We hypothesize that managers use their hierarchical role as reviewers of accounting judgments and estimates to manage earnings, which we call indirect earnings management (IEM). Across a series of experiments using highly experienced financial executives as participants, we provide evidence that IEM (1) is likely used by managers to achieve current and future earnings targets, (2) reduces both cognitive dissonance associated with managing earnings and the extent to which managers think that their behaviors constitute earnings management, and (3) is more likely to be used when corporate governance is strong than when corporate governance is weak. The results of this study suggest new directions for future research on earnings management and highlight the important role of the hierarchical structure of the accounting function in efforts to understand how earnings are managed

This paper uses a principal-agent model to study the interaction between hedging and earnings management. Hedging makes earnings management more difficult and they appear to be strategic substitutes in this model, which is both consistent with existing empirical evidence and provides a new explanation for that evidence. If hedging decision is contractible, hedging is efficient since it reduces both the risk premium and the equilibrium amount of earnings management. If hedging decision is not contractible, however, hedging does not always alleviate the agency problem. Surprisingly, sometimes a scenario of no hedging but allowing earnings management is efficient. The reason is that motivating hedging may require a more costly compensation scheme to mitigate the appeal of earnings management. In addition, this paper shows that tolerating some earnings management is always efficient when there is no hedge option, since it is costly to eliminate earnings management. Sometimes it is inefficient to take any action against earnings management. However, with the encouraged hedge option, the cost to eliminate earnings management can be reduced significantly and zero tolerance of earnings management may be efficient

In this paper, we model earnings management as a consequence of the interaction among self‐interested economic agents ‐ namely, the managers, the shareholders, and the regulators. In our model, a manager controls a stochastic production technology and makes periodic accounting reports about his or her performance; an owner chooses a compensation contract to induce desirable managerial inputs and reporting choices by the manager; and a regulatory body selects and enforces accounting standards to achieve certain social objectives. We show that various economic trade‐offs give rise to endogenous earnings management. Specifically, the owner may reduce agency costs by designing a compensation contract that tolerates some earnings management because such a contract allocates the compensation risk more efficiently. The earnings‐management activity produces accounting reports that deviate from those prescribed by accounting standards. Given such reports, the valuation of the firm may be nonlinear and s‐shaped, thereby recognizing the manager's reporting incentives. We also explore policy implications, noting that (1) the regulator may find enforcing a zero‐tolerance policy ‐ no earnings management allowed ‐ economically undesirable; and (2) when selecting the optimal accounting standard, valuation concerns may conflict with stewardship concerns. We conclude that earnings management is better understood in a strategic context that involves various economic trade‐offs

Despite a recent focus on the ethics of earnings management, research has generally not examined the specific ethical dilemma that arises when a choice to engage in earnings management results in positive organizational consequences. This study focuses on the consequences of earnings management behavior in response to the question: Do the ends of positive organizational consequences justify the means of earnings management? We investigate manager evaluations of, and reactions to, a scenario in which a hypothetical employee makes a choice whether or not to engage in earnings management behavior, with consequences that are either favorable or unfavorable to the organization. Two hundred and sixty-four experienced managers provided responses to the scenario in a controlled experimental research design. The results indicate that managers may be motivated to discount the ethical impact of earnings management behavior when the consequence has a favorable impact on the organization—implying that the ends justify the means. This finding, in turn, suggests that incrementalism, or the ethical “slippery slope” of overlooking seemingly minor ethical breaches, can undermine efforts to establish a strong ethical tone throughout the organization. Implications of these findings for corporate governance and future research are discussed

We find evidence consistent with Italian nonlisted subsidiaries engaging in accrual and real earnings management, so that their listed parents can meet or beat benchmarks. Thus, the parent firm drives the earnings management of the subsidiaries. We identify parents that are more likely to have managed earnings as the ones that avoid a small loss or meet or beat analyst forecast by a few cents. Cross‐sectional analysis reveals that Big 4 auditors mitigate accrual earnings management at the subsidiary level and that family‐owned firms use earnings management through nonlisted subsidiaries mainly to avoid reporting losses. Finally, we find that parent firms communicate earnings management strategies to their subsidiaries using board proximity. Our evidence shows that business groups manage earnings differently from single firms, pushing earnings management down to subsidiaries. It also supports the monitoring role of Big 4 auditors in a business group setting and contributes to understanding financial reporting decisions in family‐owned firms

We conduct two experiments to investigate the joint effect of two justification factors of earnings management—namely, attribution for the firm's underperformance and benefits accruing to other employees from inflating reported earnings. This investigation is important because prior research examines the effects of individual justification factors, whereas real‐world settings entail more complexity involving multiple justification factors. In Experiment 1, we predict and find that managers are more likely to manage earnings when the firm's underperformance is caused by an external event and misreported earnings benefit other employees besides the reporting manager. Furthermore, we show that the extent to which participants use moral justifications mediates the effect of benefits sharing on earnings management, but only when causal attribution is external, and that it mediates the effect of causal attribution on earnings management, but only when benefits are shared. In Experiment 2, we use a neutral control condition that makes no mention of inconsistent incentives to demonstrate that it is the combination of causal attribution and benefits sharing that triggers earnings management. We contribute to the accounting and psychology literature by proposing and testing a theory that explains how multiple justification factors interact to cause opportunistic behavior. Our results suggest that policy‐makers and governing parties should consider developing a holistic view of possible justification factors, focusing on situational opportunities created by combinations of factors rather than individual factors alone

A heated debate exists as to whether discontinuities in earnings distributions are indicative of earnings management. While many studies attribute discontinuities in earnings distributions to earnings management, other studies argue that earnings discontinuities are artifacts of sample selection and research design. Overall, there is limited direct evidence of a connection between earnings discontinuities and earnings management. In this study, we provide direct evidence linking earnings management to earnings discontinuities for a sample of firms that settle securities class action lawsuits and restate earnings from the alleged GAAP violation period. We compare the distribution of restated (“unmanaged”) earnings to originally reported (“managed”) earnings. We find that discontinuities are not present in the distribution of analyst forecast errors and earnings changes using unmanaged earnings but are present using managed earnings. The discontinuity in the earnings level distribution is attenuated, but not eliminated, on an unmanaged basis. These shifts among our sample of firms are caused by earnings management and cannot be explained by sample selection or research design issues. Our findings are important because many studies use earnings discontinuities as a proxy for intentional earnings manipulations and we provide the first direct evidence of a link between these two phenomena

We examine the effects of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital for two groups of Chinese firms: state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and non-state-owned enterprises (NSOEs). The differences in the nature of the ownership, agency relations and bankruptcy risks lead SOEs to have weaker incentives than NSOEs to engage in earnings management. As a result, the effect of audit quality in reducing earnings management will be greater for NSOEs than for SOEs. In addition, investors’ pricing of information risk as reflected in the cost of equity capital will be more pronounced for NSOEs than for SOEs with high and low audit quality. We find empirical evidence consistent with these hypotheses. Our findings indicate that (1) while high-quality auditors play a governance role in China, that role is limited to a subset of firms, and (2) even under the same legal jurisdiction, the effects of audit quality (in the form of lower earnings management and cost of equity capital) vary across firms with different ownership structures. Our study extends prior research by focusing on the economic consequences of SOEs’ and NSOEs’ auditor choices and underscores the importance of controlling for ownership type when conducting audit research

Conventional agency theory suggests that firms should benchmark CEO compensation to absorb systemic risk and to more efficiently incentivize executives to work hard. Yet empirical research has found only a modest use of benchmarking in CEO compensation contracts. In this paper, I highlight one weakness of relative performance evaluation (RPE). When earnings management is possible, benchmarking creates stronger incentives for misreporting performance measures compared to benchmark‐independent pay. The optimal contract will depend less on a correlated benchmark (e.g., a stock market index) if it is easier for the manager to misreport performance. Thus, the model predicts that firms with weak internal controls and bad auditors are less likely to use RPE, offering a theoretical explanation for the empirically observed lack of RPE use

Sell‐side equity analysts serve as external monitors, yet evidence on how they fulfill this monitoring role remains limited. We examine whether analysts utilize earnings conference calls to monitor firms suspected of real earnings management and assess the implications of such monitoring. Our findings reveal that analysts are more likely to ask about discretionary expenses during conference calls of firms suspected of lowering these expenses to meet or narrowly beat analysts' expectations. These questions are associated with lower subsequent EPS forecast revisions, indicating a potential cost to managers. Moreover, analysts' questions on discretionary expenses to suspect firms are linked to subsequent increases in discretionary expenses and a lower likelihood of meeting or narrowly beating analysts' earnings expectations in the following 2 years. Overall, our results suggest that analysts' active participation in earnings conference calls potentially discourages managers from engaging in real earnings management