Miguel Minutti-Meza

Does Auditor Industry Specialization Improve Audit Quality

This study examines whether auditor industry specialization, measured using the auditors within-industry market share, improves audit quality and results in a fee premium. After matching clients of specialist and nonspecialist auditors on a number of dimensions, as well as only on industry and size, there is no evidence of differences in commonly used audit-quality proxies between these two groups of auditors. Moreover, there is no consistent evidence of a specialist fee premium. The matched sample results are confirmed by including client fixed effects in the main models, examining a sample of clients that switched auditors, and using an alternative proxy that aims to capture the auditors industry knowledge. The combined evidence in this study suggests that the auditors within-industry market share is not a reliable indicator of audit quality. Nevertheless, these findings do not imply that industry knowledge is not important for auditors, but that the methodology used in extant archival studies to examine this issue does not fully parse out the effects of auditor industry specialization from client characteristics.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Exit Strategies of Private Firms

The costs and benefits of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) have been oft-debated since the inception of the Act. Much of the extant literature has assessed the costs and benefits of SOX to publicly-traded companies. We focus on the costs of SOX compliance for private firms wanting to exit the private market via either an acquisition by a public firm or an IPO. Consistent with our predictions we establish three principal findings. First, SOX appears to have shifted the incentive for firms to exit the private market via IPO to exit via acquisition by a public acquirer. Second, private target deal multiples are increasing in variables that proxy for a private target’s level of pre-acquisition SOX compliance. For our median-sized private target, the estimated dollar value decrease in deal proceeds when one moves from a high level to a low level of pre-acquisition SOX compliance is

Issues in Examining the Effect of Auditor Litigation on Audit Fees

1.3 million. Finally, public target deal multiples are not affected by a public target’s level of pre-acquisition SOX compliance. These findings suggest that SOX-related costs have both restricted the action space of possible exit strategies for private firms and led to lower deal multiples for those private acquisition targets that are less likely to be SOX compliant prior to acquisition. We believe that the implications from our tests will be relevant to regulators in the U.S. and many countries outside the U.S. that are attempting to improve their country’s governance and listing standards and potentially seeking alternatives to SOX-like standards, especially with respect to internal controls. International regulators need to assess the total costs of SOX, including costs imposed on private company shareholders, when contemplating the net benefits of SOX-like regimes.

How Useful Are Auditors' Going Concern Opinions as Predictors of Default?

A large body of research has studied audit fees aiming to determine whether they reflect auditors’ response to clients’ risks, auditors’ expertise, competitive pressures in the audit market, and independence issues between auditors and clients. Badertscher, Jorgensen, Katz, and Kinney [2014] study the effect of auditor litigation risk on audit fees. Litigation risk is expected to be a strong incentive for auditors to deliver high quality audits and an important determinant of audit fees. Nevertheless, determining the impact of litigation risk is complicated because although there is considerable variation in audit fees, there are scarce opportunities to examine variation in litigation risk. This paper provides a brief summary of extant studies examining the effect of auditor litigation on audit fees, and discusses research design issues and future research opportunities in this area.

Can Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 Differences in Audit-Quality Proxies Be Attributed to Client Characteristics?

Investors, regulators, and academics question the usefulness of going concern opinions (GCOs). We assess whether GCOs provide incremental information relative to other predictors of corporate default. Our measure of incremental information is the additional predictive power that GCOs give to a default model. Using data from 1996 to 2015, initially we find no difference in predictive power between GCOs alone and a default model that includes financial ratios. However, there is an imperfect overlap between GCOs and other predictors. We show that GCOs increase the predictive power of several models that include ratios, market variables, probability of default estimates, and credit ratings. Using a model that includes ratios and market variables, GCOs increase the number of predicted defaults by 4.4 percent, without increasing Type II errors. Our findings suggest that GCOs constitute a straightforward signal that summarizes a complex set of conditions not captured by other predictors of default.