A primary argument against fair value measurement is the lack of verifiability, where verifiability is defined as consensus in measurement by independent parties. We evaluate this argument by investigating trends in the consensus of reported fair values. Our findings indicate that consensus increased between 2005 and 2019, as evidenced by reductions in the fair value range and standard deviation. Further analyses suggest that enhanced data availability—driven by public dissemination of trade information—serves as a mechanism for this trend. We also document that securities subject to testing by larger external auditors with more resources to take advantage of enhanced data availability are associated with a stronger trend in increasing consensus. Finally, this trend appears to be stronger in situations when management has a heightened opportunity to record a biased estimate. While conventional arguments express concern over management’s ability to manipulate fair values, our results demonstrate patterns consistent with improved verifiability.

International standards encourage auditors to consider regulatory factors and external parties during the risk assessment process. One such external party is the taxation authority, which monitors corporate conduct and uses the threat of tax audits to constrain managerial opportunism. This study examines whether tax enforcement influences auditors' perception of the risk of material misstatement on their engagements. Using a sample of companies listed on European exchanges, we assess the strength of tax enforcement at the country level based on the number of full‐time equivalent (FTE) employees in the tax audit and verification function relative to the size of the economy. Since auditors of these European listed companies must publicly disclose key audit matters (KAMs), we use the number of KAMs to capture auditors' perceptions of client‐level misstatement risk. Our results indicate that auditors report fewer KAMs in the presence of more FTEs in the tax audit and verification function. In cross‐sectional tests, we find that this negative association is stronger in settings where auditors are more inclined to incorporate the monitoring potential of the tax authority into their risk assessment, such as in countries with high book‐tax conformity and for auditors with greater exposure to complex tax issues. These findings offer new insights into the role of tax enforcement in auditors' decision‐making and have timely implications for accounting regulators and academics studying the determinants of KAMs.

Oversight responsibilities for many audit committees (ACs) are evolving to include some of the hottest topics in the boardroom: enterprise risk management, cybersecurity, and environmental, social, and governance reporting. However, certain ACs avoid overseeing these evolving areas, creating significant variation across boards in the assignment of responsibilities. In this study, we seek to understand how ACs respond when environmental changes create new evolving risks that may extend the boundary of their traditional domain. To do so, we interview a diverse set of 29 AC members from U.S. publicly traded companies. We analyze our data through the theoretical lens of collaborative boundary work to identify how ACs respond by extending, blurring, or maintaining their perceived oversight boundaries, the related implications of these decisions, and their key tactics employed to manage AC workload. Our findings should be of interest to boards, investors, and regulators tasked with monitoring AC effectiveness.