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.

Do Non-audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going-concern Audit Opinions

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

AUDIT FEES LOW-BALLING , AND NON-AUDIT SERVICES : EVIDENCE FROM FIJI

Sustainable performance, conditional conservatism and audit fees

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

An empirical comparison of non‐Big 4 and Big 4 auditors' perceptions of auditor independence

On the Abnormal Audit Fees, Audit Committee and Audit Opinion Shopping

Goodwill Impairment Losses and Audit Fees

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

The impact on the market for audit services of aggressive competition by auditors

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

Financial Constraints, Auditing, and External Financing

Implications of the Joint Provision of CSR Assurance and Financial Audit for Auditors' Assessment of Going‐Concern Risk

Internal Control Opinion Shopping: Does Initial Audit Fee Discounting Matter?

Convertible debt usage and the pricing of audit services

Business Group Affiliation, Board Quality and Audit Pricing Behavior: Evidence from Indian Companies

The Impact of Ownership, Governance and Non-Audit Services on Audit Fees: Evidence from the Insurance Industry

The effect of mandatory audit firm rotation and the auditing and reporting standards on the auditor competition and audit fees relationship: Evidence from emerging markets

The effects of advertising and solicitation on audit fees

Unfavorable audit opinion,audit fees and opinion shopping

Audit Committee Governance and Audit Opinion