Engagement partner identification format and audit quality

Abstract

Exploiting the staggered adoption of three key regulations that implemented distinct engagement partner identification (EPI) formats for separate groups of Canadian firms over a 10-year period, we investigate the association between eight audit quality proxies and three EPI formats: two indirect (auditor permit number in the report, Form AP) and one direct (partner name in the report). This unique setting not only enables us to examine the short-term association between three different EPI formats and audit quality but also to investigate the long-term association for one EPI format (auditor permit number). In the main analysis, out of 32 results of interest, only three are significant and indicate a positive association. Hence, our results show no widespread effect of EPI on audit quality, suggesting that the inconsistent results reported in prior studies may not be driven by the different formats explored or the short window investigated.