Abstract The current study investigates how non-professional investors assess auditor independence based on two key factors: auditor commercialism (high vs. low) and the disclosures of sanctions against auditors (disclosure vs. non-disclosure). Using a 2 × 2 between-participants experiment design, we investigate how these variables influence the perceived auditor independence of non-professional investors. The findings indicate that higher commercialism has a negative impact on investors’ perceived auditor independence. Interestingly, our findings also suggest that the disclosure of sanctions against auditors continues to impair perceptions of independence. However, when such disclosures occur in a highly commercial context, they appear to help restore investor trust. In these cases, perceived auditor independence improves significantly, underscoring the role of disclosures against auditors in mitigating the negative effects of commercialism. Our findings have important implications for the investors, regulators, listed firms, and the auditors.

Abstract Faster-than-exponential growth is unsustainable, culminating in what physicists term a “finite-time singularity,” marked by abrupt regime changes. This study shifts focus from traditional systemic risks to hypothesize that the massive market capitalization of the “Magnificent 7” companies poses a systemic risk under two conditions: (a) their stocks exhibit super-exponential growth, and (b) finite-time singularities occur simultaneously. Applying the log-periodic power law (LPPLS) model to daily log-price data from May 13, 2016, to January 17, 2025, this research identifies strong evidence of bubble formations in four of the seven stocks. The LPPLS model forecasts regime changes between February and June 2025. Given the unparalleled market capitalization of these companies, their concurrent collapse could destabilize the broader financial ecosystem. We note, however, that policy interventions, particularly those effective during the Trump administration, can influence or disrupt the endogenous stock price dynamics uncovered in this analysis. In this study, such policy interventions are regarded as exogenous shocks and are not formally modeled within the LPPLS framework.