Search

We provide evidence on effort coordination and information sharing between audit committees and external auditors. We use four effort measures: the risk areas reported by both the auditor and committee, auditor-reported materiality, and committee meetings. We find that the number of risks reported by the auditor (committee) is positively related to the number of risks reported by the committee (auditor) and that lower materiality is associated with more risks that the committee discloses. The evidence also suggests that although risk areas are "sticky," the committee identifies new risks faster, whereas the auditor focuses on shared risks. Next, our analysis indicates that audit process standardization influences reporting quality in a nonlinear manner. Finally, although audit fees tend to rise with auditor effort, they are unrelated to the committee's effort. Our findings endorse the service perspective on auditing by emphasizing the collaborative nature of the audit process over individual actors' self-interests. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; G38. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates European stock market reaction to events associated with the proposed EU audit reforms that were ultimately implemented in 2016. These include, inter alia, mandatory audit firm rotation, prohibition of non-audit services, and fee caps. We find that investors react positively to the proposals, lifting aggregate market value by approximately €108,630 million. In cross-sectional analysis at both country and firm level, we find that these net benefits arise from the prohibition of non-audit services and the placing of a cap on total fees charged by the auditor. Furthermore, we find investors in firms with low earnings quality appear to perceive the greatest benefits from the proposed reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]