Ideally, firms should jointly solve capacity‐planning and product‐pricing problems. In practice, informational limitations and cognitive bounds may force firms to sequentially solve the two problems. For example, a firm may plan capacity using limited demand information, and update prices subsequently once additional demand information becomes available. In a simple setting, we characterize the economic loss due to such sequential planning. We use simulation experiments to assess the extent of this loss in more complex settings. We find a relatively low loss if the firm plans for capacity using limited demand information and subsequently adjusts product prices to reflect realized market conditions. However, even “reasonable” restrictions on the subsequent price adjustment (e.g., constraining adjusted prices to always exceed full cost) lead to significant economic loss.
In this paper, we propose that affective reactions are integral to accounting decision contexts like capital budgeting, and that researchers must jointly consider affect and cognition to better understand accounting decision makers' behavior. We argue that interpersonal relationships are characteristic of many capital-budgeting contexts, and that these relationships can lead to emotional affective reactions. For example, reactions such as frustration and anger may result if a manager is treated unfairly by another individual involved in a capital project. Drawing on relevant work in neurobiology and psychology, we then predict that these affective reactions can influence managers' capital-budgeting decisions. We report on four experimental scenarios that demonstrate the impact of affective reactions on capital-budgeting decisions. Consistent with our predictions, the results indicate that managers consider both financial data and affective reactions when evaluating the utility of an investment alternative. Our results suggest that researchers should consider both affect and cognition to more fully understand decision making in accounting contexts.
In this paper, we embed the double entry accounting structure in a simple belief revision (estimation) problem. We ask the following question: Presented with a set of financial statements (and priors), what is the reader's “best guess” of the underlying transactions that generated these statements? Two properties of accounting information facilitate a particularly simple closed form solution to this estimation problem. First, accounting information is the outcome of a linear aggregation process. Second, the aggregation rule is double entry.
This study investigates the joint effects of accountability and time budgets on auditors' testing strategies. The task studied, substantive analytical procedures, requires auditors to identify and test hypotheses when investigating the cause of unexpected fluctuations. Thus, auditors must determine the number of tests to conduct (i.e., extent), the number of potential hypotheses to directly test (i.e., breadth), the number of tests for each hypothesis (i.e., depth) and the number of potential error or non‐error hypotheses to test (i.e., focus). Testing strategies, which we define as choices made with respect to extent, focus, depth, and breadth of testing, have significant practical and theoretical implications. For example, reducing the breadth of testing may result in failure to test the correct hypothesis, potentially impairing audit effectiveness. In this study, auditors inherited five potential causes of an unexpected increase in the gross margin of a client. As in practice, their task was to conduct tests to investigate and identify the actual cause of the fluctuation. Auditors were randomly assigned to one of four conditions created by fully crossing accountability and time budgets. The results indicate that accountability leads to an increase in the extent and breadth of testing but does not affect the depth of testing. Further, accountability leads to an increase in the testing of errors but results in a decrease in the testing of non‐errors. The focus on breadth and error testing is consistent with the notion that accountability, to a superior with unspecified preferences, promotes more cautious behavior. The results also show that a time budget decreases the extent and depth of testing but does not affect the breadth of testing. There was no evidence that the two factors interactively affected testing strategies or performance. Finally, increased breadth of testing was the mechanism that led to better performance as measured by the identification of the actual cause of the unexpected fluctuation.
In this study I use a principal‐agent framework to analyze optimal contracting under two accounting standards, referred to as historical cost (HC) and market value (MV), and under differing asset market assumptions. I distinguish HC from MV by the way revenue is recognized and in the reporting discretion allowed. The MV standard recognizes both realized and unrealized holding gains; HC recognizes only realized holding gains. MV allows the manager reporting discretion; the HC standard does not. Also, distinguishing an asset's value‐in‐use (VIU) from its net realizable value (NRV), I consider markets where the asset's VIU and NRV are always equal as well as markets where VIU and NRV differ. I show the following. If an asset's NRV and VIU are equal and if the manager's available reporting discretion is known, the principal prefers the MV standard because it provides better information about the manager's effort. However, the principal may prefer the HC standard if sufficiently uncertain about the manager's reporting discretion or if the asset's NRV exceeds its VIU, so that expected revenue is sufficiently enhanced by selling the asset earlier. Using an example (normal distribution and mean/variance preferences with linear contracts), I provide a case where the principal prefers the HC standard. Also, I compare the optimal effort and contract under each standard, and provide comparative static results that show how expected revenue, cost, and net income change due to changes in certain model parameters.
This paper makes four contributions to the literature relating accounting choices to CEO compensation. First, it shows that discretionary accruals are associated with CEO cash compensation, a result that holds after controlling for both the nondiscretionary components of income and increases in shareholder wealth. Although significant, the coefficient on discretionary accruals is significantly lower than that on nondiscretionary accruals, which in turn is significantly lower than the coefficient on operating cash flows. Second, the paper shows a differential reaction to positive and negative discretionary accruals —‐ the association between positive discretionary accruals and CEO cash compensation is significantly greater than the association between negative discretionary accruals and CEO cash compensation. Third, the paper shows the association between discretionary accruals and CEO cash compensation varies depending upon the circumstances of the firm. In particular, when positive discretionary accruals allow the firm to reduce or avoid a loss, the association between CEO cash compensation and discretionary accruals is significantly greater. Finally, this paper shows that the association of CEO cash compensation with reported income generally increases with the level of discretionary accruals, consistent with management responding to the incentives provided.
This research re‐examines whether there are differences in the forecast accuracy of financial analysts through a comparison of their annual earnings per share forecasts. The comparison of analyst forecast accuracy is made on both an ex post (within sample) and an ex ante (out of sample) basis. Early examinations of this issue by Richards (1976), Brown and Rozeff (1980), O'Brien (1987), Coggin and Hunter (1989), O'Brien (1990), and Butler and Lang (1991) were ex post and suggest the absence of analysts who can provide relatively more accurate forecasts over multiple years. Contrary to the results of prior research and consistent with the belief in the popular press, we document that differences do exist in financial analysts' ex post forecast accuracy. We show that the previous studies failed to find differences in forecast accuracy due to inadequate (or no) control for differences in the recency of forecasts issued by the analysts. It has been well documented in the literature that forecast recency is positively related to forecast accuracy (Crichfield, Dyckman, and Lakonishok 1978; O'Brien 1988; Brown 1991). Thus, failure to control for forecast recency may reduce the power of tests, making it difficult to reject the null hypothesis of no differences in forecast accuracy even if they do exist. In our analysis, we control for the differences in recency of analysts' forecasts using two different approaches. First, we use an estimated generalized least squares estimation procedure that captures the recency‐induced effects in the residuals of the model. Second, we use a matched‐pair design whereby we measure the relative forecast accuracy of an analyst by comparing his/her forecast error to the forecast error of another randomly selected analyst making forecasts for the same firm in the same year on or around the same date. Using both approaches, we find that differential forecast accuracy does exist amongst analysts, especially in samples with minimum forecast horizons of five and 60 trading days. We show that these differences are not attributable to differences in the forecast issuance frequency of the financial analysts. In sum, after controlling for firm, year, forecast recency, and forecast issuance frequency of individual analysts, the analyst effect persists. To validate our findings, we examine whether the differences in the forecast accuracy of financial analysts persist in holdout periods. Analysts were assigned a “superior” (“inferior”) status for a firm‐year in the estimation sample using percentile rankings on the distribution of absolute forecast errors for that firm‐year. We use estimation samples of one‐ to four‐year duration, and consider two different definitions of analyst forecast superiority. Analysts were classified as firm‐specific “superior” if they maintained a “superior” status in every year of the estimation sample. Furthermore, they were classified as industry‐specific “superior” if they were deemed firm‐specific “superior” with respect to at least two firms and firm‐specific “inferior” with respect to no firm in that industry. Using either definition, we find that analysts classified as “superior” in estimation samples generally remain superior in holdout periods. In contrast, we find that analysts identified as “inferior” in estimation samples do not remain inferior in holdout periods. Our results suggest that some analysts' earnings forecasts should be weighted higher than others when formulating composite earnings expectations. This suggestion is predicated on the assumption that capital markets distinguish between analysts who are ex ante superior, and that they utilize this information when formulating stock prices. Our study provides an ex ante framework for identifying those analysts who appear to be superior. When constructing weighted forecasts, a one‐year estimation period should be used because we obtain the strongest results of persistence in this case.
We formalize the effects of an earnings disclosure on security prices under an assumption of limited liability. We derive various nonlinear relations between equity prices and earnings under a variety of capital structure assumptions and. if possible, we tie the relations attained to results from the existing empirical literature. We also characterize how debt prices respond to earnings when holders of debt have limited liability. Finally, we analyze how changes in the degree of leverage and conversion features of debt affect the relation between price and earnings.