Knowledge that Transforms

IPOs and direct listings (DLs) offer two different mechanisms for firms to go public. In contrast to IPOs, DLs do not employ an underwriter or raise new capital. Using a sample of IPOs and DLs on major stock markets in the European Union, we document that firms that choose to go public via DLs are larger, more profitable, and less levered, on average, than IPO firms. These pre‐listing differences suggest that DL firms should be less risky than IPO firms; however, controlling for this selection effect, we find that DLs have higher aftermarket price volatility than IPOs. This is consistent with some policy‐makers' concerns that, because they lack an underwriter, DLs expose investors to higher risk than IPOs in the immediate post‐listing period. We show that this heightened price volatility persists, on average, for the first 20 trading days after listings, and is larger in industries where listed peer firms provide relatively low‐quality disclosures. Our results provide new evidence regarding the types of firms that choose to list via DLs versus IPOs and the riskiness of IPOs versus DLs in the immediate post‐listing period; additionally, our results are consistent with underwriters improving the quality of information available to investors for IPO firms in the pre‐listing period.

Prior research shows that contingent liabilities do not accurately predict future cash payments due to the managerial discretion afforded by accounting standards. We examine the extent to which current accounting guidance for a material contingent liability—the reserve for unrecognized tax benefits (UTBs) under Financial Interpretation No. 48 (FIN 48)—generates accruals that are predictive of future income tax cash outflows. We document that UTBs fully unwind as cash tax payments over the subsequent 5 years, suggesting that managers, on average, accurately incorporate their expectations of future tax liabilities. This result persists for firms that are (1) most affected by the implementation of FIN 48, (2) unable to impound detection risk into their reserves, (3) engaged in relatively more ex ante tax avoidance, (4) suspected to have engaged in earnings management through the tax accounts, and (5) subject to plausibly exogenous shocks to tax reporting. Overall, our results suggest that current accounting guidance under FIN 48 for contingent tax liabilities enables managers to accurately report, and financial statement users to reliably predict, future cash obligations.

Firms are required to provide financial information via the financial statements and the management discussion and analysis (MD&A), a narrative explanation of the financial statements. Our study examines how firms use the MD&A channel when their financial statement channel is inadequate. We focus on two textual attributes of the MD&A: non‐GAAP disclosure and forward‐looking statements. We find that firms with less adequate financial statements discuss non‐GAAP measures more and provide a larger number of forward‐looking statements. We then identify the topics, and therefore the context, in which non‐GAAP and forward‐looking disclosures are provided. Our study provides evidence on how managers use the MD&A, a relatively more flexible channel, to provide information when their financial statement channel is less adequate.

Building on Banker, Byzalov, and Plehn‐Dujowich's (2014, The Accounting Review , 89 (3), 839–865) congestion cost theory, we model firms' trade‐off between a rigid cost structure and a high inventory level to reduce the congestion costs caused by uncertain demand. We demonstrate that firms with a higher inventory level adopt a less rigid cost structure, but the effect of cost structure on inventory is theoretically ambiguous. Using a large sample of manufacturing firms in the United States, we empirically investigate the dynamic interdependence between cost structure and inventory choices. Our results reveal that cost structure rigidity and inventory are negatively associated with each other over time, suggesting that they serve as substitutes in tackling demand uncertainty. Further analysis demonstrates that firms favor higher inventory levels over more rigid costs when inventory‐carrying costs decrease, fixed input costs increase, or downside risk escalates.

In this study, we examine auditors' reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) systems that are designed to provide evidence around complex estimates. In an experiment with highly experienced auditors, we find that auditors are more hesitant to rely on evidence from AI‐based systems compared to human specialists, consistent with algorithm aversion. Importantly, we also find that a small amount of control (i.e., providing input to specialists) can mitigate this aversion, though this effect depends on auditors' personal locus of control (LOC). Providing input increases reliance on evidence from AI systems for auditors who believe they have little control over their outcomes (i.e., an external LOC). In contrast, auditors with an internal LOC are particularly hesitant to rely on AI‐based evidence, and providing input has little impact on their reliance. Interviews with experienced auditors corroborate our findings and suggest auditors feel a greater sense of control working with human specialists relative to AI‐based systems. Overall, our results suggest perceived control plays an important role in auditors' aversion to AI and that auditors' individual traits can affect this aversion.

We build on recent advances in options pricing research to propose a novel measure of the ex ante relative importance of information events. Our firm‐level measure captures the extent to which investors view an event as important, independent of its realized outcome. We first validate the measure and then demonstrate how it can be used to (1) study heterogeneity across firms in the relative importance of information events; (2) identify firms for which an event was important, even though the realized outcome did not result in a meaningful stock reaction; and (3) examine questions about how the importance of an event impacts firm decisions, where using realized return‐based measures of event importance would result in an endogeneity problem.

We examine whether a firm's corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions that benefit external parties can cause the firm's employees to reduce their effort. We expect employees will reduce their effort in response to their firm's external CSR actions when they perceive that they are treated poorly by the firm and that the firm's external CSR actions use resources that could have been readily transferred toward improving employee treatment. We expect that, when employees hold both of these perceptions, they will react negatively to the firm's CSR actions due to heightened feelings of unfairness. Results support our expectations and theory. We find that employees respond negatively to CSR only when they perceive that they are treated poorly by their firm and that CSR uses transferable resources. Further, we find these effects are driven by employees' perceptions of the fairness of their firm's actions toward employees. Our study suggests that firms should consider how employees perceive their treatment by the firm and the transferability of the resources used for CSR actions that benefit external parties.

The general anti‐avoidance rule, or GAAR, is an enforcement mechanism that gives a country's taxing authority broad power to deny a taxpayer tax benefits associated with any transaction. Although GAARs are becoming increasingly common, the presence of a GAAR is generally overlooked by researchers and thus has been left unstudied. In this paper, we provide an initial investigation by studying the effect of GAARs on firm‐level corporate tax avoidance behaviors. Using an indicator for the enactment or strengthening of a GAAR within a country in a stacked difference‐in‐differences design, we find GAAR enactment is associated with a statistically and economically significant decrease in firm‐level tax avoidance. Additional cross‐sectional analyses show that the decline in tax avoidance occurs for conventional GAARs and economic substance‐type rules, original and strengthened GAARs, and domestic and multinational firms. Results also show that the effect is strongest for firms with higher levels of pre‐GAAR‐enactment tax avoidance and for firms incorporated in countries where the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer.

This paper examines how relative timing affects the quality of financial reports in a staggered reporting system in which some firms report earlier than others. We show that the audit quality of the leading firm exceeds that of the lagger. Investment efficiency also differs systematically across firms, depending on the relative reporting timing as well as the audit market structure. Audit regulations mitigate the misalignment of interests between auditors and investors but limit the effect of information spillovers. We characterize the socially optimal auditing standards and show how and why imposing minimum audit quality requirements complements and/or substitutes for adjusting auditors' legal liability. Overall, we show that a staggered reporting system dominates a simultaneous reporting system in enhancing audit quality and investment efficiency through regulation.

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.