Abstract:Purpose –The current study utilizes an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, the study explores the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.Design/methodology/approach – The study employs an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results, and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables. Findings – The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism (both conditional and unconditional), the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals, and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors' risk assessments.Research limitations/implications – The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs. principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US GAAP and IFRS or pre and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs. principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.Originality/value – The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.

Economic Consequences of AS 18: Related-Party Transactions with Principals versus Nonprincipals

Related Party Transactions and Audit Quality: Evidence on the Efficacy of Auditing Standard No. 18

Perceived Audit Quality, State Ownership, and Stock Price Delay: Evidence from China

Auditing Related Party Transactions: Evidence from Audit Opinions and Restatements

Public Communication of Audit Risks and Related-Party Transactions: Evidence from China

Related party transactions and audit risk

Does Audit Partner Workload Compression Affect Audit Quality?

Related Party Transactions and Audit Fees: Indian Evidence

Expanded Auditor’s Reports and Voluntary Disclosure

Principles Based Accounting Standards, Audit Fees and Going Concern: Evidence Using Advanced Machine Learning

The Impact of Related Party Sales by Listed Chinese Firms on Earnings Informativeness and Earnings Forecasts

The Economic Consequences of Heightened Materiality Uncertainty: an Auditing Perspective

Related party transactions and audit fees in a dominant owner context

Related party transactions and tax avoidance: does government ownership play a role?

Related Party Transactions – Empirical Study based on IFRS and SEC Disclosures

Audit fees and related party transactions: Evidence from Indonesia

Related-party Transaction,Capital Structure and Earnings Management——Evidence from A-share Listed Companies in China

Buying inferior to selling: Explore the impact of transaction direction on the effects of related-party transactions

Related-party transactions: evidence of audit fees in publicly companies in the brazilian market

Related-Party Transactions and Audit Fees

The effect of financial reporting regimes on audit report lags and audit fees: evidence from firms cross-listed in the USA