Knowledge that Transforms

Prior research finds that signals of remediation of internal control weaknesses do not guarantee that all weaknesses are fully resolved. However, why certain remediation strategies fail is unclear. This study examines how remediation timing and actions affect the likelihood of a failed remediation. I predict and find that the likelihood of a failed remediation is decreasing in both the time a company takes to remediate and in the extent of remediation actions employed. Importantly, this study documents that disclosures of material changes in internal control provide information useful in assessing the likelihood of a failed remediation, as well as evidence that prompt remediation does not necessarily result in a successful remediation. Moreover, I find that there are consequences to remediation failures in the form of a higher likelihood of management and board turnover. Finally, I find evidence that economic benefits of remediation found in prior research may be understated. This study can provide stakeholders with insights into how the nature, extent, and timing of a remediation strategy can reduce the likelihood of a failed remediation.

Given the uncertainty regarding auditors' responsibilities, standard setters considered the need for clarification of technical terms such as reasonable assurance in the new audit reporting models. The PCAOB ultimately decided to exclude clarifying language from its final standard, while the Auditing Standards Board and IAASB made such language mandatory. Given the difference in reporting models, this study investigates the role clarification of reasonable assurance plays in auditor negligence. We predict and find that, absent clarification, jurors judge auditors to be more negligent when the audit report includes a related critical audit matters disclosure than when it does not. However, consistent with our prediction, clarifying what is meant by reasonable assurance mitigates this increase in auditors' liability exposure by reducing jurors' perceptions of auditors' personal control over the misstatement at the time of the audit. Thus, our evidence suggests that the PCAOB's decision to not include such language in the new audit reporting model may have been shortsighted given the potential for clarification to mitigate a potential negative unintended consequence to auditors' litigation exposure under the new audit reporting model.

This study investigates the influence of three interest groups—businesses, the tax profession, and civil society—on tax rules in the context of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. Our study is important as prior research has not examined the direct influence of various interest groups on the content of tax rules by means of comment letters. Using content analysis, we seek to explain the lobbying success of the different interest groups by examining the relevance of the kind of information transmitted and the alliance strategies used. Results indicate that lobbying success is mainly explained by the vested interests of the three groups, with businesses less successful than the other two interest groups as long as all interest groups are equally able to provide information. We also find that the lobbying success of businesses increases when proposals require specific expertise. However, bias is still relevant for lobbying success as we find that proposals from tax professionals with practical experience, likely to reflect less bias, are relatively more successful than proposals from businesses. Furthermore, our results suggest that mobilizing commenters who have a shared interest in the form of alliances is a promising lobbying strategy. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of expertise and collective actions for lobbying success.

We examine how a firm's disclosure‐audience policy affects investors' expertise acquisition and price informativeness in the market. We distinguish the investors' information advantage due to superior access from that due to superior ability to process information. We show that targeted selective disclosure to sophisticated investors may encourage greater expertise acquisition on the part of investors and lead to more informative prices than either public disclosure or untargeted selective disclosure, because the value of expertise is maximized if sophisticated investors gain exclusive information access at a relatively low cost. These results illuminate the persistence of private communications between investors and firms in the post–Regulation Fair Disclosure era and provide implications for regulators in addressing increasing concerns raised about the enforcement of Regulation Fair Disclosure.