This study uses Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD) as a plausibly exogenous shock to the information environment to identify the causal effect of information asymmetry on corporate financing behavior. Although Regulation FD prevents firms from selectively disclosing material information to market professionals in the equity market, firms can still do so to banks and rating agencies in the debt market. The standard׳s differential disclosure requirements lead to differential changes in the information environments between the two markets, providing a reasonably useful setting to examine the effect of information asymmetry on firms׳ capital structure. I find that firms with a high level of information asymmetry increase debt more than firms with a low level of information asymmetry post-Regulation FD. The results suggest that managers adjust the target leverage ratios to rely more on debt when facing higher costs of equity.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) reviews company filings (10‐Q, 10‐K, S‐1, etc.) submitted to them. If a review identifies potential deficiencies, the SEC staff sends the company a comment letter seeking clarification, additional information, and ultimately, perhaps, revision of the filing or future filings. We examine the content, resolution, and ensuing informational consequences of SEC comment letters. The content analysis shows that nearly half of all comments involve accounting application, financial reporting, and disclosure issues. More than 17 percent of our sample cases result in immediate amended filings to resolve the issue(s) arising from the comment letters, and financial statements and/or footnotes are frequently revised. Following comment letter resolution, the adverse selection component of the bid‐ask spread declines and Earnings Response Coefficients ( ERC s) increase. Our results provide little support for the conjecture that the market interprets the receipt of a comment letter as a signal that the firm has poor reporting quality. Finally, we find no evidence that comment letter firms increase the quantity or change the type of voluntary disclosure, thereby eliminating a possible competing explanation for the improved information environment. We conclude the SEC 's oversight has beneficial informational effects.

This paper investigates whether gubernatorial elections affect state governments’ accounting choices. We identify two accounts, the compensated absence liability account and the unfunded pension liability account, which provide incumbent gubernatorial candidates with flexibility for manipulation. We find that, in an election year, the liability associated with compensated absences and unfunded pension liabilities are both systematically lower. We also find that the variation in these employment‐related liabilities is correlated with proxies for the incumbent's incentives and ability to manipulate their accounting reports. Jointly, these results suggest that state governments manipulate accounting numbers to present a healthier financial picture in an election year.

We find a negative association between a state׳s fiscal condition and the use of discretion in applying Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules to understate pension funding gaps. We also find that the use of discretion is negatively associated with states’ decisions to increase taxes and cut spending. In addition, we find that the funding gap understatement is positively associated with higher future labor costs. Importantly, this association is primarily attributable to the GASB methodology, which systematically understates the funding gap. This suggests that the GASB approach is associated with policy choices that have the potential to exacerbate fiscal stress.

Although balanced budget rules are widely used throughout the world, there is considerable debate on whether and how they impact fiscal outcomes. Existing research shows that states with strict balanced budget rules address deficits by raising taxes and curbing expenditures. However, little is known about whether politicians can meet budget rules by shifting resources inter-temporally or by transferring revenues from funds not subject to balanced budget rules into funds that are required to meet a balanced budget. We show that, in addition to increasing taxes and cutting expenditures, states with strict balanced budget rules sell public assets and transfer resources across government funds to close the budget shortfall. Our findings suggest that current budget deficits not only influence the current-period taxpayers, but also impact future taxpayers and other funds within the government. The results complement existing research by expanding our understanding of the effects of balanced budget restrictions on politicians' fiscal actions.

We examine the effect of large audit firms’ internal inspection programs, an important monitoring mechanism, on auditor effort and financial reporting quality. Internal inspections are often predictable, and engagement teams concentrate their effort on audits ultimately selected for inspections. The extra effort increases the likelihood of a favorable inspection rating. We find some evidence of improvement in financial reporting quality in the inspection year, suggesting that internal inspections are effective in deterring auditor shirking. Upon receiving a favorable rating, the engagement team reverts audit effort back to the preinspection level. However, if the rating is unfavorable, the team increases effort on future engagements of the client. This higher effort improves the client’s financial reporting quality if the internal inspection program is not deemed deficient by the PCAOB. Collectively, the results highlight the importance of an effective internal inspection program in improving financial reporting quality.

We provide large sample evidence that credible hedge commitments reduce the agency costs of debt and that accounting conservatism enhances hedge commitments. We examine 2,338 bank loans entered into by 263 mandatory derivative users that are contractually obligated by interest rate protection covenants, 709 voluntary derivative users, and 1,366 non-users. We show that loan contracts are more likely to include interest rate protection covenants when borrowers are less likely to maintain the hedge position once the financing is completed. We find that borrowers who credibly commit to hedge using these covenants significantly reduce their interest rates. While we do not find an average interest savings for voluntary derivative users, we do find a reduction in their loan rates when they practice conservative financial reporting. Our results suggest that accounting conservatism helps borrowers resolve shareholder-creditor conflicts by committing to maintain their hedge positions after completing debt financing.

This paper examines whether the identity of the individual audit partners provides informational value to capital market participants beyond the value provided by the identity of the audit firms. Using data from Taiwan, where firms are mandated to disclose the names of the engagement partners, we find a positive association between the partner's quality and the client firm's earnings response coefficient. We also find a positive market reaction when a firm replaces a lower quality partner with a higher quality one. Moreover, we find evidence that firms audited by higher quality partners experience smaller initial public offering (IPO) underpricing and are able to obtain better debt contract terms. Overall, these results suggest that the quality of engagement partners matters to capital market participants.

We ask whether credit rating agencies receive higher fees and gain greater market share when they provide more favorable ratings. To investigate this question, we use the 2010 rating scale recalibration by Moody's and Fitch, which increased ratings absent any underlying change in issuer credit quality. Consistent with prior research, we find that the recalibration allowed the clients of Moody's and Fitch to receive better ratings and lower yields. We add to this evidence by showing that the recalibration also led to larger fees and to increases in the market shares of Moody's and Fitch. These results are consistent with critics’ concerns about the effects of the issuer‐pay model on the credit ratings market.