SUMMARY: Recent research suggests that Big 4 auditors do not provide higher audit quality than other auditors, after controlling for the endogenous choice of auditor. We re-examine this issue using the incidence of accounting restatements as a measure of audit quality. Using a propensity-score matching procedure similar to that used by recent research to control for clients' endogenous choice of auditor, we find that clients of Big 4 audit firms are less likely to subsequently issue an accounting restatement than are clients of other auditors. In additional tests, we find weak evidence that clients of Big 4 auditors are less likely to issue accounting restatements than are clients of Mid-tier auditors (Grant Thornton and BDO Seidman). Taken together, the evidence suggests that Big 4 auditors do perform higher quality audits. JEL Classifications: M41, M42 Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources identified in the text.

SUMMARY Are high audit fees a signal that the auditor exerted more effort or a signal that the auditor may be losing her independence? Prior literature offers conflicting evidence. In this paper, we reexamine the issue on a sample of clients who have both the incentive and the ability to use discretionary accruals to meet or beat the consensus earnings forecast. We find a negative relationship between the level of abnormal audit fees paid by the client and the likelihood of using discretionary accruals to meet or beat the consensus analyst forecast. The evidence is consistent with the notion that abnormal audit fees are indicative of greater effort on the engagement. In other words, the results suggest a positive relationship between abnormal audit fees and audit quality. We show that the conflicting evidence in prior research was caused by research designs that did not consider the incentives of the manager. JEL Classifications: M42; M41. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources quoted in the text.

SUMMARY This study examines whether a firm's business strategy influences auditor reporting. We rely on the organizational literature to develop our prediction that firms utilizing the innovative “prospector” strategy will be more likely than firms utilizing the cost-leadership “defender” strategy to receive both going concern and material weakness opinions. Our empirical evidence supports this prediction. Specifically, we find that, among a sample of financially troubled firms, prospectors are significantly more likely than defenders to receive a going concern opinion. We then analyze a sample of clients who subsequently filed for bankruptcy and find that auditors are less likely to issue going concern opinions to prospector clients. This indicates that auditors commit more Type II errors when auditing prospector clients. We also find that prospectors are significantly more likely than defenders to receive a material weakness opinion. Taken together, the evidence suggests that business strategy is a significant determinant of both going concern and material weakness auditor reporting. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; L10. Data Availability: All data are available from public sources identified in the text.

No abstract