FEK seminar series - Limei Che (Oslo Business School)

Do and Why KAMs and CAMs of the same firm differ? Evidence from cross-listed firms

Abstract
This paper utilizes a unique setting of European listed firms that are also publicly traded in the U.S. (i.e., cross-listed firms), which are required to provide KAMs in Europe and CAMs in the U.S., to examine whether there is inconsistency between KAMs and CAMs disclosed by the same auditor for the same firm and, if yes, what explains the inconsistency. We find that 37% of the firms in the sample disclose inconsistent KAMs and CAMs, and, for all these firms, the number of KAMs is greater than that of CAMs. Regression analyses show that, for firms with higher litigation risk and greater analyst coverage, auditors are less likely to report inconsistent KAMs and CAMs. Furthermore, an investigation of the auditing standards related to KAMs and CAMs suggests that the inconsistency between KAMs and CAMs could also be driven by the different formulations of the two standards. This study sheds initial light on auditors’ reporting behavior when disclosing KAMs and CAMs for the same firms and should be of interest to various stakeholders, such as regulators, standard setters, andinvestors.*

* CAMs - Critical Audit Matters; KAMs - Key Audit Matters

FEK seminar series