We examine the reputational impact of an audit office issuing adverse internal control opinions (adverse ICOs). While prior research has examined how clients that receive an adverse ICO respond, we focus on clients that did not receive an adverse ICO. We find that audit offices that issue more adverse ICOs experience lower growth and that this effect is stronger when the adverse ICO is associated with a more visible client or refers to an entity-level control weakness. Finally, we find that clients are less likely to select auditors that have a history of issuing adverse ICOs, and auditors are able to recoup some of their lost growth when they issue fewer adverse ICOs. Our results indicate that the market for audit services penalizes auditors for disclosing information critical of management, which undermines the value of direct-to-investor auditor communications and provides insight into potential longer-term implications of the expanded auditor's report.

We examine whether negative news media coverage of peer audit firms affects audit quality by mitigating the contagion effect of low-quality audits. We find that when a company issues a restatement, other companies served by the same audit office or within the same city are more likely to subsequently issue a restatement. However, we find that higher negative peer firm news coverage mitigates this contagion effect, particularly when auditors have greater opportunity to improve audit quality (smaller companies) and when media attention amplifies reputational pressures (higher local news intensity). Our findings extend to litigation-related news but not to nonnegative news, suggesting that auditors respond to perceived reputational threats stemming from negative news. Additionally, negative peer news increases auditor attention, consistent with an auditor supply-side effect that improves audit quality. Our findings highlight the media’s role as an informal oversight mechanism.

We investigate how audit firms balance the tension between professional responsibility and client service by examining changes in partner assignments following adverse internal control opinions (ICOs). We find that partners are significantly more likely to be reassigned when they issued an adverse ICO to any of their clients in the previous year. Further, partners issuing adverse ICOs experience unfavorable changes in their client portfolios in the form of lower fees and less prestigious assignments. We find that consequences are more negative when adverse ICOs are issued to clients that are more important to the local office and that there are no consequences when partners issue continuing adverse opinions to clients they have “inherited” from an original adverse ICO partner. We also find that the consequences are stronger for partners of non‐Big 4 audit firms that are likely to be more sensitive to client service considerations. The negative portfolio effects we observe persist for at least three years, and our findings are robust to restrictions involving mandatory partner rotation and adverse ICOs that lead to client loss. Overall, our results are consistent with adverse ICO partners experiencing negative consequences as audit firms respond to client service incentives in the area of internal controls over financial reporting.

Consulting service revenues recently surpassed audit revenues as the primary income source for the largest accounting firms. Since SOX limits the provision of consulting services to audit clients, this shift in revenues implies that firms and many clients likely choose between audit and consulting relationships. We explore the implications of this by developing and validating a measure of client-level consulting needs that can likely be fulfilled by accounting firms, which we refer to as “consulting opportunities.” As predicted, we find that consulting opportunities relate positively to auditor switches. We also find that consulting opportunities relate negatively to subsequent Big 4 auditor selection—the firms focusing most on consulting—but we fail to find evidence that consulting opportunities relate to deteriorations in audit quality. Together, our results suggest that legislation limiting firms' ability to deliver consulting services to audit clients may have reduced audit market concentration without discernably impacting quality. Data Availability: All data used are publicly available from sources cited in the text.