Does the Disclosure of an Audit Engagement Partner’s Name Improve the Audit Quality? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis

Kose John and Min (Shirley) Liu
Additional contact information
Kose John: Department of Finance, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY 10012, USA
Min (Shirley) Liu: Department of Accounting, Murray Koppelman School of Business, Brooklyn College, The City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210, USA

JRFM, 2021, vol. 14, issue 11, 1-30

Abstract: On 15 December 2015, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) passed Rule 3211, requiring audit firms registered with PCAOB in the U.S. to disclose the audit engagement partner’s name in the Form AP, effective 31 January 2017. The regulation aims to improve the transparency and quality of audits, thereby increasing investors’ confidence in financial statements. Using the audit firms registered with the PCAOB and their clients as the treated sample, we employed a difference-in-difference analysis to investigate whether and the extent to which implementing Rule 3211 impacts audit quality and audit costs. We compared the audit quality (proxied by the abnormal discretionary accruals quality, the probability of restating the financial statements, and the ratio of the audit fees to the total fees) and audit costs (proxied by the total audit fees) from one year (up to three years) pre- to one year (up to three years) post-Rule 3211, to a control sample (comprised of U.K. audit firms, which were not subject to such regulation during the sample period). The empirical results generally indicate that there was an increase in the audit quality and in the audit costs from the pre- to the post-Rule 3211 period and also suggest that auditor independence increased in the post-regulation period compared to the pre-regulation period. Our empirical results are new and contribute to the research on the PCAOB and audits.

Keywords: Rule 3211; PCAOB; audit quality; audit fees; difference-in-difference; auditor independence (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C E F2 F3 G (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/11/508/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/11/508/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:11:p:508-:d:661870

Access Statistics for this article

JRFM is currently edited by Ms. Chelthy Cheng

More articles in JRFM from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().