Whether Big N auditors provide higher audit quality than non-Big N auditors remains a debate. We add new evidence to this debate by utilizing the setting of Big N auditors' acquisitions of non-Big N auditors. We identify 331 treatment firms that switched to Big N auditors due to the exogenous shocks imposed by Big N acquisitions. Our difference-in-differences analyses show that treatment firms' audit quality improves after switching to Big N auditors. In comparison, mergers or acquisitions among non-Big Ns have little impact on audit quality. Our cross-sectional analyses suggest the audit quality improvement among treatment firms is more likely due to Big N auditors' general competence rather than their industry-specific expertise. Finally, we find that treatment firms experience no significant market reactions around the announcements of Big N acquisitions, indicating that the capital markets may not attach any premium to the improved audit quality associated with Big N auditors. JEL Classifications: M41; M49.

This study examines whether revolving rating analysts who transition from major rating agencies to issuers are associated with any rating inflation in the issuers’ mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or asset-backed securities (ABS). Using professional profiles posted on LinkedIn to identify revolving rating analysts with structured finance rating experience, we find that the more the issuers employ such analysts, the more likely that ratings of issuers’ MBS and ABS new issuances are inflated compared with otherwise similarly rated securities. Additional analyses show that the impact of revolving rating analysts is more pronounced in complex deals and when the revolving analysts are more senior, indicating that rating expertise in structured finance may play a role in MBS and ABS rating inflation. Finally, we find that at least for AAA-rated MBS and ABS, investors fail to see through the rating inflation associated with revolving rating analysts. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2921 . This paper was accepted by Shivaram Rajgopal, accounting.

Complex disclosures have long been a major source of borrowers’ poor understanding of mortgages. We examine the effect of simplifying mortgage disclosures in a difference-in-differences design around a significant disclosure rule mandated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2015. We find that inexperienced borrowers (first-time home buyers) pay significantly lower interest rates after the disclosure regulation relative to experienced borrowers (repeat buyers), suggesting that simplifying these disclosures reduces mortgage interest costs. Additional tests show that the reduction in interest costs is not accompanied with more upfront non-interest costs paid by borrowers. Our cross-sectional analyses reveal two mechanisms through which simplifying disclosures lowers interest costs: curbing predatory lending and facilitating borrower shopping. We further find that disadvantaged borrowers (Black, Hispanic, and single female) benefit more from simplified disclosures. Last, we do not find that simplifying disclosures affects mortgage loan performance.

No abstract