The effect of audit quality as a moderator on the relationship between financial performance indicators and the stock return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates how audit quality moderates the effect of financial performance indicators on the stock returns of Amman Stock Exchange-listed firms (ASE). The panel data analysis selected the data of 95 ASE-listed firms from 2013 through 2021. This analysis demonstrates a significant inverse relationship between a company's book value and its stock returns. A statistically negative relationship was observed between cash flow, dividends per share, and stock return. The empirical results of this study confirm the moderating influence of audit quality in the relationship between financial performance and stock return. Firstly, auditor's fees have a significant impact on the relationship between firm stock returns and EPS, BV, DPS, and cash flows (CFO). The size of the auditing firm moderates the relationship between company stock returns and EPS, DPS, and the CFO, but not with book value (BV). The auditor's opinion moderates the relationship between business stock returns and EPS, BV, and DPS but not the relationship between firm stock returns and cash flows (CFO). The study suggests that regulatory bodies like the Companies Control Department (CCD) and ASE should make sure that local audit firms in Jordan improve their audit quality to be on par with the Big 4 audit firms in order to improve their financial performance measures and stock returns.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".