Abstract Prior literature on the relationship between financial reporting and investment efficiency generally overlooks the connection between firms' financial and managerial reporting systems. As a result, it is difficult to determine whether increases in the quality of firms' internal information environments (IIQ) and/or the quality of their external information environments (EIQ) explain improvements in investment efficiency following financial reporting changes. Leveraging the transition window to the new lease standard (Accounting Standards Codification [ASC] 842), we use a difference‐in‐differences design and find that firms that materially change their internal controls due to ASC 842 (treatment firms) significantly improve their investment efficiency in the final year of the transition window. Multiple falsification tests rule out that contemporaneous improvements in treatment firms' EIQ explain our finding. Additional channel analyses suggest the increases in IIQ for treatment firms predominantly alleviate moral hazard risk between central and divisional managers within the firm, leading to a reduction in empire building. Our findings extend the literature on the relationship between financial reporting and investment efficiency. They also contribute to the literature on the consequences of ASC 842 by answering the FASB's call for research on how ASC 842 affects firms' asset utilizations.

ABSTRACT This research evaluates whether reporting incentives and consequences change under the new lease accounting standard. Under prior guidance (SFAS 13), we predict and find firms with high financing cost sensitivities to leverage have greater incentive to finance investments with operating leases. Under the new lease accounting standard (ASU 2016-02), we predict and find this leverage incentive remains but is reduced, consistent with the FASB’s objective to limit opportunities to structure lease contracts for balance sheet purposes. Under ASU 2016-02, we also predict and find that the leverage incentive encourages firms to reduce operating lease liabilities by decreasing the duration of minimum lease payments. Lastly, we predict and find that firms use fewer operating leases under both SFAS 13 and ASU 2016-02 when managers’ income objectives exclude depreciation and/or interest expense. These findings suggest reporting incentives remain post ASU 2016-02 that encourage firms to structure leases to achieve accounting outcomes. Data Availability: This study uses licensed data from a variety of sources (see Appendix A for a detailed list of providers). JEL Classifications: D82; G34; M41.