perceiving failures as a negative signal of auditor credibility. We further document that this association is stronger when depositors perceive connection to failure to reflect a pervasive issue within the audit firm. Collectively, our results suggest that depositors consider accounting signals at other banks in assessing financial reporting credibility. JEL Classifications: G21; M41; M42.

ABSTRACT We exploit a regulatory change to examine whether bank regulator strictness is affected when regulators no longer rely on external assurance. In the absence of external assurance, we find that banks report higher nonaccrual loans, higher troubled debt restructurings, and both a timelier loan loss provision and higher quality allowance for loan loss reserve. Further, regulators spend more days performing targeted bank examinations for banks affected by the regulatory change. We do not find evidence of operational deterioration, but rather the findings are consistent with increased regulator strictness over the reporting of problem assets, particularly during targeted examinations. Overall, our results suggest that regulators become stricter when they can no longer rely on the work of external auditors and that third-party assurance is an imperfect substitute for direct regulatory monitoring. Data Availability: Bank regulatory rating and examination dates are confidential and were obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. All other data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: G21; G28; M42.