This study examines effects of mandatory partner rotation (MPR) on audit fees of Australian‐listed companies. Using a fee changes approach, evidence of fee increases in year of the MPR driven by smaller offices of non‐Big 4 auditors is found, consistent with supply‐side resource constraint arguments. Broadly consistent findings are observed using a fee levels approach. Appointment of inexperienced partners to MPR engagements has no discernible effect on fees. Additional analysis of audit reporting lag indicates fee increases reflect additional audit effort as opposed to a pricing strategy. Overall, the evidence supports recent moves by policy‐makers to soften MPR requirements.

No abstract

No abstract

We re‐examine the cross‐sectional stock return predictability of innovative originality documented in the 2018 paper by Hirshleifer et al. and introduce two measures of patenting activity: patent existence and patent counts. As firms with zero patents have zero innovative originality, we conjecture and find a high correlation between patenting activity measures and innovative originality. The findings of Hirshleifer et al. do not hold when we control for patenting activity. Our results highlight that simple patenting activity measures capture a significant portion of innovative originality, and hence need to be adequately controlled for in future innovation studies.

Regulators and previous research have expressed concern about the effect of compensation consultants on CEO pay. We use the Australian setting, where fees for both compensation and other consulting services supplied by compensation consultants are mandated disclosures for all firms, to provide evidence on the role of compensation consultants on CEO pay. We find that the use of compensation consultants or remuneration advisers, fees for compensation services and positive residual compensation service fees are associated with higher CEO pay. In contrast, both the provision and the proportion of fees from other services provided by compensation consultants are not. Furthermore, these positive associations are not observed when a Big 4 accounting firm is the compensation consultant. JEL Classification: G38, M12, M48, M52