Economic Consequences of AS 18: Related-Party Transactions with Principals versus Nonprincipals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 it