Knowledge that Transforms

Prior research demonstrates that relative performance information affects effort and performance. However, little is known about the qualitative design parameters of these information systems. This study examines, via an experiment, how adding performance category labels to ranks (e.g., “good” ranking position and “poor” ranking position) affects effort and performance. Furthermore, we investigate the effort and performance effects of two design choices observed in practice: the type of performance category labels and the proportion of positively labeled ranks. We argue that performance category labels motivate greater effort and performance through competition for status, which varies with both the type of performance category labels and the proportion of positively labeled ranks. We find partial support for our hypothesis that adding performance category labels increases effort and performance. Specifically, we find positive effects if top ranks are positively labeled and bottom ranks are negatively labeled (combined labels) but not if only top ranks are labeled (positive‐only labels). We also find as predicted that the positive effects on effort resulting from using combined labels, instead of positive‐only labels, are stronger when the proportion of positively labeled ranks is larger. The results for performance are weaker. Our results shed new light on the usefulness of performance category labels and emphasize how firms can render relative performance information more effective.

The centrality of private information in the design of accounting institutions has been explored via agency models that address control concerns as well as disclosure models that amplify valuation issues. This paper derives disclosures by an entrepreneur‐owner when both control and valuation concerns are in play. In particular, the disclosures influence stock price not only via a direct impact on valuation of the firm's revenue but also via an indirect impact on the firm's cost of procuring inputs from a self‐interested and privately informed upstream supplier. In this setting, disclosures are judiciously designed to influence the supplier's decision to share cost information and to control information rents embedded in the procurement contract within the supply chain. Specifically, in order to convey that information rents are not in the offing and, thus, motivate information sharing by the supplier, the owner has incentives to convey a less “rosy” picture. In effect, when controlling supplier actions also becomes important, the owner discloses some unfavorable revenue news that she would have otherwise withheld and conceals some favorable revenue news that she would have otherwise revealed. Consequently, in our model, the disclosure region is either two‐tailed or intermediate, in contrast to the single‐tailed disclosure region implied by familiar valuation considerations alone.

Incorporating the firm's corporate parent in a tax haven is a major decision that receives significant attention from many stakeholders, yet certain implications of this corporate strategy remain unclear. While tax haven incorporation offers tax savings, it also imposes risks that are potentially costly and hence important to consider. We predict and find a higher cost of equity capital in firms with parent companies that are incorporated in tax havens but that are primarily based in nonhaven countries. We also predict and find that the observed cost of equity premium is more pronounced in firms with greater tax risk, firm‐level information risk, and country‐level legal risk. We also employ corporate inversions in a difference‐in‐differences test and again find a positive relation between tax haven parent incorporation and the cost of capital. Our findings imply that an increased cost of capital is a material cost of tax haven parent incorporation. We contribute to the literatures on valuation of tax haven use, tax and nontax costs of corporate tax strategies, corporate inversions, and the relation between taxes and the cost of capital. Our study provides evidence on the tax and nontax risks of a uniquely observable tax strategy (i.e., tax haven parent incorporation) that could factor into firms' decisions about whether to incorporate in a tax haven and policymakers' efforts to deter such activity.

Bolton, Scheinkman, and Xiong (2006) model a setting where investors disagree and short‐sales constraints cause pessimistic views of stock prices to be less influential, which leads to speculative stock prices. A theoretical implication of the model is that existing shareholders can exploit the speculative stock prices by (i) designing managerial compensation contracts that encourage short‐term performance, and (ii) subsequently selling their shares to more optimistic investors. We document empirical support for this theory by finding that an exogenous removal (Regulation SHO) of short‐sales constraints curbs the provision of short‐term incentives, an effect reflected in longer CEO compensation duration. The effect is concentrated among stocks with high investor disagreement and short‐term‐oriented institutional ownership. Consistent with prior work, we also find that longer CEO compensation duration leads to longer CEO investment horizons, less overinvestment, and less earnings management. Collectively, our results speak to the contributing role of speculative stock prices in corporate short‐termism. Finally, our study implies that effective policies to curb corporate short‐termism should address stock market speculation and promote mechanisms that tie executive compensation to longer‐term stock price performance.

In this paper, we investigate how auditors respond to shareholder activism against their clients. Our study is important because activism may be viewed by auditors as a source of increased engagement risk, thereby impacting audit outcomes. The potential relationship between shareholder activism and audit outcomes leads us to predict that activism targets will pay higher audit fees and also will be more likely to receive adverse internal control opinions (ICOs) and first‐time going concern opinions (GCOs). Our results, which support all three predictions, suggest that the public scrutiny associated with activism campaigns heightens auditors' concerns about reputational damage and litigation risk. Consistent with this notion, we find that activism targets are more likely to experience accounting‐related lawsuits. We also find that the increased likelihood of adverse ICOs documented in our baseline tests reflects higher‐quality reporting rather than increased auditor conservatism. Overall, our findings suggest that activism campaigns spur auditor diligence while also increasing the possibility of negative outcomes that may not be fully anticipated by activist investors.

Prior studies find that delayed earnings announcements tend to communicate unfavorable news, and investors react negatively when firms delay earnings announcements. However, these findings do not explain why investors discount delayed earnings, even after controlling for the earnings news, and why firms sometimes announce good news late. Motivated by theory from Trueman (1990) that attempts to explain these phenomena, we examine whether announcement delays indicate earnings management. We predict and find that good news firms with higher discretionary accruals are more likely to announce earnings late. Consistent with post fiscal year‐end activities driving announcement delays, we fail to find a relation between measures of real earnings management and late announcements. Using a last‐chance earnings management measure based on tax expense manipulation, we also predict and find strong evidence that good news firms engaging in last‐chance earnings management are more likely to delay earnings announcements. Consistent with Trueman's (1990) theory that earnings management explains why investors discount delayed earnings announcements, we find that, on average, earnings announcement returns are 1.4% lower for late announcers relying on last‐chance earnings management to report good news. Overall, our findings suggest that announcement delays provide information about not only the sign of the earnings news but also the potential for earnings management.

We provide large‐sample archival evidence on the nature and consequences of errors deemed immaterial to the previously issued financial statements containing the errors (immaterial errors). The incidence of immaterial error corrections has been increasing since about 2004, and these corrections are associated with modestly and discernibly negative share returns that are more negative for income‐decreasing corrections and corrections that involve multiple issues. We find that immaterial errors are a leading indicator of poor reporting reliability as measured by future material and immaterial reporting errors, material weaknesses in internal controls, and SEC comment letters. Our findings suggest that immaterial errors provide researchers and investors with a more frequent and less severe indicator of potential audit or financial reporting issues as compared to more extreme reporting problems such as material errors corrected by restatements.

This study adopts a two‐step approach to highlight the disclosure quality channel that drives economic consequences of IFRS adoption. This approach helps address the identification challenge noted by prior research and offers direct evidence on the role of disclosure quality. In the first step, we document the impact of the IFRS mandate on changes in disclosure quality proxied by the granularity of line item disclosure in financial statements. We find that IFRS‐adopting firms provide more disaggregated information upon IFRS adoption, such as more granular disclosure of intangible assets and long‐term investments on the balance sheet and greater disaggregation of depreciation, amortization, and nonoperating income items on the income statement. In the second step, we link the observed disclosure changes to the benefits and costs of IFRS adoption. We show that greater disaggregated information due to IFRS adoption enhances market liquidity and decreases information asymmetry, but does not affect audit fees differentially. Our evidence has implications for standard setters as they evaluate cost‐benefit trade‐offs when considering disclosure changes in the future.

The fact that incumbent firms can immediately deduct research and development (R&D) investments from taxable income is generally believed to give them a strategic advantage over new firms that cannot deduct the investment cost, but instead generate a net operating tax loss carryover. Using an analytical model, we show that this conventional wisdom need not hold in a competitive environment. We examine operating and investment decisions in a duopolistic industry in which an initial investment in R&D yields an immediate tax benefit for one firm, but creates a net operating loss carryover for the other firm. If both firms invest in R&D, the firm with the net operating loss carryover makes more aggressive capital investment decisions following successful R&D. This may deter the incumbent firm from investing in R&D despite the lower aftertax costs of this investment. Changing the tax loss carryover rules would thus not only affects start‐up or loss firms, but would also affect the investment decisions of profitable firms in the same industry.

Using a large US sample, we find a significant and positive relation between patents and corporate tax planning, and the effect is incremental to the effect of R&D on tax planning. We employ a quasi‐natural experiment based on staggered industry‐level innovation shocks to identify the positive causal effect of patents on corporate tax planning. We also find that patents are not associated with tax planning for domestic firms, but their association with tax planning is concentrated in multinational firms, which have the ability to shift domestic income to low‐tax countries. Moreover, we find that the identified effect mainly exists in the post–check‐the‐box (CTB) rule period when shifting income among affiliates becomes more flexible and convenient. Finally, we use two income‐shifting models and find that patents, rather than R&D, facilitate tax planning through an income‐shifting channel. Overall, our results suggest that R&D and patents facilitate firms' tax planning in distinct ways: R&D facilitates tax planning as intended through tax credits and deductions, whereas patents are used by taxpayers to avoid taxes aggressively through income shifting.