This study investigates the degree of concordance between fifteen measures of audit quality used in academia and two measures of audit process quality determined either by audit firms’ internal inspections or by Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspections of individual engagements. Using two confidential datasets of these assessments of audit process quality, I find that three of the measures of audit quality used by academics have significant associations with both measures of audit process deficiencies used by auditors and regulators: (i) the propensity to restate financial statements, (ii) the propensity to meet or beat the zero earnings threshold, and (iii) audit fees. Seven academic proxies are significantly associated with only one audit process quality measure, and five have insignificant associations with both practitioner assessments. Overall, the significant associations indicate that practitioners and academics share common ground in identifying low-quality audits. These findings can provide guidance for future studies in selecting audit-quality proxies suitable for different research questions.

We examine whether auditor regulatory oversight affects the value of financial statement audits. Using the PCAOB international inspection program as a setting to generate within country variation in regulatory oversight, we find that non-U.S. auditors inspected by the PCAOB gain 4% to 6% market share from competing auditors after PCAOB inspection reports are made public. When inspection findings reveal that an auditor has many engagement-level deficiencies, market share gains following inspection reports are significantly smaller. Our evidence suggests that regulatory scrutiny increases the assurance value of an audit and highlights the role of public regulatory oversight in the audit market.

This study investigates the impact on auditors' and clients' activities of Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspections of individual engagements. I find that both auditors and clients react to a Part I Finding, which identifies audit deficiencies on their inspected engagements. Audit firm effort increases on inspected engagements and non-inspected engagements of offices or partners that receive a Part I Finding, suggesting direct, as well as spillover, effects of the PCAOB inspections. The client is also more likely to switch auditors. However, auditor effort and financial reporting quality subsequently decline for inspected engagements that did not receive a Part I Finding. In these cases, clients are less likely to switch auditors. Additional analyses show that the auditor reaction depends on whether the auditor is an industry specialist, the client reaction depends on the size of the auditor, and effects on financial reporting quality depend on whether the deficiency is a firm-wide issue. Overall, these results suggest that both audit firms and clients care about the PCAOB individual engagement inspection process and, in several instances, gravitate toward the level set by the Part I Finding bar.

We examine the disclosure policies of non-unionized firms operating in unionized industries. We test the hypothesis that non-unionized firms have an incentive to disclose more information when their unionized rivals are engaged in labor renegotiations; that is, to weaken them. We find that non-unionized firms disclose more information and more good news when renegotiations are ongoing. This behavior is stronger for larger firms, firms with fewer peers in the industry, and firms more similar to their renegotiating rivals. We also find some evidence that unionized firms are harmed by this behavior and that non-unionized firms benefit from their increased disclosures.

We examine the effect of large audit firms’ internal inspection programs, an important monitoring mechanism, on auditor effort and financial reporting quality. Internal inspections are often predictable, and engagement teams concentrate their effort on audits ultimately selected for inspections. The extra effort increases the likelihood of a favorable inspection rating. We find some evidence of improvement in financial reporting quality in the inspection year, suggesting that internal inspections are effective in deterring auditor shirking. Upon receiving a favorable rating, the engagement team reverts audit effort back to the preinspection level. However, if the rating is unfavorable, the team increases effort on future engagements of the client. This higher effort improves the client’s financial reporting quality if the internal inspection program is not deemed deficient by the PCAOB. Collectively, the results highlight the importance of an effective internal inspection program in improving financial reporting quality.

This paper examines whether the identity of the individual audit partners provides informational value to capital market participants beyond the value provided by the identity of the audit firms. Using data from Taiwan, where firms are mandated to disclose the names of the engagement partners, we find a positive association between the partner's quality and the client firm's earnings response coefficient. We also find a positive market reaction when a firm replaces a lower quality partner with a higher quality one. Moreover, we find evidence that firms audited by higher quality partners experience smaller initial public offering (IPO) underpricing and are able to obtain better debt contract terms. Overall, these results suggest that the quality of engagement partners matters to capital market participants.