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.

On accounting’s twenty-first century challenge: evidence on the relation between intangible assets and audit fees

Abnormal Audit Fees and Audit Quality, The Impact of Business Context on Auditors' Priorities

Earnings management risk and audit pricing: Evidence from big bath accounting

Impact of economic policy uncertainty on audit fees: Evidence from Chinese listed companies

Evolution of intangible asset accounting: Evidence from Australia

The Impact of Client Information Technology Capability on Audit Pricing

Accounting for intangible assets – insights from meta-analysis of R&D research

The Impact of Intangible Assets on the Market Value of Companies: Cross-Sector Evidence

The Contextual Nature of the Association Between Managerial Ability and Audit Fees

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

Economic Policy Uncertainty, Corporate Risk-Taking and Abnormal Audit Fees

The Audit Implications of Cloud Computing

AUDIT FEES AND COMPANIES’ ACCESS TO FINANCE

Effects of carbon emissions on audit fees

Non�?Audit Fees and Auditor Independence: New Evidence Based on Going Concern Opinions for U.S. Companies Under Stress

Entry Threats and Audit Fees: Evidence from the Merger of Professional Accounting Bodies in Canada

Managerial myopia and audit fees: Evidence from China

Value relevance of earnings and book value of equity in profit versus loss reporting firms: significance of intangible intensity

Enterprise innovation and audit pricing: An evidence study from China's A-share listed companies

Tax Avoidance, Property Rights and Audit Fees

Determinants of audit fees in quoted financial and non-financial firms