Policies and procedures that centralize decision making within an audit firm create auditor style effects. Prior research suggests this style increases financial-statement comparability, implicitly making financial statements more useful. However, a potential hazard of auditor style is the propagation of decision errors. We examine the association between auditor style and common disclosure issues among audit clients. We measure auditor style as the presence of a common auditor and use comments given in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) filing-review process to measure the occurrence of common disclosure issues. We find that auditor style is associated with common disclosure issues among Big 4 clientele. We also find that clients with the same auditor converge in issues as tenure increases and some evidence that clients assume the issues of a subsequent auditor. These results provide the first evidence that auditor style has potential costs in the form of common disclosure issues. Data Availability: All data are publicly available.

We examine whether disproportionate insider control, or the divergence between insider voting and cash flow rights at dual-class firms, influences the extent to which stock price reflects information about future firm performance. We find that current returns incorporate less information about future earnings and cash flows as disproportionate insider control increases. However, monitoring by influential institutional investors, strong board oversight, and high-quality disclosure significantly attenuate this effect, such that disproportionate insider control does not result in less informative stock prices. Collectively, our findings reveal that, although the dual-class structure is associated with less informative stock prices, on average, monitoring and disclosure can alleviate investor concerns about disproportionate insider control while allowing firms to take advantage of the benefits of a dual-class ownership structure.

Prior research documents that mergers and acquisitions result in significant financial reporting risks. In this article, we examine whether acquirers that share a common auditor with the target experience higher post‐acquisition financial reporting quality (FRQ) and reduced audit fees. We find that same‐office, but not different‐office, common auditors are associated with improved post‐acquisition FRQ, as evidenced by a decreased likelihood of misstatement, lower F ‐score, and a lower likelihood of meeting or just beating analyst forecasts. We also find that same‐office common auditors are associated with a lower percentage change in audit fees. In additional tests, we find that these inferences are robust to limiting the sample to acquirers with multiple acquisitions or to acquirers and targets with no auditor switches in the prior 3 years. Together, our findings suggest that same‐office common auditors facilitate knowledge transfer about the target and provide important post‐acquisition benefits.

Managers have a variety of tools at their disposal to influence stakeholder perceptions. Earnings management and the strategic reporting of non‐ GAAP earnings are just two of the available menu choices. We explore how real earnings management and accruals management influence the probability that a company will disclose a non‐ GAAP adjusted earnings metric in its earnings press release and the likelihood that it will do so aggressively. We first investigate situations where managers already meet analysts’ expectations either based on strong operating performance or after employing real and accruals management. We find that when solid operating performance alone allows firms to meet expectations, managers do not employ earnings management or non‐ GAAP reporting. However, when managers meet expectations using real and accruals management, they are significantly less likely to report a non‐ GAAP earnings metric. Next, we explore scenarios where companies fall short of expectations. We find that when they just miss expectations after managing GAAP earnings, they are significantly more likely to employ non‐ GAAP reporting, suggesting that the timing and relatively costless nature of non‐ GAAP reporting allows managers to appear to meet expectations on a non‐ GAAP basis when managed GAAP earnings fall short. Moreover, we find that companies are more likely to report non‐ GAAP earnings (and to do so aggressively) when (i) they are unable to use real or accruals earnings management, (ii) are constrained by prior‐period accruals management, and (iii) their operating performance is poor. Taken together, our results are consistent with a substitute relation between non‐ GAAP reporting and both real and accruals management.

We specify measures of accounting consistency both across time and across firms based on the textual similarity of accounting policy footnotes disclosed in 10-K filings. We first examine how these measures relate to earnings quality. Accounting consistency over time is positively associated with a number of earnings quality proxies, including earnings persistence, predictability, accrual quality, and absolute discretionary accruals. We also find that lower consistency relative to other firms in the industry is associated with larger absolute accrual model residuals. Finally, we examine the information processing effects of accounting consistency. We find that greater accounting consistency in the time-series and the cross-section is associated with lower information asymmetry, as proxied by bid-ask spread and illiquidity. Greater cross-sectional consistency is also associated with greater analyst coverage, more accurate analyst forecasts, decreased dispersion in analyst forecasts, and stronger stock return synchronicity. Data Availability: The accounting consistency measures developed in this study are available upon request. All other data are available from the sources cited in the text.

We investigate the relation between audit committee co‐option and financial reporting quality, where audit committee co‐option is measured as the proportion of audit committee members who joined the board after the appointment of the current Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Because CEOs are often actively involved in the director nomination and selection process, we expect that higher levels of audit committee co‐option will be associated with less effective monitoring, as evidenced by more financial statement misstatements and greater absolute discretionary accruals. Consistent with our expectations, we find a positive relation between audit committee co‐option and misstatements as well as between audit committee co‐option and absolute discretionary accruals. Our findings should be of interest to regulators, investors, and other stakeholders because we provide new evidence about how potential CEO influence on director nominations and audit committee appointments impacts the effectiveness of monitoring by the audit committee.

Although the FASB and IASB conceptual frameworks identify relevance and faithful representation as the fundamental qualitative characteristics of useful information, prior research suggests that revenue recognition accounting standards that restrict managerial discretion resulted in improved faithful representation but reduced relevance. We use the adoption of Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2009‐13 and ASU 2009‐14 to examine the effects of increased managerial discretion to accelerate revenue recognition in multiple‐deliverable arrangements; that is, transactions where vendors sell multiple products or services that are delivered at different points in time. We find that increased discretion results in an increase in the relevance of reported revenues without reducing faithful representation. We further examine whether managers' strategic motivations influence the transparency of ASU 2009‐13 and ASU 2009‐14 adoption disclosure. Although firms providing opaque adoption disclosure do not exhibit a decline in the faithful representation of revenues following the standards' adoption, these firms are more likely than firms providing transparent adoption disclosure to accelerate revenue recognition opportunistically following adoption when incentives are high. These results provide important evidence for assessing whether standards that allow greater discretion in revenue recognition affect the usefulness of revenues and also provide evidence that strategic motivations to preserve flexibility in managing earnings influence the transparency of adoption disclosure.

We examine the consequences of the 2020 amendment to Exchange Act Rule 12b-2, which exempted low-revenue issuers from the ICFR audit requirement and reignited the debate among regulators, issuers, auditors, and academics about the costs and benefits of ICFR audits. We find that exempt issuers rarely obtain ICFR audits voluntarily, indicating they generally do not view such audits as cost beneficial. We also find that exempt issuers report fewer MWs than nonexempt issuers, although this effect is driven by a recent increase in MWs for nonexempt issuers rather than a decline in MW for exempt issuers. We find no evidence that exempt issuers misstate more frequently or that they have less informative control effectiveness disclosures. Overall, our findings suggest that the exemption was welcomed by affected issuers and did not materially impair reporting quality, informing the literature and ongoing policy discussions regarding the appropriate scope of ICFR audit requirements. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from the sources identified in the text.