In dynamic principal–agent relationships, unless a principal can commit to a multiperiod contract, incentives are affected by a problem known as the ratchet effect. We present a two-period agency model to show that the use of more aggregate performance measures and greater consolidation of responsibility helps mitigate the ratchet effect. For example, an aggregate measure may be preferred to a set of disaggregate measures to avoid aggravating the ratchet effect. Similarly, it may be preferable to consolidate responsibility for two activities in the hands of one agent despite the potential loss of performance evaluation information implied by consolidation.

Ongoing employment relationships often give rise to implicit, dynamic incentives. We describe the implications of implicit incentives when firms use information about both an employee's past performance and his future productivity in a two-period agency model. We show that when an accounting system serves these dual objectives, an employee's implicit incentives may be beneficial or detrimental to the firm. As a consequence, firms may prefer an accounting system that reports a single metric that combines information about past performance and future productivity, over one that reports two distinct metrics, one for each purpose.

We provide evidence that CEOs' and lower-level business unit executives' target bonuses are negatively associated with a proxy for measurement noise in accounting-based performance measures, and positively associated with proxies for firms' growth opportunities and the extent of executives' decision-making authority. Non-CEO executives' target bonuses are also positively associated with their CEO's target bonus. In addition, we compare executives' actual and target bonuses over two consecutive periods to draw inferences about how firms revise executives' performance standards. If firms adjust performance standards to fully reflect executives' past performance, then we expect an executive's chances of earning an above-target bonus to be independent of his past performance. We find evidence to the contrary; an executive is more likely to receive an above-target bonus if he received an above-target bonus in the prior year than if he did not. This suggests that firms do not adjust standards to fully reflect executives' past performance, consistent with agency-theoretic arguments that a firm can better motivate its executives if it discounts executives' past performance in setting their future compensation.

We examine relations between board size, managerial incentives and enterprise performance in nonprofit organizations. We posit that a nonprofit's demand for directors increases in the number of programs it pursues, resulting in a positive association between program diversity and board size. Consequently, we predict that board size is inversely related to managerial pay-performance incentives and positively with overall organization performance. We find empirical evidence consistent with our hypotheses. The number of programs is positively related to board size. Board size is associated negatively with managerial incentives, positively with program spending and fundraising performance, and negatively with commercial revenue, in levels and changes.

We re-examine the effects of regulation fair disclosure (Reg FD) using ADRs (who are exempt from Reg FD) to control for confounding events which affected all traded firms. Tests based on public information metrics (returns volatility, informational efficiency and trading volume) and on analyst information metrics (forecast dispersion and accuracy) suggest that Reg FD did not uniquely affect the US information environment. However, analyst report informativeness declined for US firms relative to ADR firms, providing evidence consistent with Reg FD achieving one of its objectives–reducing private information flows to analysts.

We examine the relation between managers’ disclosure activities and their stock price-based incentives. Managers are privy to information that investors demand and are reluctant to publicly disseminate it unless provided appropriate incentives. We argue that stock price-based incentives in the form of stock-based compensation and share ownership mitigate this disclosure agency problem. Consistent with this prediction, we find that firms’ disclosures, measured both by management earnings forecast frequency and analysts’ subjective ratings of disclosure practice, are positively related to the proportion of CEO compensation affected by stock price and the value of shares held by the CEO.

ABSTRACT We investigate the relations among voluntary disclosure, earnings quality, and cost of capital. We find that firms with good earnings quality have more expansive voluntary disclosures (as proxied by a self‐constructed index of coded items found in 677 firms' annual reports and 10‐K filings in fiscal 2001) than firms with poor earnings quality. In unconditional tests, we find that more voluntary disclosure is associated with a lower cost of capital. However, consistent with the complementary association between disclosure and earnings quality, we find that the disclosure effect on cost of capital is substantially reduced or disappears completely (depending on the cost of capital proxy) once we condition on earnings quality. Extensions probing alternative proxies show that our findings are robust to measures of earnings quality and cost of capital, but not to other measures of voluntary disclosure. In particular, we find opposite relations for voluntary disclosure measures based on management forecasts and conference calls, and we find no relations for a press release based measure.

This paper examines systematic differences in earnings management across 31 countries. We propose an explanation for these differences based on the notion that insiders, in an attempt to protect their private control benefits, use earnings management to conceal firm performance from outsiders. Thus, earnings management is expected to decrease in investor protection because strong protection limits insiders’ ability to acquire private control benefits, which reduces their incentives to mask firm performance. Our findings are consistent with this prediction and suggest an endogenous link between corporate governance and the quality of reported earnings.

ABSTRACT We examine changes in CEOs' disclosure styles in quarterly earnings conference calls over their tenure. Our longitudinal analysis of newly hired CEOs shows that CEOs' forward-looking disclosures and their disclosures' relative optimism decline in their tenure. Further, externally hired and inexperienced CEOs are more future-oriented, and younger CEOs exhibit greater optimism in their disclosures. We also find that non-CEO executives' disclosure styles remain time-invariant over their CEOs' tenure. Our evidence is consistent with uncertainty reduction about managers' ability over their tenure (1) reducing the demand for and the supply of forward-looking disclosures, and (2) attenuating managerial career concerns leading to the decline in disclosure optimism. JEL Classifications: D22; D70; D82; D83; L20; M12.