MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308725677 · doi:10.2308/tar-2020-0191

Audit Quality and Investment Efficiency with Endogenous Analyst Information

2022· article· en· W4308725677 on OpenAlexaff
Nisan Langberg, Naomi Rothenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Accounting Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditBusinessIncentiveLiabilityHedgeInformation asymmetryQuality auditLimited liabilityInvestment (military)AccountingEnterprise valueProduction (economics)Value (mathematics)Actuarial scienceEconomicsFinanceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We study audit quality and investment efficiency when an analyst’s information can curb overvaluation and auditors are subject to legal liability following audit failure. With the auditor’s damage payment based on price inflation after audit failure, the analyst’s information brings prices closer to fundamentals and provides a hedge to the auditor against legal liability risk. This weakens incentives for audit quality, and the analyst responds with more information production due to the penalty for mispricing. Consequently, in equilibrium, stricter legal liability leads to higher audit quality that reduces overinvestment but also less information production that increases underinvestment. Thus, stricter liability has a nonmonotonic effect on firm value; it increases the value of firms with a high valued growth option but reduces the value of firms with a low valued growth option. The results have implications for the optimal level of legal liability that maximizes the expected value of the firm. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; G14; G23; G32.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Accounting ReviewSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207