Knowledge that Transforms

We examine how jurors' negligence judgments and attorneys' out‐of‐court settlements are differently impacted by two features of a materially misstated accounting estimate—the amount of estimate uncertainty and whether the misstated account is disaggregated into its own line‐item or aggregated with other accounts into a single financial statement line‐item. We predict and find that jurors and attorneys react to estimate uncertainty in opposite directions under common conditions. This finding is important because when jurors' judgments and attorneys' settlements differ, research into juror judgments alone may not capture a complete picture of auditor liability because the vast majority of audit litigation is resolved by attorneys in out‐of‐court settlement without ever going to trial. Consistent with attribution theory, results from our first experiment show that jurors hold auditors more responsible for misstatements of lower estimate uncertainty when the misstated account is disaggregated, as opposed to misstatements that are of higher uncertainty and/or aggregated with other, accurate accounts. However, in a second experiment we find that attorneys negotiate auditor settlements under the incorrect assumption that jurors will hold auditors more responsible for failing to prevent misstatements of higher uncertainty. Our results illustrate that accounting research should not focus solely on juror judgments in the study of how specific factors impact auditor liability, and that attorneys would benefit from a better understanding of juror decision making.

Although prior studies provide evidence on the financial reporting incentives to inflate core earnings through classification shifting (e.g., shifting core expenses to income‐decreasing noncore items), few examine the tax‐related incentive to report lower core earnings through classification shifting. We examine the effect of controlling shareholders' tax incentives on firms' classification shifting using the introduction of a tax law in Korea that imposes a gift tax on controlling shareholders based on firms' reported core earnings. This tax law creates incentives for managers to report lower core earnings through classification shifting, even though doing so would incur significant financial reporting costs. Using a difference‐in‐differences research design, we find that firms with controlling shareholders subject to the gift tax exhibit a significant decline in classification shifting in the post‐tax period, while those not subject to the tax do not. We also predict and find that the extent to which managers reduce classification shifting decreases with financial reporting costs and increases with the tax benefits. Overall, our results indicate that firms forgo financial reporting benefits associated with reporting higher core earnings for the tax savings of their controlling shareholders.

This study investigates how sophisticated market participants use tax‐based information by examining whether analysts' street effective tax rates (ETRs) are informative. When assessing firm performance, analysts exclude items they believe do not reflect current performance, resulting in “street” metrics such as street ETR. However, evidence on the properties of the components of street earnings is limited. Examining the informativeness of street ETRs is important because taxes are a significant component of earnings, and the extent to which analysts understand taxes and incorporate them into their analyses is not clear. Using a hand‐collected sample of analyst reports, we find that while approximately 35% of street ETRs have at least one tax‐specific exclusion, over 90% reflect the tax effects of pre‐tax exclusions. Further, both tax‐specific exclusions and the tax effects of pre‐tax exclusions significantly contribute to differences between GAAP and street ETRs. Consistent with analysts' understanding of the implications of tax and nontax exclusions, our results suggest that street tax metrics exhibit greater predictive ability about future tax outcomes and provide more information to investors than GAAP tax metrics. We also find that ETR exclusions are of higher quality when the magnitude of the potentially excluded item is greater and when managers disclose pro forma earnings. Collectively, our findings suggest that analysts understand taxes, but selectively exert effort to incorporate tax‐based information into their assessment of firm performance. Our study should be informative to regulators and users of financial information because it provides evidence regarding the usefulness of street earnings metrics.

We show that when banks and borrowers share the same audit firm, borrowers receive lower interest rates, after controlling for potentially confounding director connectedness. The common auditor effect is observed only for opaque borrowers, and is greatest when the same audit engagement office audits the bank and borrower. A common auditor connection also matters more for longer‐tenured auditors, for geographically proximate borrowers, and when the syndicate involves fewer lenders. The effect does not hold for auditors recently sanctioned by the PCAOB. Finally, the interest rate discount is not the consequence of homophily or biased decision making, based on a comparison of postloan performance of firms with common auditor loans versus those with noncommon auditor loans.

This study investigates the mispricing of market‐wide investor sentiment by exploring the relation between sentiment and investor expectations of future earnings. Prior research argues that sentiment‐driven mispricing should be most pronounced for hard‐to‐value firms, such as those reporting losses (Baker and Wurgler 2006). Using investor expectations of future earnings, we provide empirical results consistent with this behavioral finance theory. We predict and find that investors perceive losses to be more (less) persistent during periods of low (high) sentiment; that (in contrast) investors perceive profit persistence to be lower (higher) during periods of low (high) sentiment; and that the effects appear stronger for loss firms relative to profit firms. We also document predictable cross‐sectional variation within losses (with the mispricing mitigated for losses associated with activities expected to generate future benefits), R&D, growth, large negative special items, and severe financial distress. Overall, our results document a new and important channel—investor expectations of future earnings—to explain sentiment‐driven mispricing.

Cash flow hedge derivatives are an example of an economic transaction that is not fully portrayed in the financial statements in two key ways. First, while changes in the fair value of the derivative are recorded at each reporting date, changes in the value of the underlying purchase or sale commitment are not recorded or disclosed until that transaction occurs. Therefore, until the purchase or sale occurs, the financial statements only portray half of the economic transaction. Second, the gains/losses associated with these derivatives provide an inverse signal about the persistence of firm profitability. We document a method by which financial statement users can partially adjust for these distortions and find evidence that debt investors incorporate information conveyed by cash flow hedge gains/losses into their pricing of new debt issuances. We also find evidence that credit analysts incorporate these adjustments into their firm‐level credit ratings but are unable to find consistent evidence of similar adjustments to credit ratings on new debt issuances. Overall, our results suggest that a subset of sophisticated investors (i.e., those in public debt markets) appear to incorporate information from cash flow hedge accounting into their assessments of firm risk, and that users may benefit from enhanced disclosure about the amount and timing of a firm's future transactions that are exposed to foreign currency, interest rate, or commodity price risk as well as the amount and timing of derivatives that protect the firm from those risks.

I conduct an experiment with senior executives (CEOs, CFOs, controllers) to examine how their risk disclosure quality, with respect to disclosure volume and specificity, is influenced by three factors: first, whether the disclosure behavior is framed internally by the firm as obtaining a gain or avoiding a loss from disclosure; second, whether the external disclosure regime mandates risk mitigation disclosures that explain how a risk is handled; and third, whether the risk under consideration for disclosure is weakly or strongly mitigated. This research question is important because high‐quality risk disclosures are challenging to regulate and changing how disclosure behavior is framed could substitute for costly disclosure regulations. I predict and find that a gain frame prompts managers to make more detailed risk disclosures than a loss frame, regardless of the disclosure regime. I also predict and find that a loss frame leads to less detailed and more boilerplate disclosure of weakly mitigated risks when risk mitigation plans are mandated. Given that the SEC is considering mandating risk mitigation disclosures similar to the practice in other regimes, my findings provide insights on the limitations of mandating these disclosures. My results suggest that changing managers' disclosure frame internally through firm initiatives could be more effective in prompting higher‐quality risk disclosures.

In this study, we investigate whether the increase in regulatory scrutiny epitomized by the initial PCAOB inspection impacted audit quality differentially for Big 4 and non–Big 4 auditors to better understand the consequences of PCAOB inspections for different audit firm types. Because of competing views on the effect of PCAOB inspections, the relation between PCAOB inspections and the audit quality differential between Big 4 and other auditors is an empirical issue. Empirically, we take the endogenous choice of auditor as a given and utilize a difference‐in‐differences specification that takes into account the staggered timing of the initial PCAOB inspection for different‐sized auditors in the United States. Our results suggest that the initial PCAOB inspection improved audit quality more for Big 4 auditors than for other annually inspected or triennially inspected non–Big 4 auditors. We also examine annually and triennially inspected non–Big 4 auditors separately, and find that the pre‐post Big 4/non–Big 4 differential audit quality effect is more pronounced for the triennially inspected non–Big 4 firms. In the larger context of the highly concentrated US audit market, our findings that PCAOB inspections accentuate the Big 4/non–Big 4 audit quality differential are of potential interest to public company audit clients contemplating an auditor change, investors interested in learning about the consequences of PCAOB inspections, regulators concerned about the Big 4 dominance of the US audit market, and academics investigating audit quality differences.

We examine the efficacy of public enforcement in weak investor protection countries by examining the outcomes of a comprehensive public enforcement campaign in China. The campaign, launched in 2007, was designed to help enforce China's first mandatory Corporate Governance Code, issued in 2002. The 2007 campaign was characterized by several important features: (i) the campaign required firms to identify their problems before the securities regulators conducted on‐site inspections; (ii) the campaign provided a detailed checklist of the status of a firm's compliance with the Code; (iii) the campaign was transparent with regard to the disclosure and correction of identified problems; and (iv) the campaign threatened penalties for firms that failed to correct the identified governance problems in a timely manner. Our empirical analyses suggest that the 2007 campaign was effective in improving publicly listed firms' corporate governance. The corporate governance improvement was associated with a reduction in earnings management, higher earnings response coefficients, and higher operating accounting performance. In addition, we find preliminary evidence that the detailed checklist is partially responsible for the efficacy of the campaign. Our results suggest that public enforcement, if properly implemented, works in increasing shareholder value in weak investor protection countries.

We examine whether resource adjustment costs, such as installation and disposal costs for fixed assets, or hiring and firing costs for employees, impede value creation in mergers and acquisitions (M&A). We focus on M&A deals because they are major corporate investment decisions. As a proxy for adjustment costs, we use a firm‐level measure of cost stickiness. We predict that acquirers with high adjustment costs have less flexibility in restructuring resources following the acquisition and will find it more costly to merge the target firm's operations. Consistent with this prediction, we find that the acquirer's adjustment costs are negatively associated with abnormal returns around the acquisition announcement. Additionally, adjustment costs are also negatively associated with deal synergies. Relatedly, we find that acquirers with high adjustment costs purchase targets with high adjustment costs. In accordance with this finding, we show that acquirers with high adjustment costs purchase intangible‐intensive targets. Collectively, our results highlight the important implication of adjustment costs in M&A deals for managers and capital market participants.