This study investigates the impact of acquisitions on the operating performance of Australian firms. For a sample of 36 Australian acquisitions occurring between 1986 to 1991 inclusive, and using matched firms to control for industry and economy-wide factors, the results based on four accrual and four cash flow performance measures show that corporate acquisitions do not lead to significant improvements in post-acquisition operating performance. The consistency of the results with the agency, the hubris and the financial motivation hypotheses suggests that corporate acquisitions in Australia may be undertaken for other than synergistic reasons. The results assist in explaining inconsistent findings reported in the literature. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2002.

SUMMARY The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) effectively bars an auditor from providing nonaudit services to an audit client based on the belief that the resulting economic bonding undermines the auditor's independence and quality of the audit (U.S. House of Representatives 2002). The accounting profession has strongly debated this view and counter-argues that auditor-provided nonaudit services benefit the client. We contribute to this debate by examining the effect of auditor-provided nonaudit services on the effectiveness and efficiency of the audit. We find that higher nonaudit service fees are associated with shorter audit report lags—a potential indicator of audit efficiency—prior to the passage of SOX, but such effects dissipate after SOX. We find that discretionary accruals and financial restatements—potential indicators of audit effectiveness—do not increase when shorter audit lags occur in conjunction with high nonaudit service fees. We also find that the firms with the highest levels of nonaudit service fees prior to SOX have the largest increase in audit lags after SOX. These results suggest that there is some merit to the profession's argument that auditor-provided nonaudit services benefit clients without leading to a loss of audit effectiveness. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources identified in the text.

This study examines the association between internal control deficiencies (ICDs) reported under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX, U.S. House of Representatives 2002) and the presence of former audit partners on the audit committee who are affiliated (AFAPs) and unaffiliated (UFAPs) with the firm's external auditor. We find a negative association between AFAPs and UFAPs on the audit committee and ICDs. We also find results that suggest the NYSE and NASDAQ three-year “cooling-off” rule applying to AFAPs may be unwarranted and deserves further empirical and regulatory attention. Further tests suggest AFAPs do not allow management to circumvent the disclosure of ICDs when conditions appear to suggest this may be so, and that AFAPs are negatively related to performance-adjusted discretionary accruals. Collectively, we interpret these findings to suggest that AFAPs and UFAPs on the audit committee are associated with more effective monitoring of internal controls and financial reporting.

No abstract

To address potential threats to auditor independence, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) requires the audit committee to pre-approve nonaudit services (NAS) procured from the auditor. However, the presence of a former audit firm partner (FAP) affiliated with the current auditor on the audit committee could undermine the audit committee's due diligence over the NAS pre-approval process. To alleviate such concerns, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a three-year “cooling-off” period for appointing audit firm alumni as independent directors. Our analyses show that the presence of both affiliated and unaffiliated FAPs on audit committees does not lead to greater NAS procured from the auditor; rather, FAPs reduce NAS procured from the auditor. Moreover, NAS decline significantly following the appointment of FAPs to the audit committee. Further tests suggest the three-year cooling-off period may not be warranted and deserves further investigation. Our study raises important implications for regulators, policy makers, corporate boards, and future research. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from sources identified in the text.