We study the pricing of audit services for strategic alliances, a governance structure involving an incomplete contract between separate firms. Since incomplete contracts do not specify all future contingencies, we expect that the nonverifiability of information and potential agency behavior in alliances increase audit complexity, resulting in higher audit fees. Our findings support this prediction. We then separate strategic alliances into joint ventures and contractual alliances, as the latter involve more complexity. We find that our audit fee results are largely driven by contractual alliances. We perform additional tests to rule out the concern that our audit fee results might be attributable to the impact of strategic alliances on distress risk, audit risk, or control risk. Contrary to the distress risk argument, we find that auditors are less likely to issue going‐concern modified opinions when there is an increase in strategic alliances. Contrary to the audit risk argument, we find that an increase in strategic alliances is unrelated to the likelihood of financial misstatements. Contrary to the control risk argument, we find that an increase in strategic alliances is unrelated to internal control weakness opinions.

This study empirically examines the impact of various competitive cost proxies on the extent of product‐related information disclosed by biotech initial public offerings (IPOs) in their prospectuses. The choice of biotech companies, which operate in a fiercely competitive environment, crystalizes the importance of competitive disclosure costs. The focus on product‐related information is aimed at a disclosure set for which potential competitive harm is a priori substantial. Our empirical analyses establish three disclosure determinants: the stage of product development, availability of patent protection, and venture capital backing. Additionally, we find the relative size of ownership retained by pre‐IPO owners to be negatively related to the extent of disclosure, as predicted by signaling models. We also document the expected inverse relation between the extent of information conveyed by the biotech IPOs and widely used measures of information asymmetry: the bid‐ask spread and quoted depth, as well as stock return volatility.

In this paper, we study a broad sample of Arthur Andersen clients and investigate whether the decline in Andersen's reputation, due to its criminal indictment on March 14, 2002, adversely affected the stock market's perception of its audit quality. Because these reputa‐tional concerns are more of an issue if an auditor's independence is impaired, we investigate the relationship between the abnormal market returns for Andersen clients around the time of the indictment announcement and several fee‐based measures of auditor independence. Our results suggest that when news about Andersen's indictment was released, the market reacted negatively to Andersen clients. More importantly, we find that the indictment period abnormal return is significantly more negative when the market perceived the auditor's independence to be threatened. We also examine the abnormal returns when firms announced the dismissal of Andersen as an auditor. Consistent with the audit quality explanation, we document that when firms quickly dismissed Andersen, the announcement returns are significantly higher when firms switched to a Big 4 auditor than when they either switched to non‐Big 4 auditors or did not announce the identity of the replacement auditor. Our empirical results support the notion that auditor reputation and independence have a material impact on perceived audit quality and the credibility of audited financial statements, and that the market prices this.

We document the existence of expertise rents by finding that financial experts on audit committees obtain higher abnormal returns from insider purchases than do non‐financial experts on audit committees. We further investigate whether information processing skills work alone or jointly with an information advantage to generate expertise rents. While financial experts on audit committees outperform financial experts on other committees, financial experts on compensation, executive, nominating, and governance committees do not outperform non‐financial experts on these committees. These findings suggest that expertise rents are domain‐specific and can be obtained only when directors have both access to private information and information processing skills. In additional testing, we find that expertise rents for financial experts on audit committees are primarily driven by non‐accounting financial experts, whose finance or supervisory experience could make them better than accounting financial experts in understanding market conditions and assessing firm risk.

This study investigates the role of employment policies in reducing internal control ineffectiveness and financial restatements. We provide new evidence that employee treatment policies are an important predictor of ineffective internal control. We also find that employee-friendly policies significantly reduce the propensity for employee-related material weaknesses. These results suggest that greater employee benefits facilitate the acquisition, development, and motivation of the workforce and ameliorate the loss of valuable human capital, thereby mitigating employee failures to implement internal control tasks properly. Moreover, we document novel results that financial restatements, especially those caused by unintentional errors, are less likely to arise in firms that invest more in employee benefits. Collectively, our emphasis on the effect of employee treatment policies on the integrity of internal control and financial reporting distinguishes our paper from previous studies that focus on the role of top executives in accounting practices. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources indicated in the text.