This paper examines the shareholders’ perceptions of the costs and benefits associated with the use of pooling-of-interests. The paper focuses on the market's reaction to the SEC's adoption of SAB 96. This regulation-forced firms to chose between using pooling-of-interests and maintaining their share repurchase programs. Overall, the results suggest shareholders perceive there to be a net cost when managers choose to use pooling-of-interests. These findings should be of particular interest to regulators, practitioners and researchers.

We examine the relation between firms' voluntary guidance and mandatory 8K filings. We find a negative relation between guidance and 8Ks, which strengthens following the 2004 expansion of mandatory 8K requirements, consistent with firms using the disclosures as substitutes. Increases in 8Ks coincide with declines in firms’ profits, but this negative relation weakens after the 2004 regulation, consistent with firms broadening the scope of information conveyed through 8Ks. Together, our findings suggest firms became more reliant on 8Ks to convey general types of information after the 2004 regulation, rather than primarily negative news, which reduces their incentives to issue guidance.

ABSTRACT 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 review recent literature on the role of financial reporting transparency in reducing governance-related agency conflicts among managers, directors, and shareholders, as well as in reducing agency conflicts between shareholders and creditors, and offer researchers some suggested avenues for future research. Key themes include the endogenous nature of debt contracts and governance mechanisms with respect to information asymmetry between contracting parties, the heterogeneous nature of the informational demands of contracting parties, and the heterogeneous nature of the resulting governance and debt contracts. We also emphasize the role of a commitment to financial reporting transparency in facilitating informal multiperiod contracts among managers, directors, shareholders, and creditors.

How do auditors behave during periods of market euphoria? To address this question, we study auditor going-concern opinions around the time of the wave of stressed Internet companies filing to go public on Nasdaq, a period many characterize as the ‘dot com bubble’. We focus on the day the auditor signs the opinion that appears in a stressed, Internet registrants’ IPO filing and document a sharp increase in the number of opinions with dates between January 1999 and April 2000. Contemporaneous with this jump in transaction volume, and for the duration of these 16-months, Big 5 firms were less likely to render going-concern opinions to their stressed, Internet IPO registrant clients. Upon conducting tests for determinants that could lead auditors to shift their decision criteria during this euphoric audit market, we find the presence of a going-concern opinion varies with variables that proxy for client reasons (financial distress, company age, venture backing, IPO cash burn) and for less auditor independence/skepticism (recent fees for clients without venture backing and a rush-to-market for clients with venture backing) by the Big 5 firms. These findings suggest a mixed conclusion regarding the Big 5's behavior; as the presence of a going-concern opinion varies inversely with variables that proxy for both client viability and auditor self interest. As for consequences to investors, our analysis of two, three and four-year post-IPO stock delisting provides some evidence of a decrease in the predictive content (early-warning value) of Big 5 opinions signed during the Internet IPO bubble.

ABSTRACT: We use the IPO setting to examine the relation between auditor exposure to legal liability and audit quality and audit fees. With regard to audit quality, we report robust evidence that pre-IPO audited accruals are negative and less than post-IPO audited accruals. In contrast to extant literature, our findings provide scant support for the inference that auditors acquiesce to opportunistic earnings management by issuers in an attempt to increase the offering price. With regard to audit fees, we find auditors earn higher fees for IPO engagements than post-IPO engagements. While inherent differences in auditor responsibilities between IPO audits and post-IPO audits should lead to higher fees for IPOs, a substantial portion of IPO audit fees (in levels and changes) is associated with our proxy for the auditor’s 1933 Act exposure. Overall, our results suggest that both audit quality and audit fees are higher in a higher-litigation regime, consistent with the effects an increase in litigation exposure should have on auditor incentives.

ABSTRACT Concerns that goodwill impairments unresponsiveness to declining performance produces inflated goodwill led standard-setters to reconsider post-acquisition impairment-only accounting. We use granular large-scale data to provide institutionally relevant novel descriptive evidence motivated by this hotly debated accounting standard. Comparing goodwill versus other acquired intangibles growth rates for firms reporting goodwill throughout the 2010–2020 post-FAS 141(R) period provides no evidence of runaway goodwill inflation concerns. For firms with goodwill anytime during 2010–2020 we use Shapley values to explore the explanatory power of performance factors affecting goodwill impairments. Consistent with standard-setters’ intent, single-segment market performance explains 81 percent of goodwill impairment incidence variation (controlling for Fama-French-38 industry and time fixed-effects). Limited evidence of reduced impairment incidence after incorporating FASB sanctioned control premia or alternative market values provides little support for discretionary impairment avoidance. Conversely, higher impairment incidence when book values incorporate IFRS (2020) proposed off-balance-sheet headroom or market-to-book decreases supports discretionary impairment recognition. Data Availability: The data used in this study are obtained from commercial sources, including Compustat, Calcbench, I/B/E/S, FactSet Mergerstat/BVR, and Peters and Taylor's intangible capital dataset. JEL Classifications: M41; M48; G34.