Investor Dissatisfaction toward Auditors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shareholders, as owners of the firm, often are sought to ratify management's selection of an auditor through a formal vote during the annual shareholders' meeting. This vote represents the primary vehicle for investor communication concerning auditor-related issues and, thus, can be used as an indicator of investor dissatisfaction with the auditor. This study proposes to measure shareholders' dissatisfaction with the auditor through the shareholders' auditor ratification vote. We identify attributes associated with high levels of investor dissatisfaction and then determine if a high level of investor dissatisfaction is associated with a subsequent change in a firm's auditor. We determined that investor dissatisfaction is associated with a firm having engaged a less credible auditor and the issuance of a going concern audit opinion. In addition, we find that investors react strongly to the unexpected issuance of a going concern opinion. Finally, we discovered that managers are sensitive to shareholder dissatisfaction signals by noting a higher occurrence of auditor changes for firms with high investor dissatisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".