Economic Consequences of AS 18: Related-Party Transactions with Principals versus Nonprincipals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In 2014, the PCAOB adopted a new auditing standard, AS 18 Related Parties, with the intention of enhancing auditors’ performance in auditing related-party transactions (RPTs). Using hand-collected data, we find significant reductions in both firms’ restatement risk and their engagement in RPTs following the AS 18 adoption. Such reductions are especially pronounced for smaller firms and firms having RPTs with principals, in which related persons in the counterparty of RPTs are the primary beneficiaries, such as CEOs, board chairs, or primary shareholders. We also find that smaller firms having RPTs with principals tend to pay higher audit fees post-AS 18. Our study responds to the PCAOB’s call to assess the economic consequences of AS 18. The findings suggest that AS 18 is associated with improved audit quality and reductions in auditees’ opportunistic RPT activities. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources as cited in the article and from the authors upon request. JEL Classifications: M10; M40; M41; M42; M48.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".