No abstract

No abstract

SUMMARY Recent research suggests that insiders of distressed firms, fearing legal jeopardy, pressure auditors not to issue going concern opinions (GCOs) for periods in which they undertake abnormally large sales of their shares. We propose and evaluate an alternative explanation that managers anticipate GCOs and time their trades to avoid insider sales in the GCO year (hereafter, the timing hypothesis). Consistent with the timing hypothesis, we find that insider sales increase two to four years prior to the issuance of a GCO and then decline in the year of GCO. Additional analysis suggests that insiders' anticipatory trading is enabled, at least in part, by early communication between auditors and their most important clients regarding the likelihood of a GCO. These early communications appear to reduce the likelihood of dismissal when auditors do eventually issue a GCO.

Prior research finds that signals of remediation of internal control weaknesses do not guarantee that all weaknesses are fully resolved. However, why certain remediation strategies fail is unclear. This study examines how remediation timing and actions affect the likelihood of a failed remediation. I predict and find that the likelihood of a failed remediation is decreasing in both the time a company takes to remediate and in the extent of remediation actions employed. Importantly, this study documents that disclosures of material changes in internal control provide information useful in assessing the likelihood of a failed remediation, as well as evidence that prompt remediation does not necessarily result in a successful remediation. Moreover, I find that there are consequences to remediation failures in the form of a higher likelihood of management and board turnover. Finally, I find evidence that economic benefits of remediation found in prior research may be understated. This study can provide stakeholders with insights into how the nature, extent, and timing of a remediation strategy can reduce the likelihood of a failed remediation.

These data analyses have been co-submitted to Accounting, Organizations, and Society with the research article “The Revival of Large Consulting Practices at the Big 4 and Audit Quality ” [2] . The purpose of these data analyses is to assist readers of the research article in obtaining further detailed analyses performed therein regarding the channels through which audit quality is affected by consulting firm acquisitions. These analyses include 1) the timing of the effects of consulting firm acquisitions on audit quality; 2) the size of the consulting firm acquisition's effect on audit quality; 3) whether acquisitions differentially affect restatement breadth; 4) whether results are due to the PCAOB targeting offices that acquire consulting practices; and 5) whether consulting firm acquisitions affect national audit firm audit quality. These analyses can inform future research on audit quality by providing insights that may be useful in developing research ideas and performing extensions of these analyses. Some data used in these analyses are available via a subscription to the Wharton Research Data Service while other data are publicly available via search of Google, and, with subscription, via search of Factiva, and the Capital IQ database.