IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2511.00031.html

The Gatekeeping Expert's Dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Shunsuke Matsuno

Abstract

This paper studies how experts with veto power -- gatekeeping experts -- influence agents through communication. Their expertise informs agents' decisions, while veto power provides discipline. Gatekeepers face a dilemma: transparent communication can invite gaming, while opacity wastes expertise. How can gatekeeping experts guide behavior without being gamed? Many economic settings feature this tradeoff, including bank stress tests, environmental regulations, and financial auditing. Using financial auditing as the primary setting, I show that strategic vagueness resolves this dilemma: by revealing just enough to prevent the manager from inflating the report, the auditor guides the manager while minimizing opportunities for manipulation. This theoretical lens provides a novel rationale for why auditors predominantly accept clients' financial reports. Comparative statics reveal that greater gatekeeper independence or expertise sometimes dampens communication. This paper offers insights into why gatekeepers who lack direct control can still be effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Shunsuke Matsuno, 2025. "The Gatekeeping Expert's Dilemma," Papers 2511.00031, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2026.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2511.00031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.00031
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antle, R, 1984. "Auditor Independence," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 1-20.
    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. Atasi Basu & Randal Elder & Mohamed Onsi, 2012. "Reported earnings, auditor's opinion, and compensation: theory and evidence," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 29-48, March.
    2. Hwang, Seokyoun & Sarath, Bharat & Han, Seung-youb, 2022. "Auditor independence: The effect of auditors’ quality control efforts and corporate governance," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    3. Angelo Baglioni & Luca Colombo, 2009. "Managers’ Compensation And Misreporting: A Costly State Verification Approach," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(2), pages 278-289, April.
    4. Danielle E. Warren & Miguel Alzola, 2009. "Ensuring Independent Auditors: Increasing the Saliency of the Professional Identity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 41-56, January.
    5. Goodwin, Jenny, 2002. "Understanding Auditor-Client Relationships: A Multi-Faceted Analysis (Rutgers Series in Accounting Research); Gary Kleinman and Dan Palmon; Markus Wiener Publishers, Princeton, NJ, hardcover, 2001, pp," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 429-432, June.
    6. Dan Palmon & Ephraim F. Sudit, 2009. "Commercial Insurance of Financial Disclosure: Auditors’ Independence, and Investors’ Protection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 27-40, January.
    7. Arrunada, Benito & Paz-Ares, Candido, 1997. "Mandatory rotation of company auditors: A critical examination," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-61, March.
    8. Gratton, Gabriele, 2015. "The sound of silence: Political accountability and libel law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 266-279.
    9. Blankart, Carl Rudolf & Dams, Florian & Penton, Hannah & Kaló, Zoltán & Zemplényi, Antal & Shatrov, Kosta & Iskandar, Rowan & Federici, Carlo, 2021. "Regulatory and HTA early dialogues in medical devices," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(10), pages 1322-1329.
    10. Chahine, Salim & Filatotchev, Igor, 2011. "The effects of corporate governance and audit and non-audit fees on IPO Value," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 155-172.
    11. Lamar Pierce & Michael W. Toffel, 2013. "The Role of Organizational Scope and Governance in Strengthening Private Monitoring," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1558-1584, October.
    12. Pascal Dumontier & Sonda Chtourou & Soumaya Ayedi, 2006. "La qualité de l'audit externe et les mécanismes de gouvernance des entreprises : Une étude empirique menée dans le contexte tunisien," Post-Print halshs-00548115, HAL.
    13. Gabriele Gratton, 2013. "The Sound of Silence: Anti-Defamation Law and Political Corruption," Discussion Papers 2012-21A, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    14. Ganuza, Juan Jose & Gomez, Fernando, 2007. "Should we trust the gatekeepers?: Auditors' and lawyers' liability for clients' misconduct," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 96-109, March.
    15. Alex Chu & Xingqiang Du & Guohua Jiang, 2011. "Buy, Lie, or Die: An Investigation of Chinese ST Firms’ Voluntary Interim Audit Motive and Auditor Independence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 135-153, August.
    16. Kraft, Pepa, 2015. "Do rating agencies cater? Evidence from rating-based contracts," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 264-283.
    17. Mark Schelker, 2009. "Auditor Terms and Term Limits in the Public Sector: Evidence from the US States," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-19, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    18. William D. Brink & Tim V. Eaton & Jonathan H. Grenier & Andrew Reffett, 2019. "Deterring Unethical Behavior in Online Labor Markets," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 71-88, April.
    19. Isaksson, Ann-Sofie & Bigsten, Arne, 2012. "Institution Building with Limited Resources: Establishing a Supreme Audit Institution in Rwanda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1870-1881.
    20. Mahami, Zouleykha & Mouloudj, Kamel, 2020. "Factors Affecting Detection of Manipulation in Financial Statements: An Empirical Study from Auditors’ Perspective," MPRA Paper 108008, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 30 Jun 2020.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2511.00031. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.