A standard result in the voluntary disclosure literature is that when the manager's private information is a signal correlated with the firm's liquidation value, mandatory disclosures substitute for voluntary disclosures. In this paper, we assume that the manager's private information complements the mandatory disclosure and show that the content and likelihood of a voluntary disclosure depend on whether the mandatory reports contain good or bad news. This different information asymmetry produces new, testable implications regarding the probability of and market reaction to voluntary disclosures. We also show that changes in mandatory disclosure regulations can have unintended consequences due to their effects on the manager's willingness to voluntarily provide supplemental disclosures.

Since 1995, managers of thousands of firms have voluntarily disclosed the expected date of their firm’s next quarterly earnings announcement to Thomson Financial Services Inc. These disclosures are approximately 500% more accurate than the simple time–series expected report dates used in prior accounting research. These disclosures are also informative. On average, managers who miss their own expected date eventually report earnings that fall about one penny per share below consensus forecasts for each day of delay. Investors respond by sending the price of late–announcing stocks down at the missed expected report date and continue to send them down as the reporting delay lengthens, consistent with our “day late, penny short” result. Despite this, we find that the market response at the time earnings are announced still depends on whether the announcement is early, on time, or late relative to the firm’s own expected report date.

Public information that becomes available after a manager's initial voluntary disclosure decision creates incentives for her to reconsider and possibly change that decision. We show that if she has private information that is value-relevant or that impacts the firm's ability to compete in its product market, the option to revise an initial disclosure decision in the face of a public release of information alters both the initial decision and the overall frequency of disclosure. These effects are amplified if she believes that public information arrival is more likely or if the firm's value is more sensitive to it. We also show that an increase in the initial disclosure cost reduces the probability of an initial disclosure and increases the probability of a subsequent disclosure. These effects are reversed if the cost of a subsequent disclosure increases.

We study how joint delegation of production and disclosure choices alters the incentives that firm owners offer to their managers. Our first set of results shows how the incentive weights that owners place on revenues are affected by firm characteristics and by whether their manager chooses ex ante voluntary disclosure. This arises because the owners choose how sensitive the manager's compensation is to her production choice and, because this sensitivity is naturally greater if the manager opts to disclose, owners substitute disclosure for direct contractual incentives. Owners also substitute a rival firm's disclosures for direct incentives. Finally, we show that joint delegation alters the information environment for competing firms by creating incentives to provide more information about the less aggressive competitor and less information about the more aggressive competitor. All of these effects are exacerbated in industries with less product differentiation.

We examine how biased financial reports (managed earnings) affect product market competition and how product market competition affects incentives to bias financial reports in a model with fully rational firms. We find that Cournot competitors bias their reports to create the impression that their costs are lower than they actually are. This bias leads to lower total production and a higher product price, even though each firm fully understands its rival’s incentives to bias its financial reports. The magnitude of the bias is larger when firms compete in more profitable product markets and smaller when the firm can extract more information about its rival’s costs from its own. When the costs of misreporting are asymmetric, the lower-cost firm engages in more earnings management than its rival, produces more than it would in a full-information environment, and earns greater profits. Our analysis leads to new, testable relations among earnings management, reported and actual earnings, and industry structure.

We compare First Call analyst forecasts of earnings to unofficial forecasts commonly referred to as whispers. Our analysis indicates that whispers are more accurate proxies for market expectations of earnings than are First Call forecasts, consistent with the claim in the professional press that whispers are increasingly becoming the true market expectation of earnings. Further, trading strategies based on the relation between whisper and First Call forecasts earn abnormal returns. This suggests that whispers contain information not contained in First Call forecasts and that at least part of this information is impounded in price prior to the earnings release.

We examine how an auditor’s ability to terminate a multi‐period client relationship provides the auditor with a real option whose value depends on the nature of informational asymmetry between the incumbent and other potential auditors. In particular, we isolate conditions under which the auditor’s private and public sources of information behave as complements rather than substitutes. In such circumstances, increasing the likelihood of publicly provided information induces the auditor to expend more (rather than less)resources in private information gathering activities.

This paper examines how market prices, volume, and traders' dividend expectations respond to public information releases in laboratory markets for a long‐lived financial asset. The objective is to study deviations from the symmetric information risk‐neutral rational expectations (RE) benchmark, which predicts no trade in such settings. The results of a series of double‐auction and call markets are reported in which traders manage a portfolio of cash and asset shares over 15 rounds of trading. A public signal regarding the value of the liquidating dividend is released every third round, and traders' subjective expectations of the liquidating dividend are elicited each round as cash‐motivated forecasts. We find that, despite the public dividend signal, traders' dividend forecasts are heterogeneous. Forecasts and prices both underreact to the public signals, with prices under‐reacting more than forecasts. In general, price changes are not closely associated with public signals, and there is greater excess price volatility in double auctions than in call markets. Forty‐three percent of trades are inconsistent with the trader's forecasts, and inconsistent trades occur more frequently in the double‐auction markets. On average, approximately 10 percent of the outstanding shares are traded in each round, and trading volume is increasing in the mean absolute forecast revision and decreasing in the contemporaneous dispersion in forecasts. These results suggest that differential processing of the public signal and/or speculative trading for short‐term gain may help to explain why symmetric information RE predictions are often not supported in empirical and experimental settings. They also suggest that market reactions to public information releases may be influenced by market microstructure.