Despite the considerable participation of Big 4 accounting firms in accounting standard setting, there is no systematic evidence on what factors shape Big 4 support or opposition toward proposed accounting standards or whether their lobbying positions materially influence standards. Using textual features of Big 4 comment letters on FASB proposals, I find that Big 4 firms' lobbying positions reflect profit motives through support for standards that will generate more fees or are supported by their clients. Big 4 lobbying support is concentrated in proposals exhibiting both characteristics, with some evidence suggesting client agreement dominates fee-generating incentives. Big 4 lobbying positions are significantly associated with standard setting outcomes, both in isolation and relative to other FASB constituents, including financial statement users. Although I primarily focus on Big 4 accounting firms, results indicate the tone of comment letters submitted by users is unassociated with the standard setting outcomes measured in this study.
Many studies use country-specific evidence to investigate research questions of broad interest due to research advantages of a given country, such as data availability or to exploit an exogenous event that allows identification. One such research stream largely examines Canadian directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance and finds that more coverage (i.e., higher limits) is negatively associated with financial reporting quality and positively related to litigation (accounting-related agency costs). However, the U.S. and Canada differ on key issues relevant to securities litigation and D&O insurance. Thus, we predict and find that premiums, rather than limits, provide information about U.S. accounting-related agency costs. Nonetheless, the incremental information provided by premiums about accounting-related agency costs is limited, and audit fees provide more consistent and better information about these agency costs. Thus, although researchers argue for disclosure of U.S. D&O insurance information, the usefulness of such disclosures may be limited because audit fees are already disclosed. Our findings also suggest caution in broadly generalizing country-specific studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.