arbiter
JournalsAccount

Conflicted Regulators: Indirect Revolving-Door Connections in SEC Filing Reviews

Matthew Kubic et al.

The Accounting Review2026https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2023-0242article
FT50UTD24AJG 4*ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

We investigate whether prior employment connections influence the strictness of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing review process. Using novel data on over 250 accountants at the SEC, we define connected examiners as accountants reviewing financial statements audited by their former employer. We find that SEC review teams with a higher percentage of connected examiners are less likely to detect financial statement errors, raise fewer substantive issues, and are less likely to push back on registrants’ responses to comment letters. Our estimates also indicate that the effect of examiners’ prior employment connections is strongest earlier in their SEC tenure and attenuates with time. Our findings provide important practical insights on the boundaries of the revolving door between regulators and the regulated, suggesting that even indirect connections can impact oversight. JEL Classifications: G18; M41; M48.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2023-0242

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{matthew2026,
  title        = {{Conflicted Regulators: Indirect Revolving-Door Connections in SEC Filing Reviews}},
  author       = {Matthew Kubic et al.},
  journal      = {The Accounting Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2023-0242},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Conflicted Regulators: Indirect Revolving-Door Connections in SEC Filing Reviews

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.