This paper examines the demand- and supply-side factors associated with audit partner selection and assignment in the United States. First, we examine whether audit partner gender and experience are associated with board and management gender and experience. Second, we investigate whether engagement audit quality varies with audit partner gender and experience, controlling for selection effects. The results indicate that companies with more gender-diverse boards of directors and top management teams are more likely to have a female lead audit partner. In addition, the experience of the client's board is positively associated with the experience of the lead audit partner. In terms of audit quality, we find that higher audit fees are positively associated with female and more experienced audit partners. Our results shed light on the important role that partner characteristics play in the demand and supply sides of audit quality.

We extend both the U.S. and European nonprofit auditor choice literature by examining the determinants as well as consequences of local industry specialist auditor choice within the nonprofit sector. In our determinants models, we find that local industry specialist auditors are associated with higher governance quality, poorer financial health, and greater complexity. In our consequences models, we find robust evidence that nonprofits audited by non-Big 4 local industry specialist auditors have shorter audit report lag and see more future direct donations than nonprofits audited by nonspecialist auditors and Big 4 auditors. Additional findings and implications are discussed.

This study investigates how non-Big 4 firm audit partners’ Big 4 experience is valued by the audit market. The Big 4 audit firms have differentiated themselves as nationally recognized firms for whose services companies are willing to pay a premium. It is unclear, however, whether this reputation follows individual auditors when they move to a non-Big 4 audit firm. We find that audit fees are higher for non-Big 4 audit partners with Big 4 experience with the fee premium ranging from 17 to 26 percent depending on the extent of experience when they are employed by small audit firms but find no evidence of a fee premium for Big 4 experience at the second-tier audit firms. Furthermore, in additional analyses, we do not find strong, consistent evidence that audit quality is higher for clients of non-Big 4 audit partners with Big 4 experience than their counterparts without Big 4 experience.

This paper reassesses the significance of the concept of matching expenses to revenues as an accounting principle. We compare and contrast the historical views of authoritative bodies and the various scholars and practitioners who analyze this subject, drawing implications for future standard setting. Through this historical retrospective on matching, which includes a review of more contemporary research and thought, we find that matching as an approach to income measurement can be helpful in forecasting earning power. Consequently, we conclude that matching should be retained as a long-standing fundamental accounting principle in standard-setting and in practice.

No abstract