Subjectivity in fair-value estimates, audit quality, and informativeness of other comprehensive income

Abstract

This study empirically examines whether difference in audit quality is reflected in the pricing of other comprehensive income (OCI). Specifically, we first investigate whether OCI measures of Big 4 clients are more value-relevant than those of non-Big 4 clients. Considering different degrees of subjective management judgment involved in the OCI reporting process, we then explore whether the differential valuation effect of OCI between Big 4 and non-Big 4 clients is more pronounced for more subjective OCI components (e.g., minimum pension liability and foreign currency-translation adjustment) than a less subjective component (e.g., marketable securities adjustment). We predict that the aggregate OCI of a Big 4 client is more value-relevant than that of a non-Big 4 client. We also hypothesize that the differential valuation effect between Big 4 and non-Big 4 clients can be attributed to the amount of subjective assumption and judgment required in estimating OCI. Consistent with our predictions, we find that aggregate OCI audited by a Big 4 auditor has incremental information content over earnings, compared to OCI audited by a non-Big 4 auditor. More interestingly, our results also show that the differential valuation effect between Big 4 and non-Big 4 clients is stronger for OCI components of a more subjective nature. Our results are robust even after controlling for self-selection bias, the potential effect of the financial crisis, and other related effects.