Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109 (SFAS No. 109) allows firms to use their discretion to set arbitrarily high valuation allowances against deferred tax assets. Firms can then later use these "hidden reserves" to manage earnings. Our evidence indicates that most banks do not record a valuation allowance to manage earnings, but rather to follow the guidelines of SFAS No. 109. However, if the bank is sufficiently well capitalized to absorb the current‐period impact on capital, then the amount of the valuation allowance increases with a bank's capital. In later years, bank managers adjust the valuation allowance to smooth earnings. The magnitude of the discretionary adjustment increases with the deviation of unadjusted earnings from the forecast or historical earnings.

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 2017, the PCAOB began requiring audit firm tenure disclosure within the audit report for SEC registrant clients. Many commenters raised the concern that prominent disclosure of firm tenure would lead investors to inappropriately infer a negative relation between audit quality and long tenure. This is particularly troubling given that empirical evidence generally does not support this concern. In our first experiment, we predict and find that disclosing an audit firm's long tenure within the audit report increases investors' perceptions that the audit firm's independence was impaired while conducting the audit. However, we also identify an intervention that mitigates the effects of disclosing long tenure—an accompanying disclosure in the audit report of the firm's adherence to the SEC's mandatory partner rotation requirement. We find that such a disclosure moderates the effect of long tenure disclosure such that in the absence (presence) of a partner rotation disclosure, investors do (do not) perceive increased independence impairment when long firm tenure is disclosed. In a second experiment, we predict and find that long firm tenure disclosure reduces investors' preference to invest in an otherwise quantitatively optimal investment and that this relation is driven, in part, by perceptions of independence impairment. Again, this result is attenuated by partner rotation disclosure. Our results should be useful to regulators in understanding the effects of their disclosure mandate and to audit firms in understanding a practical way in which they might mitigate the implications of such effects.

Recent research has found that the value‐relevance of accounting variables depends not only on whether a country's accounting rules are code‐law oriented or common‐law oriented, but also on the reporting incentives created by the legal and business environment in which a firm operates. Therefore, for example, the earnings of firms in some countries with common‐law oriented rules but with code‐law incentives have more code‐law‐type characteristics. We further this research by examining whether this is true for firms facing the same accounting regime and institutional environment but different stakeholder‐related incentives. We find significant stakeholder‐related incentives across 23 Japanese firms listed in the United States and 23 Japanese firms not listed in the United States that are matched by industry and size. Although these firms face the same institutional environment and the same accounting regime, consistent with the differences in stakeholder‐related incentives, the earnings and book values of the firms listed in the more shareholder‐oriented U.S. markets have significantly more explanatory power for market value than those for firms not cross‐listed in the United States. These findings are unaffected by whether the reports are based on consolidated or parent‐only accounting or whether they are based on U.S. or Japanese GAAP, emphasizing the potential influence of reporting incentives at all levels on the effect of standardization, conversion, or harmonization of accounting methods globally.

We examine the role of cash flow from operations (CFO) in chief executive officer (CEO) cash compensation. We predict that CFO is contract‐relevant in the presence of earnings, and more so when (1) the quality of earnings relative to the quality of CFO as a measure of performance is low and (2) the need for CFO as a financing source is high. Our analysis is motivated principally by normative arguments and anecdotes from financial disclosures linking CFO to managerial effort and contracts, notwithstanding the traditional role of earnings in performance measurement. We find that the weight of CFO in the compensation model is positive and significant in the presence of earnings and stock returns. We also find that the relative quality of CFO compared with that of earnings has a positive (negative) impact on the weight of CFO (earnings). We further find that the relative weight of CFO is enhanced substantially when enterprise activities crucially depend on internally generated cash flow. These findings are unaltered when we include CEO age, firm size, and risk in the model and allow the coefficients to vary across industries.

This study uses machine‐learning methods to predict next‐period change in profitability based on a model proposed by Penman and Zhang (2004, Working paper, Columbia University and University of California, Berkeley; “PZ”). We find that new machine‐learning methods predict out of sample substantially better than traditional regression methods and provide richer interpretations about the role and impact of different predictor variables through their nonlinear relationships and interaction effects. For example, our results contrast with previous research by showing that both components of the DuPont decomposition (change in profit margin and change in asset turnover) are informative of next‐period changes in profitability. Our results are robust across different performance metrics, alternative machine‐learning models, and software. Furthermore, an unconstrained machine‐learning model using a larger feature space could not significantly improve the performance of the PZ model. PZ variables alone accounted for most of the explanatory power of the unconstrained model, suggesting the PZ model is both well specified (in terms of feature selection) and robust in higher dimensional settings. With respect to the economic significance of this information, we find mixed results. The market appears to adjust its expectations more in line with the machine‐learning predictions relative to the PZ model but the portfolio returns are not significantly different.

We identify sustainability‐focused analysts using recent advances in machine learning combined with conference call transcripts. Sustainability‐focused analysts issue more accurate earnings forecasts, and the stock market reacts more strongly to their revisions. The forecasting advantage of sustainability‐focused analysts is amplified for material sustainability issues, small firms, and growth firms. Consistent with a learning curve in understanding how sustainability issues relate to future performance, we find that less experienced analysts are less likely to focus on sustainability and that they reap fewer benefits in forecast accuracy when they do so. Our results suggest that far from being an inefficient use of time and resources, focusing on sustainability provides a competitive advantage in one of the most pivotal steps in valuation: forecasting earnings.

Tax professionals are responsible for objectively evaluating tax authorities and evidence relevant to their application and for serving as client advocates. We predict that practice risk — that is, exposure to monetary and nonmonetary costs of making inappropriate recommendations — will affect tax professionals' ability to meet these responsibilities by influencing the manner in which they process information about a tax situation as well as their resulting recommendations for clients. We conduct an experiment in which we manipulate practice risk through client characteristics. We also manipulate provision and nature of outcome information. We find that tax professionals process information differently for clients of different risk levels. Specifically, tax professionals weight negative outcome information more heavily when forming likelihood assessments underlying recommendations for a high-risk client, relative to a low-risk client. Further, risk directly affects recommendations in that tax professionals more strongly recommend an aggressive position for a low-risk client. Differential processing of information for clients with identical transactions but different risk levels may protect the tax professional from the higher expected costs of making inappropriate recommendations to high-risk clients. However, it indicates that tax professionals do not evaluate evidence objectively for all types of clients.

In an experiment including experienced managers, we investigate how supervisor and subordinate narcissism influence a supervisor's review of a subordinate's accounting estimate. While narcissistic supervisors express greater liking for narcissistic subordinates (narcissistic tolerance), they nonetheless reject and revise the accounting estimates of narcissistic subordinates to a greater extent than they reject estimates of non‐narcissistic subordinates (narcissistic hypocrisy), even when doing so inhibits the supervisor's ability to reach a profit target. Our findings contribute to extant research in accounting and psychology. We demonstrate that narcissistic hypocrisy extends beyond the evaluation of others and alters narcissists' willingness to rely on other narcissists in a meaningful financial reporting decision. We also find that narcissistic hypocrisy is robust across age, gender, and supervisory experience.