ABSTRACT This paper investigates the common, yet previously opaque, practice of using foreign audit firms (component auditors) to conduct portions of audit work for U.S. public companies. U.S. regulators have expressed concern for the transparency and quality of audits using component auditors. Employing data disclosed in the newly mandated PCAOB Form AP, we find that component auditor use is largely structural, determined by the size and complexity of clients' multinational operations. We do not find that the mere use of component auditors is detrimental to audit outcomes, but rather the amount of work conducted by component auditors is associated with lower audit quality (i.e., higher likelihood of misstatement), higher likelihood of nontimely reporting, and higher audit fees, which collectively suggest that component auditor engagements are associated with adverse outcomes. Furthermore, we find that only the work performed by less competent component auditors and those facing geographic and cultural/language barriers, including significant geographic and cultural distance, weak rule of law, and low English language proficiency, is associated with adverse audit outcomes. Overall, these findings provide initial archival evidence that the use of certain component auditors on U.S. multinational audits is associated with audit coordination issues, which suggests that PCAOB Form AP disclosures provide relevant information.

ABSTRACT PCAOB inspections repeatedly indicate deficiencies in audits of fair-value (FV) estimates, prompting regulators to improve the related auditing standards. We predict that auditor task-specific FV expertise, gained from work experience during the audit of FV measurements, can contribute to higher audit quality. Utilizing FV-related restatements and comment letters, we find that expertise in auditing Level 3 FV estimates at the office level is associated with greater FV audit quality. Level 2 FV expertise or national level FV expertise is not associated with higher FV audit quality. Following the receipt of a comment letter, we further find that auditor FV expertise is associated with lower comment letter remediation costs and higher FV disclosure quality. Finally, we find that the value relevance of Level 3 FV disclosures increases with the extent of auditor FV expertise. Collectively, our results highlight that auditor fair value expertise contributes to the credibility and usefulness of FV disclosures.