Knowledge that Transforms

We examine the relationship between analyst research and corporate earnings announcements to explore the relative importance of information discovery versus interpretation of previously released information. Using equity market reaction to capture information content, we find that information discovery (interpretation) dominates in the week before (after) firms announce their earnings. In addition, we find that the interpretation role increases in importance with the difficulty of financial accounting information. Analysis of all weeks surrounding earnings announcements shows that the information discovery role is overall more important. We are able to reconcile this result with the opposite finding in Francis et al. (2002).

Materiality has important implications for voluntary disclosures when there is an affirmative duty to disclose. Using a change in rules on the disclosure of advertising costs, Heitzman et al. (2009) empirically demonstrate that, indeed, it is important to factor in the effect of the materiality constraint on firms’ disclosure behavior. This discussion reviews the contributions and limitations of Heitzman et al. (2009).

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are commonly used in accounting research (e.g., earnings management, corporate governance, executive compensation, and disclosure research) when the regressor variables are endogenous. While IV estimation is the standard textbook solution to mitigating endogeneity problems, the appropriateness of IV methods in typical accounting research settings is not obvious. Drawing on recent advances in statistics and econometrics, we identify conditions under which IV methods are preferred to OLS estimates and propose a series of tests for research studies employing IV methods. We illustrate these ideas by examining the relation between corporate disclosure and the cost of capital.

Bargeron, Lehn, and Zutter [2009. Sarbanes–Oxley and corporate risk-taking. Journal of Accounting and Economics, forthcoming] document that as compared with non-US firms, risk-taking by publicly traded companies in the US declined after the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act in 2002 (SOX). They conclude that this decline is related to board structure, firm size, and research and development expenditures. In my view, Bargeron, Lehn, and Zutter tackle an important question and provide carefully conducted analyses. However, as my discussion highlights, the question is difficult to answer, and as in similar studies on SOX, the evidence needs to be interpreted with caution.

We examine whether compensation consultants’ potential cross-selling incentives explain more lucrative CEO pay packages using 755 firms from the S&P 1500 for 2006. Critics allege that these incentives lead consultants to bias their advice to secure greater revenues from their clients [Waxman, H., 2007. Executive pay: conflicts of interest among compensation consultants. United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Majority Staff, December]. Among firms that retain consultants, we are unable to find widespread evidence of higher levels of pay or lower pay-performance sensitivities for clients of consultants with potentially greater conflicts of interest. Overall, we do not find evidence suggesting that potential conflicts of interest between the firm and its consultant are a primary driver of excessive CEO pay.

In their investigation of the new PCAOB Inspections, Lennox and Pittman [Lennox, C., Pittman, J., 2009. Auditing the auditors: evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of the audit firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, forthcoming] address one of the most important and controversial features of the recent shift from self-regulation to government regulation in the US audit markets. In this paper I attempt to place their investigations into the broader auditing and regulatory literature, critique what we learn and do not learn from their analysis, and make suggestions for future related research.

This paper argues that academics, politicians, and the media have six commonly held but misguided beliefs about corporate governance. While Armstrong et al. (2010) discuss some of these misconceptions, a wider recognition that these beliefs are actually “myths” is important. They include: (1) a common definition of “corporate governance” exists; (2) a useful distinction is “internal” versus “external” governance mechanisms; (3) outside directors perform two separable roles: to advise and monitor managers; (4) research has identified “good” and “bad” governance practices; (5) a “good” governance index can be constructed; and (6) corporate governance “best practices” can be deduced from peer data.

We investigate whether a departure from a tax-based accounting system toward the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards encourages tax noncompliance. We also examine whether such a departure, which weakens book-tax conformity, affects the informativeness of book-tax differences for tax noncompliance. Our evidence suggests that as book-tax conformity decreases, tax noncompliance increases. Although book-tax differences remain informative of tax noncompliance, the informativeness attenuates as book-tax conformity weakens. Additionally, firms with high incentives to inflate book income are more tax compliant than their counterparts after the departure from a tax-based accounting system.

We examine the relation between audit committee compensation and the demand for monitoring of the financial reporting process. We find that total compensation and cash retainers paid to audit committees are positively correlated with audit fees and the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our proxies for the demand for monitoring. Our results are robust to the inclusion of audit committee quality, measured as the committee chair financial expertise. Our results suggest a recent willingness by firms to deviate from the historically prevalent one-size-fits-all approach to director pay in response to increased demands on audit committees and differential director expertise.

Dechow, Myers, and Shakespeare (DMS, 2009) find a negative relation between income from securitization activities and income from non-securitization activities. DMS interprets this finding as indicating that managers use the flexibility available in fair value accounting rules to smooth earnings. We clarify the role of fair value in accounting for asset securitizations, discuss alternative explanations for the evidence presented in DMS, and offer suggestions for future research. We caution against inferring the desirability of any particular accounting method from earnings management research.