We examine the impact of auditors’ reputation impairments on their private-client market share to explore how conducting low-quality audits affects auditors’ broader client portfolios. Prior evidence implies that an audit office loses public-client market share after a client announces a restatement. However, auditors’ private clients may be less concerned about auditor reputation and quality, given that they have lower agency costs and their financial statement users are often creditors that can rely on direct monitoring to narrow information asymmetry. Also, differences between public and private company audits cast doubt on whether public-client restatements are relevant to private clients. We find that the private-client market share of a Big Four audit office falls by, on average, 5 percent the year after a public client announces a restatement. This evidence suggests that Big Four offices cannot simply replace lost public-client revenue with private-client revenue after suffering reputation damage.

We provide large sample evidence of law firms facilitating U.S. publicly traded companies' tax planning, investigate when evidence of law firm involvement is strongest, and examine some tax planning mechanisms law firms facilitate. Because companies' tax planning relationships with law firms are not publicly observable, we use litigation filings and SEC comment letters to identify companies' observable law firm relationships. We find a positive association between companies' tax planning and the average tax planning of other companies that have a relationship with the same law firm. This association is stronger for companies that are smaller, younger, R&D-intensive, financially constrained, and facing less capital market pressure, but does not vary with auditor-provided tax services. We also find evidence consistent with law firms facilitating the use of tax havens, Double Irish structures, and special purpose entities. Our findings deepen our understanding of companies' tax planning ecosystems.

We gain unique insights into materiality judgments about accounting errors by examining SEC comment letter correspondence. We document that managers typically use multiple quantitative benchmarks in their materiality analyses, with earnings being the most common benchmark. In most of the cases we review, managers deem the error immaterial despite its exceeding the traditional “5 percent of earnings” rule of thumb, often in multiple periods and by a large degree. Instead of attempting to conceal these overages, managers tend to forthrightly acknowledge them, often asserting that the benchmark is abnormally low during the violation period. We find that 17–26 percent of these “low benchmark” assertions are suspect (although none of these “low benchmark” assertions are challenged by the SEC). We also document substantial variation in the extent to which qualitative factors are mentioned as considerations. The SEC generally is deferential toward managers' arguments and judgments but is more likely to challenge immateriality claims when managers admit there are qualitative factors that indicate errors are material.

We test conjectures about the determinants of materiality judgments by examining a financial reporting choice made by firms that discover errors in prior years' financial statements. From late 2004 to mid-2006, more than 250 U.S. firms uncovered and corrected operating lease accounting errors either by formal restatement—required for errors deemed material—or by a less visible current-period “catch-up” adjustment. We test the role of materiality considerations outlined in SAB No. 99 as well as factors outside authoritative guidance in explaining the correction method chosen. Although both quantitative and qualitative materiality considerations cited in the guidance explain a large portion of the variation in firms' error correction decisions, we find that the prior actions of other firms also appear to play a major role. We also find that clerical considerations, but not strategic disclosure concerns, help explain cross-sectional variation in the timing of firms' error correction announcements.

We investigate whether PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies lead to higher audit fees or turnover likelihood for clients of Big 4 auditors. To examine this, we identify areas of GAAP related to PCAOB deficiencies for each auditor. We then use textual analysis to identify how important the deficiencies are to clients to measure each client's exposure to deficient auditing. We find that this measure positively relates to audit fees and that this association is moderated by client bargaining power. Auditor turnover is also higher when deficiency exposure is high relative to what it would be for peer auditors, but we only observe this relation for smaller clients and do not find it is affected by client bargaining power. Finally, we find that companies switching Big 4 auditors tend to select an auditor resulting in lower deficiency exposure. These results have implications for understanding how PCAOB inspection reports affect the market for audit services. JEL Classifications: M41; M42. Data Availability: We obtain all data from publicly available sources.