Search

SUMMARY This article summarizes “How Do Auditors Respond to FCPA Risk?” (Lawson, Martin, Muriel, and Wilkins 2019), which investigates the pricing of audits for clients that violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). FCPA compliance has become a top priority for regulators who rely heavily on accountants as they combat illegal activity. We find that auditors charge higher fees for violators both before and during formal FCPA investigations. We also find that fees are more sensitive to accounts that are more susceptible to FCPA risk. Our findings are stronger (weaker) for clients with high (low) foreign sales. While this may seem intuitive from an audit materiality perspective, regulators are not required to prove materiality as they pursue FCPA violations (Ebright 2016). Our study should be of interest to practitioners and auditors, as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) is considering whether updates should be made to PCAOB AS 2405

Regulators claim to reward firm cooperation in the enforcement process. However, critics question which actions constitute firm cooperation and contend that cooperation leads to “harsh” and “unfair” outcomes. Examining 1,162 enforcement actions for financial misrepresentation initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice, we find that regulator-cited cooperation credit is best explained by remedial actions and self-reported law violations. Cooperation credit is negatively associated with firm monetary penalties assessed by regulators. Our estimates suggest that firms with cooperation credit realize an average penalty reduction of $23.8 million (49 percent). We also estimate that average reputation-related losses are $756 million (70 percent) lower for firms with cooperation credit. We find no association between cooperation credit and related private action outcomes. Our results provide important insight into what constitutes meaningful cooperation with regulators, and suggest that the benefits can be substantial for firms deemed to be cooperative. JEL Classifications: G38; K22; K42; M41.

An extensive literature examines the causes and effects of financial misconduct based on samples drawn from four popular databases that identify restatements, securities class action lawsuits, and Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAERs). We show that the results from empirical tests can depend on which database is accessed. To examine the causes of such discrepancies, we compare the information in each database to a detailed sample of 1,243 case histories in which regulators brought enforcement actions for financial misrepresentation. These comparisons allow us to identify, measure, and estimate the economic importance of four features of each database that affect inferences from empirical tests. We show the extent to which each database is subject to these concerns and offer suggestions for researchers using these databases. JEL Classifications: G38; K22; K42; M41.