To gain insight into the impact of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) auditor inspection program, I examine the association between the PCAOB’s access to inspect auditors of foreign SEC registrants and audit quality. Although the PCAOB is mandated to inspect all auditors of SEC registrants, certain foreign governments prohibit PCAOB inspections of their domestic auditors, providing variation in PCAOB inspection access that is not available when studying a sample of US companies. I find that auditors subject to PCAOB inspection access provide higher quality audits as measured by more going concern opinions, more reported material weaknesses, and less earnings management, relative to auditors not subject to PCAOB inspection access. There is no observable difference between the two sets of auditors prior to the PCAOB inspection regime. The positive effect of PCAOB inspection access on audit quality is observed in jurisdictions with, and without, a local audit regulator. Overall, the results are consistent with PCAOB inspection access being positively associated with audit quality

This paper examines investors’ perceptions of auditor involvement in non‐GAAP reporting as captured by non‐GAAP disclosures in 10‐K filings. We find that firm‐years with auditor involvement in non‐GAAP reporting have higher CARs, lower bid–ask spreads, lower stock volatility, and lower abnormal trading volume on 10‐K filing dates. To sharpen identification of auditor involvement, we hand‐collect non‐GAAP measures and reconciliations for S&P 500 firms and identify which exclusions reconcile directly to the audited financial statements. As the percentage of exclusions that reconcile directly to the audited financial statements increases, bid–ask spreads and stock volatility on 10‐K filing dates decrease. We find that the results are not driven by strategic reporting or managers’ responses to perceived litigation risk. This study provides new insights into non‐GAAP disclosures outside of earnings announcements, which have been largely ignored in prior literature. Collectively, our results suggest investors value auditor involvement in non‐GAAP reporting and inform policymakers and standard setters considering the usefulness of assurance over non‐GAAP measures.

This study investigates the relation between audit regulation and cost of equity capital. There is scant empirical evidence on this relation because changes in audit regulation are frequently accompanied by other major regulatory changes. We exploit variation in the timing of regulatory changes induced by foreign governments' staggered allowance of PCAOB inspections. Using a difference‐in‐differences design, we find that foreign SEC registrants with auditors from countries that allow PCAOB inspections enjoy a lower cost of capital, relative to foreign SEC registrants with auditors from countries that prohibit inspections. Furthermore, we find that this cost of capital effect is attenuated for companies with higher‐quality governance mechanisms. Finally, we document that inspection access is associated with higher‐quality analyst forecasts, which suggests that this change in audit regulation reduces information risk for market participants.

We examine the impact of shared auditors, defined as audit firms that provide audit services to a target and its acquirer firm prior to an acquisition, on transaction outcomes. We find shared auditors are observed in nearly a quarter of all public acquisitions and targets are more likely to receive a bid from a firm that has the same auditor. Moreover, these shared auditor deals are associated with significantly lower deal premiums, lower target event returns, higher bidder event returns, and higher deal completion rates. These results are driven by bids in which targets and acquirers share the same practice office of an audit firm and in which the target is small. Overall, our evidence suggests that bidders benefit from sharing an auditor with the target. Our results are robust to controls for alternative explanations and for selection bias in the shared-auditor effect.

Regulatory economics suggests that one benefit of public enforcement is the deterrence of improper conduct. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) design, we investigate whether a deterrence effect follows the revelation of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) enforcement. We find that large audit firm offices improve audit quality following enforcement naming another office within their firm while small firm offices improve following enforcement of local small firm competitors, with these responses varying by enforcement type. To understand potential mechanisms for the geographic deterrence effect, we examine the first occurrence of a revoked PCAOB registration within a market and find that results are stronger if there is greater news coverage or if nonsanctioned firms are in closer proximity to the sanctioned auditor. Supplemental tests reveal that results are stronger when nonsanctioned auditor clients are similar to the sanctioned firm’s clientele. Our findings suggest a positive but varied deterrence effect following PCAOB enforcement.

The objective of this study is to examine managerial involvement in auditor selection decisions when audit committees are “directly responsible” for auditor relationships, including selection of the audit firm. The Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) of (2002) requires fully independent audit committees to be “directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of the work of any registered public accounting firm” (Section 301). This statutory requirement is a regulatory attempt to eliminate management influence over the external auditor and align auditor incentives with those of the board and shareholders.1 While regulators largely assume that audit committees take responsibility for auditor selection in the post‐SOX period (Doty 2011), there exists no archival analysis testing this assumption. Therefore, the effectiveness of this regulation (SOX Section 301) remains uncertain. In this paper, we examine (a) whether contrary to the intent of SOX, managers continue to influence auditor selection decisions in the post‐SOX period, and (b) whether this influence subsequently impairs auditor independence as presumed in the legislation.

Research suggests that board members value financial reporting quality because executive dismissal often follows low reporting quality events. However, inferences about the board’s demand for reporting quality in these studies are confounded by board members’ reputation incentives because the events examined are public (e.g., restatements). We investigate boards’ demand for reporting quality by exploiting a private signal of misreporting: audit adjustments communicated to the Board by the external auditor. We first survey 29 audit committee chairs to understand whether boards use audit adjustments in their oversight of management and then conduct an empirical investigation to answer our research question. We find an increased likelihood of CFO dismissal following audit adjustments. This association is driven by adjustments that reduce income and by firms with better board oversight. These findings suggest that boards proactively use nonpublic signals of reporting quality and incorporate information from auditors into their monitoring function.

We use audit firm data breaches as time-varying, reputation-harming events to examine the value of auditor reputation—independent of actual audit quality—in the IPO process. We find that auditor data breaches are negatively associated with IPO offer price revisions. We demonstrate that this effect is due to an increase in institutional investors’ perception of information risk. Specifically, the effect is mitigated when other parties involved in the IPO reduce information risk themselves and when institutional investors are less likely to rely on audited financial information. In additional tests, we find that the impact of breaches on IPO offer price revisions is concentrated in breaches with greater severity, saliency, and frequency, consistent with institutional investors reacting to the announcement of the data breach rather than some other confounding factor. Collectively, our evidence suggests that IPO investors perceive time-varying reputational value of the external auditor, independent of changes in audit quality.

Regulators have expressed concerns about the “revolving door” between auditors and clients, whereby audit employees move directly from audit firms to audit clients (i.e., “direct alumni hires”). Regulators are concerned that these direct hires could compromise audit quality, partly because these employees could have previously audited their hiring company's financial statements. In contrast, we examine accounting and finance executives who move indirectly from audit firms to audit clients and who could not have previously audited the hiring company's financial statements (i.e., “indirect alumni hires”). We show that indirect hires occur more often than the direct hires that have concerned regulators. We predict and find that both direct and indirect alumni hires are associated with lower rates of executive turnover and audit firm turnover. However, there is no evidence that the reduced rates of executive turnover are explained by managerial entrenchment or that these hires are associated with lower audit quality. Overall, our findings suggest that direct and indirect employee movements from audit firms to audit clients are beneficial to executives, audit clients, and audit firms because they reduce the incidence of costly turnover.