IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v30y2025i1d10.1007_s11142-023-09819-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The spillover effect of SEC comment letters through audit firms

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth L. Bills

    (Michigan State University)

  • Ryan Cating

    (University of Central Arkansas)

  • Chenxi Lin

    (University of Oklahoma)

  • Timothy A. Seidel

    (BYU Marriott School of Business, Brigham Young University)

Abstract

This study examines whether auditors serve as a conduit for disseminating Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) views on reporting and disclosure matters as the result of being privy to clients’ SEC comment letters. This examination is important because auditors’ involvement in and private access to clients’ comment letters can enhance the timeliness of dissemination and constrain reporting or disclosure choices that diverge from SEC views. Among clients with a greater expectation of impaired goodwill that do not receive a comment letter with a goodwill-related comment, we find a greater likelihood of goodwill impairment when the audit firm serving the client is exposed to more goodwill-related comments received by other clients. Further examination of the channels of dissemination through the audit firm indicates that the results are driven by auditor exposure through other clients of the audit office in the same industry, the channel with the greatest exposure to the audit team, and clients in different audit offices in different industries, the channel with the broadest potential for spillover (i.e., the greatest number of other audit firm clients). Importantly, we observe these effects after controlling for alternative sources of spillover and when auditor comment letter exposure is not yet publicly available, suggesting that auditors’ private access to client comment letters facilitates timely spillover. Further analyses indicate that spillover through industry clients within the audit office is also apparent in goodwill footnote disclosure.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth L. Bills & Ryan Cating & Chenxi Lin & Timothy A. Seidel, 2025. "The spillover effect of SEC comment letters through audit firms," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 311-351, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:30:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11142-023-09819-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-023-09819-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-023-09819-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-023-09819-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dushyantkumar Vyas, 2011. "The Timeliness of Accounting Write‐Downs by U.S. Financial Institutions During the Financial Crisis of 2007–2008," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 823-860, June.
    2. Lauren M. Cunningham & Bret A. Johnson & E. Scott Johnson & Ling Lei Lisic, 2020. "The Switch‐Up: An Examination of Changes in Earnings Management after Receiving SEC Comment Letters†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 917-944, June.
    3. Paul Danos & John W. Eichenseher & Doris L. Holt, 1989. "Specialized knowledge and its communication in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 91-109, September.
    4. Stephen V. Brown & Xiaoli (Shaolee) Tian & Jennifer Wu Tucker, 2018. "The Spillover Effect of SEC Comment Letters on Qualitative Corporate Disclosure: Evidence from the Risk Factor Disclosure," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 622-656, June.
    5. Cory A. Cassell & Lauren M. Cunningham & Ling Lei Lisic, 2019. "The readability of company responses to SEC comment letters and SEC 10-K filing review outcomes," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1252-1276, December.
    6. Bing Li & Zhenbin Liu, 2017. "The oversight role of regulators: evidence from SEC comment letters in the IPO process," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1229-1260, September.
    7. Douglas R. Ayres & Terry L. Neal & Lauren C. Reid & Jonathan E. Shipman, 2019. "Auditing Goodwill in the Post‐Amortization Era: Challenges for Auditors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 82-107, March.
    8. Anne Beatty & Joseph Weber, 2006. "Accounting Discretion in Fair Value Estimates: An Examination of SFAS 142 Goodwill Impairments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 257-288, May.
    9. Bret A. Johnson & Ling Lei Lisic & Joon Seok Moon & Mengmeng Wang, 2023. "SEC comment letters on form S-4 and M&A accounting quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 862-909, June.
    10. Patricia M. Dechow & Weili Ge & Chad R. Larson & Richard G. Sloan, 2011. "Predicting Material Accounting Misstatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 17-82, March.
    11. Kevin K. Li & Richard G. Sloan, 2017. "Has goodwill accounting gone bad?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 964-1003, June.
    12. Marshall A. Geiger & Bret Johnson & Keith L. Jones & Abdullah Kumas, 2022. "Information Leakage Around SEC Comment Letters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8449-8463, November.
    13. Yu, Fang (Frank), 2008. "Analyst coverage and earnings management," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 245-271, May.
    14. Douglas R. Ayres & John L. Campbell & James A. Chyz & Jonathan E. Shipman, 2019. "Do financial analysts compel firms to make accounting decisions? Evidence from goodwill impairments," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1214-1251, December.
    15. Ettredge, Michael & Fuerherm, Elizabeth Emeigh & Li, Chan, 2014. "Fee pressure and audit quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 247-263.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bret A. Johnson & Ling Lei Lisic & Joon Seok Moon & Mengmeng Wang, 2023. "SEC comment letters on form S-4 and M&A accounting quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 862-909, June.
    2. Killins, Robert & Ngo, Thanh & Wang, Hongxia, 2021. "Goodwill impairment and CEO overconfidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
    3. Dimitrios Gounopoulos & Georgios Loukopoulos & Panagiotis Loukopoulos & Geoffrey Wood, 2024. "Corporate Political Activities and the SEC's Oversight Role in the IPO Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 375-412, March.
    4. Xu, Jingjing & Deng, Yingwen & Wen, Lin & Wang, Kuanliang, 2025. "Can auditing facilitate the effective implementation of goodwill accounting? A perspective based on key audit matters," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. Hongwen Han & Jiali Jenna Tang & Qingquan Tang, 2021. "Goodwill Impairment, Securities Analysts, and Information Transparency," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 767-799, August.
    6. Hahn, Sebastian, 2021. "The Role of Large Institutional Ownership on Goodwill Impairment under the SFAS 142 Regime," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 6(2), pages 408-423.
    7. Andrei Filip & Gerald J. Lobo & Luc Paugam, 2021. "Managerial discretion to delay the recognition of goodwill impairment: The role of enforcement," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-2), pages 36-69, January.
    8. Alshehabi, Ahmad & Georgiou, George & Ala, Alessandro S., 2021. "Country-specific drivers of the value relevance of goodwill impairment losses," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    9. Gu, Qiankun & Li, Conggang & Li, Yanyin & Xu, Rong & Xu, Yize, 2025. "Does non-punitive regulation increase the demand for D&O insurance?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    10. Douglas R. Ayres & John L. Campbell & James A. Chyz & Jonathan E. Shipman, 2019. "Do financial analysts compel firms to make accounting decisions? Evidence from goodwill impairments," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1214-1251, December.
    11. Han, Mengrui & Ying, Qianwei & Huang, Li, 2023. "Firms’ delayed replies and investor confidence: Evidence from M&A comment letters in China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Xu, Jingjing & Huang, Haijie & Lee, Edward & Petaibanlue, Jirada, 2023. "Does goodwill pressure drive business restructuring based on subsidiary disposal?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Zvi Singer & Jing Zhang, 2022. "Do companies try to conceal financial misstatements through auditor shopping?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1-2), pages 140-180, January.
    14. Jungbae Kim, 2024. "The effect of PCAOB inspections on corporate innovation: evidence from deficiencies about the valuation of intangibles," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 1491-1523, June.
    15. James P. Ryans, 2021. "Textual classification of SEC comment letters," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 37-80, March.
    16. Zhou, Ying & Li, Haoran & Xiao, Zhi & Qiu, Jing, 2023. "A user-centered explainable artificial intelligence approach for financial fraud detection," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(PA).
    17. Wan, Liangyong & Li, Chen & Xu, Rui & Zhang, Hao, 2024. "Mergers and acquisitions comment letters and analysts' earnings forecasts: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    18. Jian Zhang, 2018. "Public Governance and Corporate Fraud: Evidence from the Recent Anti-corruption Campaign in China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 375-396, March.
    19. Kevin K. Li & Richard G. Sloan, 2017. "Has goodwill accounting gone bad?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 964-1003, June.
    20. Filip, Andrei & Huang, Zhongwei & Lui, Daphne, 2020. "Cross-listing and corporate malfeasance: Evidence from P-chip firms," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    SEC; Comment letter; Spillover effect; Audit quality; Auditor competency;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:spr:reaccs:v:30:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11142-023-09819-z. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.