Knowledge that Transforms

Research on the effects of voluntary disclosure quality on the cost of equity capital is often plagued by endogeneity concerns. In this paper, I use a dynamic panel system GMM estimator, which provides internal instruments from the firm's history that directly address endogeneity arising from unobserved heterogeneity and simultaneity. By using hand‐collected voluntary disclosure scores for firms listed in the Swiss stock exchange, I examine the dynamic relation between voluntary disclosure quality and the cost of equity capital in a panel over a period of 10 years. The results suggest that the relation between voluntary disclosure quality and the cost of equity capital becomes insignificant after controlling adequately for potential dynamic endogeneity, simultaneity, and unobserved heterogeneity.

U.S. multinational corporations increasingly use intra‐firm, cross‐border research collaboration to disperse R&D across different countries. This paper investigates the implications of such collaboration on the abilities of firms to garner benefits from R&D tax incentives. We find that the association between R&D intensity and tax incentives is three to five times larger when firms have extensive cross‐border collaboration connected to a country. We also find that the effect is stronger when local intellectual property protection is weaker and when local innovation resources are higher. Our results suggest that cross‐border collaboration helps firms achieve more tax‐efficient R&D investments both by reducing the nontax frictions posed by weak intellectual property protection and by increasing the nontax benefits of foreign R&D.

We examine how compensation policies of audit firms are associated with audit quality. Specifically, we investigate the effects of the ratio of variable to fixed compensation and the size of the basis for profit sharing (i.e., whether partners share profits in a small or in a large profit pool). For our analyses, we use detailed mandatory disclosure of the compensation policies in German audit firms. We document that compensation policies vary considerably across audit firms. We find that profit sharing in a small profit pool and high variable compensation are two characteristics of auditor compensation associated with lower audit quality. We also find some evidence suggesting that audit quality may be most at risk in cases in which partners rely more heavily on variable compensation to divide a relatively small profit pool. In additional analyses, we find that these associations are more pronounced in medium‐sized audit firms. We argue that this finding may result from these firms being too large for audit partners to directly monitor each other effectively, yet simultaneously too small to have sophisticated centralized monitoring systems in place. Finally, we find that integrating partner‐specific, nonprofit‐related performance metrics into the compensation structure mitigates the adverse effects of small profit pools and high variable compensation.

The executive compensation literature presumes that shareholders offer risk‐averse managers stock options to entice them to take on more risk, resulting in riskier investment decisions and thus a greater return on investment. However, recent empirical work challenges this assumption, and theoretical research even argues that high levels of option‐based compensation for generally under‐diversified managers may actually lead to greater risk aversion . We evaluate the incentive structure of employee stock options by examining the level of R&D investment and the return on that investment conditional on the portfolio “vega,” which captures the sensitivity of option value to stock price volatility. Our results suggest that both investment in R&D and the return on R&D, as measured by future earnings and patent awards, varies concavely with vega. That is, low to moderate levels of vega correspond to increasing investment in and returns on R&D, consistent with vega inducing more profitable investments, but marginal returns decline as vega increases. Collectively, these results, bolstered by several supplemental analyses, suggest that this surprising relation between vega and risky investment is driven by greater risk aversion at higher levels of vega. Overall, our results imply that employee stock options may not always align the incentives of managers and shareholders.

This study examines the effect on investors' judgments of corporate social responsibility (CSR) measures when integrated with financial information in a single report versus when presented in a separate CSR report. Advocates for integrated reports argue that CSR information will be perceived as more relevant and have a greater impact on users when observed in an integrated report. However, we provide experimental evidence that CSR measures have greater influence on investors' judgments when investors observe the CSR information and financial information depicted in separate reports. We also provide evidence that this greater influence of CSR measures is caused by investors' evaluations taking on a “multidimensional perspective” that includes both a social responsibility and a financial dimension, which is triggered by observing the separate CSR report. Activating a social responsibility dimension elevates the perceived relevance of CSR measures, increasing their influence on investors' judgments. Our study contributes to practice by highlighting a potential unintended consequence of issuing integrated versus separate CSR reports: that investors incorporate CSR information less when it is integrated with financial information versus separately reported.

We create and validate measures capturing internal and external motivations to report honestly as trait‐like characteristics. Both measures have high levels of reliability, as well as convergent and divergent validity. To test their predictive validity, we conduct two experiments. In the first experiment, MTurk participants have the opportunity and incentive to misreport with no immediate consequences, and in the second experiment, participants with management experience report how they would make a hypothetical accounting allocation decision. In both experiments, we find that participants who are higher in internal motivations to report honestly are more likely to report honestly than those lower in internal motivations, confirming this measure's predictive validity. Both experiments also provide limited support for the predictive validity of our external measure, finding that those who are higher in external motivation do not report differently than those who are lower in external motivations in the absence of controls. Our study also reveals that individuals who are higher in internal motivations have a diminished reaction to different management controls: MTurk participants to a control that punishes misreporting, and manager participants to a control that rewards honest reporting. Results suggest that management and those charged with governance should consider that some employees can react negatively to controls that are perceived as constraining. Our measures are useful to researchers who investigate honest reporting by allowing them to identify, ex ante, individuals who want to be honest versus wanting to appear honest.

Using novel receivable‐based loan data, we study the effect of aging‐report loan covenants on borrowers' accounts receivable reporting quality. Our purpose is to highlight a channel that lenders use to obtain private information and to understand whether lenders' information acquisition affects the financial reporting quality of borrowers. Compared to receivable‐based borrowers without aging‐report requirements (control firms), borrowers with such requirements (test firms) increase their receivable reporting quality significantly after loan initiations. The shift in reporting quality is more pronounced when borrowers have weak bargaining power. Our results lend support to the argument that lender information access affects borrowers' reporting quality.

Prior research indicates that most audit legal disputes settle. There is, however, little evidence of the factors that drive the settlement norm and its exceptions in audit legal disputes. To better understand these factors, we rely on theory related to how professionals manage risks and, as a result, how professions defend jurisdictional claims. We use this theoretical lens to help motivate four research questions that we probe by interviewing 27 prominent attorneys experienced in audit litigation. Consistent with our lens, our interview data indicate that attorneys manage their risks, including the risk of reputational loss, by settling based on their expectations of trial verdicts. Unlike trials, settlements simultaneously enable attorneys on both sides to limit costs and avoid catastrophic jury verdicts and, by doing so, claim “wins” for their clients. Attorneys also stress that they settle many audit disputes without any legal filings. Thus, a large subset of disputes is invisible to the public and researchers. Attorneys characterize trials as exceptions to the settlement norm that emerge due to abnormal conditions sometimes present in disputes. However, trial verdicts in these abnormal conditions help attorneys justify the use of settlements to clients, as attorneys stress that by settling they can avoid the dreaded possibility of extreme unfavorable verdicts. We conclude that as individual attorneys manage their risks, especially the risk of reputational loss, their profession maintains its public image and thereby defends its jurisdictional claims. Among the many questions we pose for future research is whether the settlement norm reduces society's ability to monitor the audit profession and, more generally, whether this norm's benefits outweigh its drawbacks.

We examine whether the joint provision of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance services and financial audit by the same audit firm influences auditors' assessment of going‐concern risk. We predict that the provision of CSR assurance and financial audit by the same audit firm creates CSR‐related knowledge spillovers from the CSR assurance team to the financial audit engagement team, which helps in the auditor's assessment of going‐concern risk. Using more than 28,000 firm‐year observations from 55 countries, we document that, relative to audit firms that provide only the financial audit, audit firms that provide both CSR assurance and financial audit for the same client (i) issue more frequent going‐concern opinions and have lower Type II going‐concern errors, (ii) have clients that book larger environmental and litigation provisions, (iii) report earnings that are more persistent and value‐relevant and are less likely to book income‐decreasing earnings restatements, and (iv) do not charge higher audit fees or total fees. Our results are important especially because of firms' increasing exposure to CSR risks and the growing number of countries that require assurance of CSR reports.

This study examines the association between customer base concentration and corporate public disclosure policy. When the customer base is more concentrated, large customers face lower costs of accessing the supplier firm's private information, reducing customers' overall demand for the supplier's public information, suggesting a negative association between customer concentration and the amount of public disclosure. Alternatively, large customers have greater bargaining power and may demand that the supplier firm provide more public disclosures. Consistent with customer concentration facilitating private information flow from the supplier to customers, we find that the frequencies of management earnings and sales forecasts are negatively associated with customer concentration among firms with major corporate customers. These associations are stronger when the supplier and customers are engaged in more relationship‐specific investments, when customers' private information acquisition costs are lower, and when it is less costly for customers to find another supplier.