Auditor Reputation Under Different Negligence Regimes

Do auditor reputation effects evolve the same way under precise negligence as under vague negligence? Or are there differences? We assume that investors update their beliefs on unobservable auditor quality when an auditor discloses an inaccurate report. We call this a reputation effect. A necessary condition for reputation effects to occur is that, ex ante, investors expect ‘good’ auditors to take more care than ‘bad’ auditors such that ‘good’ auditors are less likely to issue an inaccurate report. Consistent with empirical evidence, we assume that wealthier (‘good’) auditors tend to take more care than less wealthy (‘bad’) auditors. We find that under vague negligence, reputation effects will occur, inducing both types of auditor to increase the level of care taken. A ‘good’ auditor is likely to exert excessive care. Then, even in the absence of auditor risk aversion, a (properly defined) liability cap is necessary to induce efficient incentives. A contractual liability cap is preferable to a legally fixed liability cap. Under precise negligence, a ‘good’ auditor will exert the standard of due care. However, a ‘bad’ auditor will also do so if sufficiently wealthy. Consequently, ex ante, investors do not expect different levels of care to be taken or reputation effects to occur. A liability cap is not desirable. This paper highlights the importance of non‐legal sanctions in auditor liability. Finally, it links the ‘reputation’ and ‘deep pocket’ hypotheses, both of which have attempted separately in the past to explain the positive correlation between auditor size and auditor quality.     

Staging of Venture Financing, Investor Opportunism and Patent Law

Abstract:  Stage financing provides a real option that is valuable when facing external uncertainty. However, it may also induce investor hold-up, if the property rights on an invention are not sufficiently protected. As a consequence, the entrepreneur may not work hard. Investor opportunism is less likely to occur, if investors' residual cash-flow-rights are contingent on verifiable 'milestones' in the previous stage. Equity-linked financing also provides high-powered incentives to the investor not to 'steal the idea' because his payoff becomes sensitive to the project value. The paper provides a new explanation for both types of contractual provisions.     

Country-level Accounting Enforcement and IPO Underpricing

Using a sample of up to 2,503 initial public offerings (IPOs) in 32 countries from 2011–2017, we predict and find that higher levels of country-level accounting enforcement are associated with lower levels of IPO underpricing. IPOs in countries with a relatively low accounting enforcement score (second quintile) exhibit a mean underpricing of 19%, whereas the mean underpricing amounts to just 9% in countries with a relatively high score (fourth quintile). The results remain qualitatively the same when we employ a multi-level model or a difference-in-difference design. In countries that substantially strengthened their accounting enforcement in the 2003–2009 period, the level of IPO underpricing decreased significantly. We show that accounting enforcement matters for the cost of going public.     

Loss Aversion,Audit Risk Judgments,and Auditor Liability

Abstract

I investigate how different legal regimes affect auditor's effort and investors' investment decisions when the auditor is subject to probability weighting and loss aversion, which are two important characteristics of Prospect Theory. Probability weighting encourages an auditor to overrate the audit risk and the likelihood of damages leading to inflated audit fees which could help to explain the BigN audit-fee premium. With loss aversion, an auditor is sensitive to the risk of damage compensation and, thus, tends to exert excessive caution which also generates excessive audit fees. Consequently, investors may choose not to hire an auditor and, as a result, may forego an otherwise profitable investment. These effects are more intense with a strict liability regime than with a negligence rule because with the latter, the auditor is not held liable when due care has been exerted. This removes the risk of incurring losses. The paper highlights the robustness of the negligence regime when preferences are unobservable.     

Bank Relationships and Private Firms’ Financial Reporting Quality

Private firms with relatively high (proprietary) costs of disclosure may benefit from a close relationship with a bank. Relationship lending is based on intertemporal contracting that assumes that the bank is able to acquire private information about the firm and, moreover, to keep this information private. For both reasons, we expect and find that private firms with fewer bank relationships exhibit lower levels of financial reporting quality. Controlling for many other factors, firms with a single bank relationship disclose their financial reports about 14 days later. The size of such firms’ financial reports is also smaller, containing approximately 8% fewer words than the median report. Firms with a single bank relationship also exhibit more earnings management, exceeding the median value of the three-year sum of absolute discretionary accruals by about 20%. The results are robust to different econometric specifications, including endogeneity concerns. They indicate that private firms choose to be opaque in the presence of fewer lending relationships.     

Optimism and auditor liability

There is strong evidence that individuals are optimistic in the sense that they underrate the probability of a negative event occurring. This paper provides a positive theoretical analysis of how auditor optimism affects their incentives to take care under two liability rules: strict liability and a negligence rule. Under strict liability, auditors are held liable when they cause damages to investors. Under a negligence rule, auditors are held liable when they cause damages and in addition, act negligently, that is, fail to meet the standard of due care specified in legal and professional rules. I find the following results. (1) If due care is sufficiently close to the efficient level, a negligence rule distorts auditors’ incentives less than strict liability. Under strict liability, optimism makes the auditor overestimate the chances of finding material mistakes and thus induces suboptimal care. (2) If due care is too strict, the auditor will not exert due care but the same level of suboptimal care under either liability rule. (3) With increasing optimism and in the absence of punitive damages, strict liability becomes less preferable to a precise negligence rule. This statement also holds for vaguely defined standards of due care if due care is sufficiently strict or if auditor optimism is sufficiently high. (4) Punitive damages counteract suboptimal incentives generated by auditor optimism, especially under strict liability.     

Legal Form and Earnings Properties

We investigate whether the financial accounting choices made by German private firms depend on legal form. Legal form determines dividend rights, liability status and the owners' obligations to run the business and, thus, influences agency problems of debt and equity. Consequently, we find that earnings properties depend on legal form. We expect, and find, that corporations exhibit higher levels of income smoothing and conservatism than partnerships and one-person businesses. Corporations are also more likely to disclose small profits. However, generally, there are no significant differences in earnings properties between one-person businesses and partnerships. The results are robust to different econometric specifications including endogeneity concerns (e.g. propensity score matching). Earnings properties of private firms seem to be driven to a considerable extent by agency problems of debt.     

Shareholder Loans and Earnings Smoothing – Empirical Findings from German Private Firms

This paper analyzes the interplay between shareholder loans and earnings smoothing in German private corporations. Shareholders who grant loans have a dual stakeholder role, being both equity holders and creditors. Those loans could be lost, because bankruptcy law requires their subordination in the event of bankruptcy. We therefore expect shareholder loans to mitigate agency problems of debt. This reduces the need for debt covenants and earnings smoothing. Moreover, the interest payments from shareholder loans tend to lower payout volatility which also reduces the need for dividend and earnings smoothing. We expect and find that private firms with shareholder loans exhibit significantly lower levels of earnings smoothing than other private firms. We find that with a 10 percentage-point increase in the shareholder loans to total assets ratio, earnings smoothing decreases by about 10% of the mean value. We also find that this substitution effect usually occurs in case of managerial ownership and tends to be slightly weaker in the event of dispersed ownership. The results are robust for different econometric specifications, including different measures of key variables and propensity score matching. The paper suggests that financial reporting by private firms responds to the dual stakeholder role of shareholder loans.