We examine the impact of increasing whistleblowing bounties on whistleblowers' strategy and regulatory efficiency in detecting fraud. Our analysis shows the regulator extracts information about the incidence of fraud from whistleblowers' actions, and the quality of such information depends on the size of whistleblowing bounties. With a larger bounty, upon receiving a whistleblowing report, the quality of the regulator's information about fraud deteriorates, whereas upon observing no whistleblowing, the information quality about no fraud improves. Although the informational improvement upon no whistleblowing has not been widely discussed, we demonstrate it is a key determinant of the optimal whistleblowing program. We show, considering the informational value of whistleblowing and no whistleblowing, the regulator should set the bounty to encourage more whistleblowing when the prior belief of fraud is stronger and the insider is better informed. Our analysis generates policy and empirical implications for designing and studying whistleblowing programs.

This study explores the relationship between executive compensation and the preference dynamics of managers and shareholders. Our analysis centers on the theoretical prediction that changes in firms' asset value can differentially affect the risk-taking preferences of the two groups, potentially influencing the optimal compensation policy. Utilizing local real estate price changes to identify variations in firms’ asset value, we find that a decrease in asset value leads to more risk-taking incentives in compensation, and this effect is more pronounced in firms that are more likely to be influenced by the hypothesized mechanisms. In the second empirical setting, we provide corroborating evidence using a natural experiment involving disaster-induced negative shocks to the firm fundamentals. Collectively, our findings suggest that the design of compensation contracts facilitates incentive alignment by incorporating the dynamic preferences of the contracting parties.

In this paper, we investigate the real effects of information transparency in crowdfunding markets. Our analysis shows that the crowdfunding market features an under‐implementation inefficiency, driven by two types of uncertainty that consumers face: fundamental uncertainty about the entrepreneur's implementation cost, and strategic uncertainty due to potential coordination failures among consumers. We find that when both fundamental and strategic uncertainties are present, eliminating the fundamental uncertainty alone by revealing the implementation cost does not necessarily improve efficiency. Surprisingly, from an ex ante perspective, greater transparency makes the coordination among crowdfunding consumers less efficient, which makes the under‐implementation problem even worse and thus impairs efficiency. Our findings send a message of caution against promoting greater transparency in the crowdfunding market.

ABSTRACT We study the economic impacts of adopting harmonized accounting standards when firms’ investments exhibit beauty contest features. We model harmonized accounting standards as common/correlated noises in firms’ accounting reports. We show that while more harmonized accounting standards have ambiguous effects on the reports’ informativeness in representing firms’ underlying fundamentals, they always reduce their usefulness in forecasting aggregate investments. Therefore, the stronger the beauty contest features, the more important the forecasts about the aggregate investment, thus calling for less harmonized accounting standards. We also find that, absent beauty contest features, mandatory adoption of harmonized accounting standards can be unnecessary; however, such a mandate is warranted when beauty contest features are strong as firms, when left on their own, would not voluntarily do so. Taken together, our results provide both a justification for and identification of an unintended consequence of the recent mandates toward adopting harmonized accounting standards. JEL Classifications: M41; M48.