Abstract This laboratory market study examines the potential effect of increasing auditors' liability on firms' new investments. The experimental hypotheses are derived from Shibano's 2000 model, which predicts that an increase in auditors' liability will decrease the frequency of audit failures and may decrease firms' new investments if the liability level is “excessive”. Results from three experimental market settings (with low, medium, and high liability levels) suggest two major conclusions. First, firms' new investments increase significantly when auditors' liability level increases from low to medium, and decrease significantly as the liability level increases from medium to high. This result provides support for the argument that adequate auditor liability is necessary to motivate firms to invest in new projects. Excessive liability, however, may discourage firms from making new investments. Second, the frequency of audit failure decreases insignificantly when auditors' liability increases. These two results have an important policy implication: the benefit of imposing high liability on the auditor (i.e., an insignificant decrease in audit failure) may be more than offset by its cost (i.e., a significant decrease in new investments).

This laboratory market study examines the potential effect of increasing auditors' liability on firms' new investments. The experimental hypotheses are derived from Shibano's 2000 model, which predicts that an increase in auditors' liability will decrease the frequency of audit failures and may decrease firms' new investments if the liability level is “excessive”. Results from three experimental market settings (with low, medium, and high liability levels) suggest two major conclusions. First, firms' new investments increase significantly when auditors' liability level increases from low to medium, and decrease significantly as the liability level increases from medium to high. This result provides support for the argument that adequate auditor liability is necessary to motivate firms to invest in new projects. Excessive liability, however, may discourage firms from making new investments. Second, the frequency of audit failure decreases insignificantly when auditors' liability increases. These two results have an important policy implication: the benefit of imposing high liability on the auditor (i.e., an insignificant decrease in audit failure) may be more than offset by its cost (i.e., a significant decrease in new investments).

ABSTRACT Motivated by recent financial crises in East Asia and the United States where the downfall of a small number of firms had an economy‐wide impact, this paper generalizes existing reduced‐form models to include default intensities dependent on the default of a counterparty. In this model, firms have correlated defaults due not only to an exposure to common risk factors, but also to firm‐specific risks that are termed “counterparty risks.” Numerical examples illustrate the effect of counterparty risk on the pricing of defaultable bonds and credit derivatives such as default swaps.