SUMMARY In this research note, we examine the validity of the measures of auditor industry specialization in empirical archival audit research. Industry specialist auditors are auditors who have developed a specific expertise and are therefore able to provide high quality and more efficient services to their clients. Over the years, research scholars have developed a multiplicity of measures of industry specialization (ISP). We compare 30 ISP measures and find that the use of different ISP proxies results in inconsistent classifications of auditors as specialists. Using audit fee and earnings quality models, we further show that these inconsistencies have a significant effect on the inferences drawn from the models using ISP measures. We conclude that ISP measures exhibit a low degree of internal and external construct validity. This represents an important measurement challenge for researchers and casts some doubts on the robustness of prior empirical evidence found in auditor industry specialization research.

SUMMARY We examine whether operations-related services (ORS) provided by the internal audit function (IAF) bring economic benefits to firms. Using a sample constructed by matching a global internal auditor survey with public firms' data in Compustat, we find that the IAF's involvement in ORS has a significant positive association with operating performance. By decomposing ORS into traditional assessment services (e.g., operational audit) and business-oriented facilitation services (e.g., strategy consulting), we document that assessment services are prevalent whereas facilitation services are less frequent. Both types of services have a positive association with operating performance. Moreover, we find that the positive relation between ORS and operating performance is only achieved for companies that follow a defender (as opposed to a prospector) business strategy and that extensively outsourcing internal audit activities reduces the positive effect of ORS on operating performance. Overall, our findings shed light on the value added by the IAF. JEL Classifications: M41; M42.

No abstract

No abstract

Financial analysts are required to disclose conflicts of interest (COI) in their research reports, but there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of COI disclosures. We investigate whether the influence of disclosing COI in analyst reports on investors' decision making depends on investment horizon. Experimental results show that short-term investors who view a COI disclosure are significantly less willing to invest in the recommended stock compared to short-term investors who do not view such a disclosure, while the presence of a COI disclosure does not significantly affect long-term investors' willingness to invest. Results further demonstrate that the COI disclosure decreases short-term investors' willingness to invest by reducing their perception of analysts' trustworthiness and expertness. This study provides evidence on when and how the COI disclosure can influence investors' behavior and enhances our understanding of investors' reactions to cautionary disclaimers.