To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
4 results

Profit Persistence in the U.S. Audit Market

Journal of Accounting Research 2026 64(2), 633-679
This study investigates the relation between audit competition, audit quality, and auditor labor hours. Using proprietary data on auditor realization rates, we construct new measures of competition based on theory predicting that abnormal profits will quickly disappear when competition is high but persist over multiple periods when competition is low. We find consistent evidence of persistent abnormal profits among U.S. Big 4 engagements and that individual offices earn persistent abnormal returns, suggesting that the market is not perfectly competitive. Examining the consequences of lower competition, we find that profit persistence is negatively related to audit hours and positively related to audit quality. Although we are cautious about inferring causality, our findings suggest that lower competition is associated with more efficient and effective audits.

Using AI to identify exogenous shocks and conduct archival accounting research

Review of Accounting Studies 2026 open access
We explore the capabilities and dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) usage in accounting research. We focus on mining U.S. securities regulations as an economic shock, testing the causal effect of these shocks on U.S. firms’ voluntary disclosure, and writing a complete academic paper, conditional upon finding statistically significant results. Overall, this research experiment demonstrates the capacity for AI to provide efficiencies in research. AI-generated papers are not ready to be submitted to top accounting journals, but they constitute a useful starting point for accounting researchers and using AI saves valuable time in identifying exogenous shocks that significantly affect an outcome of interest. When we repeat the same experiment to explore the causal effect of non-U.S. securities regulations on U.S. firms’ voluntary disclosure practices, AI writes many professional looking papers with spurious results and unsubstantiated economic arguments, highlighting the potential dangers of AI for accounting scholarship.

The predictive ability of tax contingencies for future income tax cash outflows

Contemporary Accounting Research 2024 41(1), 355-390
Prior research shows that contingent liabilities do not accurately predict future cash payments due to the managerial discretion afforded by accounting standards. We examine the extent to which current accounting guidance for a material contingent liability—the reserve for unrecognized tax benefits (UTBs) under Financial Interpretation No. 48 (FIN 48)—generates accruals that are predictive of future income tax cash outflows. We document that UTBs fully unwind as cash tax payments over the subsequent 5 years, suggesting that managers, on average, accurately incorporate their expectations of future tax liabilities. This result persists for firms that are (1) most affected by the implementation of FIN 48, (2) unable to impound detection risk into their reserves, (3) engaged in relatively more ex ante tax avoidance, (4) suspected to have engaged in earnings management through the tax accounts, and (5) subject to plausibly exogenous shocks to tax reporting. Overall, our results suggest that current accounting guidance under FIN 48 for contingent tax liabilities enables managers to accurately report, and financial statement users to reliably predict, future cash obligations.

Where Does the Time Go? Auditors’ Commercial Effort, Professional Effort, and Audit Quality

Journal of Accounting Research 2025 63(1), 255-317 open access
Audit theory and regulation assumes that auditors’ commercial motivation threatens audit quality. In this registered report, we use data from two Big Four firms in the Netherlands and provide empirical evidence on the relation between auditors’ commercial motivation and (1) compensation, (2) total audit effort, and (3) audit quality. We proxy commercial motivation as the time that individual auditors report allocating to commercial activities. We hypothesize that auditors’ commercial effort is positively related to compensation and we find mixed support. Next, we hypothesize that auditors’ commercial effort is negatively related to the audit effort but we find no support. Turning to audit quality, we hypothesize a negative direct relation between auditors’ commercial effort and audit quality but we find no support. We also predict a positive indirect relation in which auditors’ commercial effort increases quality control reliance leading to higher audit quality. We find some support for this hypothesis but only when we use technical consultations to proxy for quality control. Auditors with greater commercial effort maintain quality because they rely more on technical consultations. In sum, our study challenges the assumption that auditors’ commercial effort threatens audit quality and questions the need for additional regulation to constrain commercial motivation.