Do Investors Respond to Explanatory Language Included in Unqualified Audit Reports?

Keith Czerney, Jaime J. Schmidt, Anne Margaret Thompson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article investigates whether investors respond to explanatory language (EL) added to unqualified audit reports. Although prior research finds an association between auditor EL and lower financial reporting quality, surveys suggest that many investors limit their attention to the unqualified nature of the opinion. We use three-day abnormal returns and abnormal trading volume to measure investor response to EL in unqualified audit reports issued from 2000 to 2014. We find little evidence to indicate that investors respond to auditor EL at the audit report release date. In further analyses, we find that the lack of investor response is attributable both to incomplete investor reactions (55 percent of EL occurrences) and previous incorporation of EL (40 percent of EL occurrences). Overall, the results support policymakers’ initiatives to improve the usefulness of unqualified audit reports.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)198-229
Number of pages32
JournalContemporary Accounting Research
Volume36
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2019

Fingerprint

Investors
Audit reports
Language
Auditors
Financial reporting quality
Trading volume
Politicians
Abnormal returns
Usefulness
Release dates

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Accounting
  • Finance
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

Do Investors Respond to Explanatory Language Included in Unqualified Audit Reports? / Czerney, Keith; Schmidt, Jaime J.; Thompson, Anne Margaret.

In: Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.03.2019, p. 198-229.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{43b4a2f89e864b0697a2676d295f38b3,
title = "Do Investors Respond to Explanatory Language Included in Unqualified Audit Reports?",
abstract = "This article investigates whether investors respond to explanatory language (EL) added to unqualified audit reports. Although prior research finds an association between auditor EL and lower financial reporting quality, surveys suggest that many investors limit their attention to the unqualified nature of the opinion. We use three-day abnormal returns and abnormal trading volume to measure investor response to EL in unqualified audit reports issued from 2000 to 2014. We find little evidence to indicate that investors respond to auditor EL at the audit report release date. In further analyses, we find that the lack of investor response is attributable both to incomplete investor reactions (55 percent of EL occurrences) and previous incorporation of EL (40 percent of EL occurrences). Overall, the results support policymakers’ initiatives to improve the usefulness of unqualified audit reports.",
author = "Keith Czerney and Schmidt, {Jaime J.} and Thompson, {Anne Margaret}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1911-3846.12425",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "198--229",
journal = "Contemporary Accounting Research",
issn = "0823-9150",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do Investors Respond to Explanatory Language Included in Unqualified Audit Reports?

AU - Czerney, Keith

AU - Schmidt, Jaime J.

AU - Thompson, Anne Margaret

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - This article investigates whether investors respond to explanatory language (EL) added to unqualified audit reports. Although prior research finds an association between auditor EL and lower financial reporting quality, surveys suggest that many investors limit their attention to the unqualified nature of the opinion. We use three-day abnormal returns and abnormal trading volume to measure investor response to EL in unqualified audit reports issued from 2000 to 2014. We find little evidence to indicate that investors respond to auditor EL at the audit report release date. In further analyses, we find that the lack of investor response is attributable both to incomplete investor reactions (55 percent of EL occurrences) and previous incorporation of EL (40 percent of EL occurrences). Overall, the results support policymakers’ initiatives to improve the usefulness of unqualified audit reports.

AB - This article investigates whether investors respond to explanatory language (EL) added to unqualified audit reports. Although prior research finds an association between auditor EL and lower financial reporting quality, surveys suggest that many investors limit their attention to the unqualified nature of the opinion. We use three-day abnormal returns and abnormal trading volume to measure investor response to EL in unqualified audit reports issued from 2000 to 2014. We find little evidence to indicate that investors respond to auditor EL at the audit report release date. In further analyses, we find that the lack of investor response is attributable both to incomplete investor reactions (55 percent of EL occurrences) and previous incorporation of EL (40 percent of EL occurrences). Overall, the results support policymakers’ initiatives to improve the usefulness of unqualified audit reports.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058173874&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85058173874&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1911-3846.12425

DO - 10.1111/1911-3846.12425

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 198

EP - 229

JO - Contemporary Accounting Research

JF - Contemporary Accounting Research

SN - 0823-9150

IS - 1

ER -