CEO–CFO Compatibility and Audit Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the influence of CEO–CFO compatibility (proxied by the similarity of their personalities) on audit risk (proxied by audit fees). Relying on similarity‐attraction theory, we posit that alignment between the CEO's and CFO's personalities − specifically their ‘Big Five’ traits − enhances internal communication, information sharing and decision‐making processes within the organization. This alignment, in turn, reduces audit risk associated with the firm's financial reporting. We test our theory using firm fixed effects and find that greater CEO–CFO personality similarity is associated with reduced audit fees. Further, we find that the tenure of the CEO–CFO relationship partially explains the relation between their personality similarity and audit fees. Finally, we find that the effect of CEO–CFO personality similarity on audit fees is stronger when corporate governance allows greater managerial autonomy, that is, CEO–CFO compatibility is more important for reducing audit risk when corporate governance is weak. Our results are robust after controlling for many other characteristics of the CEO and CFO and potential endogeneity related to CEO turnover.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".