The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Does the Choice of Auditor Convey Quality in an Initial Public Offering?
Abstract
To investigate the effect of reputation on auditor business decisions, we look at the relationship between auditor reputation and the characteristics of the IPOs that auditors take to the market. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that: 1) More prestigious auditors are associated with IPOs that seem a priori less risky; 2) the market perceives as less risky the IPOs that are associated with more prestigious auditors; and 3) IPOs' long-term performance is related to the prestigious of the auditor employed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Initial Public Offerings: An Analysis of Theory and Practice
BRAU, J. C., & FAWCETT, S. E. (2006) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00840.x · Cited by 837
DEMERS, E., & JOOS, P. (2007) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-679x.2007.00236.x · Cited by 196
I.P.O. determinants of delisting risk: Lessons from the Athens Stock Exchange
Makrominas, M., & Yiannoulis, Y. (2021) · Accounting Forum · doi:10.1080/01559982.2021.1885253 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Michaely, R., & Shaw, W. H.
- Venue
- Financial Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 15
- ISSN
- 0046-3892 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008536021
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does the Choice of Auditor Convey Quality in an Initial Public Offering? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3665948
- The paper
- Michaely, R., & Shaw, W. H. (1995). Does the Choice of Auditor Convey Quality in an Initial Public Offering? Financial Management. https://doi.org/10.2307/3665948
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
