This study examines whether clients' business strategies are a factor in determining the occurrence of financial reporting irregularities and the level of audit effort. We use the organizational strategy theory of Miles and Snow to develop a comprehensive measure of business strategy using publicly available data. We find that Miles and Snow's Prospector strategy is more likely to be involved in financial reporting irregularities and generally requires greater audit effort. The business strategy measure also appears to capture client business risk and provides incremental explanatory power beyond the individual measures of client complexity or risk used in traditional audit fee models. We contribute to the literature by constructing a replicable business strategy measure and identifying organizational business strategy as an important ex ante determinant of financial reporting irregularities and levels of audit effort. Our results suggest that investigating how audits can be improved to reduce financial reporting irregularities among Prospector clients is an important area for audit practice and future research.

We examine the participation of analysts from different buy-side institutions (hedge funds, mutual funds, and RIAs) in public earnings conference calls and the associated capital market implications. Using 81,652 conference call transcripts for 3346 companies from 2007 to 2016, we find that buy-side analysts ask questions on approximately 18% of calls. Relative to sell-side analysts, buy-side analysts' interactions with management are shorter, convey less favorable tone, and exhibit more uncertainty. Buy-side activity on earnings calls is also associated with subsequent reductions in sell-side coverage, and buy-side tone is associated with sell-side analysts' price target revisions after the call. Importantly, our findings suggest that buy-side analysts representing a hedge fund play an important and unique role on conference calls. Specifically, hedge fund analysts represent nearly half (47%) of all buy-side appearances. In addition, when short interest in the firm is high, analysts representing a hedge fund are less likely to be permitted to ask the first question on the call, to ask lengthy questions, or to ask additional follow-up questions. Relatedly, relative to other buy-side analysts, the information conveyed by hedge fund analysts during the call is more strongly associated with both stock returns and investor uncertainty following the call.

Abstract We survey public company executives and directors to understand what audit clients want from their auditor in today’s regulated environment. Our results provide at least three important takeaways. First, executives and directors view elements of auditors’ service quality (e.g., timeliness of communications) as at least as important as auditors’ technical competence. Second, we find no evidence that stakeholders’ preferences for service quality replaces their expectation for technical competence. Third, we find that 57% of executives and 67% of directors feel they can very accurately assess audit quality after an audit’s completion, but we are unable to identify clear determinants of participants’ self-reported ability to assess quality. Our results highlight the challenges facing auditors as they attempt to please clients, protect shareholders, and comply with regulations, all while offering a product whose quality is inherently challenging for others to assess. Our findings motivate future research and inform regulatory efforts.

Investor relations officers (IROs) play a central role in corporate communications with Wall Street. We survey 610 IROs at U.S. public companies and conduct 14 follow-up interviews to deepen our understanding of the role of IROs in corporate disclosure events. Three important themes emerge from our results: (i) the value, nature, and timing of private communication between IROs, analysts, and investors; (ii) the significant influence IROs have on corporate disclosures; and (iii) the degree of “theater” involved in public earnings conference calls, even the Q&A portion. We provide insights into the investor relations, analyst, institutional investor, and disclosure literatures.

We survey 344 buy-side analysts from 181 investment firms and conduct 16 detailed follow-up interviews to gain insights into the activities of buy-side analysts, including the determinants of their compensation, the inputs to their stock recommendations, their beliefs about financial reporting quality, and the role of sell-side analysts in buy-side research. One important finding is that 10-K or 10-Q reports are more useful than quarterly conference calls and management earnings guidance for determining buy-side analysts׳ stock recommendations. Our results also suggest that sell-side analysts add value by providing buy-side analysts with in-depth industry knowledge and access to company management.

We examine whether financial analysts strategically time the announcement of their recommendation revisions consistent with their incentives to maintain relations with management. We provide evidence that investor and media attention to recommendation revisions is reduced on weekends, which analysts can exploit to strategically time the release of their revisions. We find that downgrades are a higher proportion of weekend revisions than weekday revisions and that analysts with characteristics that suggest they possess the strongest incentives to maintain favor with management are more likely to downgrade on the weekend. In contrast, analysts absent these characteristics are more likely to release downgrades during the week, consistent with these analysts being driven primarily by other incentives, such as the timely release of their recommendation and garnering media attention. We also present evidence suggesting that strategic disclosure of recommendation downgrades is associated with greater access to management on public earnings conference calls.