In a recent article in this Journal, Cummings al. (1997) offer experimental evidence rejecting the hypothesis that a hypothetical referendum is an incentive‐compatible mechanism for obtaining the social value of, or willingness to pay for, changes in the allocation of environmental goods and services. While cautions in offering a blanket rejection of hypothetical referenda as a means of measuring economic values on the basis of their findings, the authors do suggest that at least in experimental settings respondents appear to behave differently when real money is changing hands. Wheather hypothetical situations adequately mimic real‐market situations has been debated in the contigent valuation literature since its inception (see Cummings, Brookshire, and Schulze 1986). Cummings et al.'s finding of incentive incompatibility appears to offer strong evidence for the critics of hypothetical referenda.

We hypothesize that if individual auditors possess unique audit styles that they consistently apply to different audit engagements, then client firms with a common signing auditor will exhibit higher earnings comparability. Using a large sample of Chinese firms, we find that client firms report more comparable earnings when they are audited by the same individual auditor than when they are audited by (1) different audit firms, (2) the same audit firm, but different audit offices, and (3) the same audit office, but different individual auditors. The individual auditor style effect is stronger for larger audit firms, senior signing auditors, and signing auditors with more stable teamwork experience. We also document that having a common signing auditor is associated with lower analyst earnings forecast error and dispersion for client firms. This study contributes to the literature by showing that individual auditors have a significant impact on client firms' earnings comparability.

Event studies of market efficiency measure earnings surprises using the consensus error ( CE ), given as actual earnings minus the average professional forecast. If a subset of forecasts can be biased, the ideal but difficult to estimate parameter‐dependent alternative to CE is a nonlinear filter of individual errors that adjusts for bias. We show that CE is a poor parameter‐free approximation of this ideal measure. The fraction of misses on the same side ( FOM ), which discards the magnitude of misses, offers a far better approximation. FOM performs particularly well against CE in predicting the returns of U.S. stocks, where bias is potentially large.