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.

Audit risk calibration

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

Critical Audit Matters: Possible Market Misinterpretation

Detecting and Predicting Accounting Irregularities: A Comparison of Commercial and Academic Risk Measures

CONCEPT OF ESG-AUDIT OF ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PUBLIC AND CORPORATE SECTOR

Audit risk model as a corporate social responsibility implementation of certified public accounting firms (evidence from Indonesia)

Does the Reporting of Critical Audit Matters Affect Nonprofessional Investors’ Perceptions of Auditor Credibility, Information Overload, Audit Quality, and Investment Risk?

The Influence of Critical Audit Matters in the US on the Informativeness of Investors

AUDIT OBJECTIVES OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AUDIT RISK AND BASIC ASSESSMENT OFFINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Small firm auditing using the analytical procedures (APs) in a politically challenging context

Does Auditor Style Influence Non-GAAP Reporting?

Do Financial Statement Auditors Recognise ESG-Related Aspects as Key Audit Matters?

The Impact of Enterprise Risk Management on the Audit Process: Evidence from Audit Fees and Audit Delay

Measurement uncertainty and management bias in accounting estimates: the perspective of key audit matters reported by Chinese firms' auditors

Audit expectation gap: an empirical analysis

Informativeness of Key Audit Matters: Evidence from China

Individual Auditor Style and Audit Quality in a High Reputation Risk Setting

The Effect of Disclosing Key Audit Matters and Accounting Standard Precision on the Audit Expectation Gap

Informativeness of the Expanded Audit Report: Evidence from China

How to Fix ESG Reporting

Unintended Effects of Critical Audit Matters: Early Evidence