IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jbfnac/v52y2025i1p511-540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do investors differentiate between types of component auditors? Evidence from auditor ratification voting

Author

Listed:
  • Bullipe R. Chintha
  • Sriniwas Mahapatro

Abstract

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's Rule 3211 mandates firms to disclose the types of component auditors employed and their contribution to the overall audit. Using a difference‐in‐differences approach, we examine the effect of the disclosure of component auditor usage on shareholder dissatisfaction. We find that multinational companies (MNCs) reporting higher use of large component auditors (LCAs), defined as component auditors contributing materially to the audit, experience a 17% decrease in shareholder votes against (or abstaining from) auditor ratification compared to MNCs with lower usage. This effect is more pronounced for firms with high institutional shareholding. We fail to find evidence of any effect on firms with the higher usage of small component auditors (SCAs). Our findings are robust to various definitions for treated and control firms. Our results support the view that, on average, LCAs offer higher “local” benefits and impose lower coordination costs compared to SCAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Bullipe R. Chintha & Sriniwas Mahapatro, 2025. "Do investors differentiate between types of component auditors? Evidence from auditor ratification voting," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 511-540, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jbfnac:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:511-540
    DOI: 10.1111/jbfa.12819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12819
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jbfa.12819?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jbfnac:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:511-540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0306-686X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.