Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT We examine the extent to which deferred vesting of stock and option grants (deferred pay) helps firms retain executives. To the extent an executive forfeits all deferred pay if they leave the firm, deferred vesting will increase the cost (to the executive) of an early exit. The impact of deferred pay on executive retention, a key ingredient for firms to create shareholder value is hence an important empirical issue. Using pay duration proposed in Gopalan et al. (2014) as a measure of the extent of deferred equity, we find that CEOs and non‐CEO executives with longer pay duration are less likely to leave the firm voluntarily. The talent retention role of deferred pay is mitigated by performance‐vesting provisions and signing bonuses offered by industry peers. Moreover, we also find that voluntary turnover is less sensitive to pay duration for executives who are perceived to be more talented and have more firm‐specific skills. Overall, our study highlights a strong link between compensation design and turnover of top executives. It suggests that firms take into account the need for retaining managerial talent in designing executive compensation.

ABSTRACT Although internal control over financial reporting has gained increasing regulatory attention, its enforcement is far from perfect; thus, firm‐specific incentives to management become important to increase the quality of financial reports. We study how owners can motivate managers to invest in accounting quality even though it is costly to the managers. Using an agency model, we establish that a sufficiently conservative accounting system (which understates performance) is necessary to induce a manager to invest in accounting quality, and more conservatism increases this investment. The reason is that higher accounting quality mitigates the expected reduction of the manager's compensation from conservatively measured performance. Higher accounting quality makes the performance measure more precise, and the owner optimally lowers incentives, even though that entails some loss of productivity. In total, more conservatism increases both firm value and accounting quality. Our findings suggest that striving for neutral accounting can counteract incentives to improve accounting quality, and they provide support to using conservatism as a metric of financial reporting quality in empirical studies.

ABSTRACT We investigate the determinants and consequences of budget reallocations—that is, corrective changes to the budget made during the year. Using proprietary data from a large consumer goods manufacturer, we analyze the extent to which initial budgeting decisions drive reallocations. Examining this relationship is important because initial budget negotiations are often troubled by power struggles and politicking, which may give rise to the need for reallocations. We hypothesize that one important driver of reallocation decisions is the firm's aim to correct systematic deviations from the optimal initial budget that were driven by lobbying during the initial budgeting process. We find evidence that is consistent with this prediction. In a more exploratory analysis, we show that reallocations do not have the desired effects on market performance. In particular, budget cuts are negatively associated with a product's change in market share. More surprisingly, while budget increases do help product lines achieve their sales targets in the last quarter, they do not boost market share. Our results demonstrate that efficient investment planning is essential to achieve an improvement in market performance.

ABSTRACT Prior research finds that women receive lower salaries than men. Similarly, we show that female audit partners in Belgium receive significantly lower compensation than male partners. However, there are alternative explanations for the pay gap other than gender discrimination. For example, the gap in compensation could reflect that men are paid more because they have higher levels of productivity. We provide new predictions and tests of gender discrimination by comparing the fees generated by audit partners (a measure of partner productivity) and the types of clients assigned to partners. Consistent with our prediction of female partners having to meet higher performance thresholds than male partners, we show that female partners generate larger fee premiums, but they are less likely to be assigned to prestigious clients. To test whether these patterns are attributable to gender discrimination, we examine whether the results are stronger in male‐dominated offices, because this is where we would expect to find the most discrimination against women. We find the fee premiums generated by female partners are larger in male‐dominated offices, while the negative association between prestigious clients and female partners is stronger in male‐dominated offices. Collectively, our combined predictions and tests are consistent with female partners facing gender discrimination in audit offices that are dominated by male partners.

ABSTRACT The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a flexible carbon market mechanism managed by the United Nations. The program grants tradable carbon emissions credits (Certified Emission Reductions) for carbon‐reducing projects in developing countries. A project can only be admitted to the program if it is not financially profitable, and thus would not take place without the emission credits granted through the CDM. In this paper, we examine how monitoring reduces incentives of companies to bias the reported expected financial viability of potential CDM projects to gain admission to the program. We find that reported rates of return, which are a key factor for admission to the program, tend to be downwardly biased and are negatively associated with the expected benefits stemming from forecasted greenhouse gas reductions. However, monitoring from various sources mitigates some of the distorted incentives and related reporting bias. Furthermore, the monitoring effect becomes much stronger after 2008, when the CDM Executive Board implemented a series of measures to strengthen the additionality testing that provides guidance for program applications.

ABSTRACT The objective evaluation of evidence is imperative for audit effectiveness and the proper exercise of professional skepticism. However, numerous studies suggest that auditors fail to evaluate evidence objectively when assessing or addressing the risk of material misstatement due to fraud. We develop theory to predict that auditors do evaluate evidence objectively but only when they have stronger wise‐thinking dispositions (WTDs), a construct that is new to the audit literature. We define WTDs as the tendency of individuals to naturally engage in the balanced revision of beliefs and doubts about target phenomena by thinking openly and reflectively about evidence. We report prediction‐consistent results from two experiments that measure the strength of participants' WTDs and manipulate whether the underlying evidence is less or more indicative of fraud. The experimental results also document that auditors vary considerably in WTD strength and collectively demonstrate the reproducibility of audit judgment‐quality benefits of stronger WTDs. We further validate the WTD construct in auditing using confirmatory bi‐factor analyses to show that it has one higher‐order general factor along with several subfactors. Overall, our theory and results advance the literature by identifying WTDs as a determinant of auditors' ability to objectively evaluate evidence. In addition, our findings have implications for standard setters and audit firms as quality control standards and audit working paper review processes might benefit from revisions that take into account that auditors do not objectively evaluate evidence unless they have stronger WTDs.

ABSTRACT Within the context of managerial reporting, the tasks of acquiring and reporting information are logically connected. Although the accounting literature acknowledges their importance, it often treats these tasks as distinct processes. I investigate how the effort exerted to acquire information influences managers' reporting. Managers' information acquisition effort can induce psychological ownership that can lead to a sense of deservingness that increases opportunistic reporting or to a sense of responsibility that reduces opportunism. I predict that the reporting context determines the ultimate effect of information acquisition effort on reporting behavior. I test this prediction with a 2×2 budget reporting experiment. Managers are either endowed with information to report or required to exert effort to earn it, with the latter expected to generate more psychological ownership. In addition, I manipulate the saliency of honesty in the reporting context by framing reporting in terms of a business dilemma (less salient honesty) or an ethical dilemma (more salient honesty). I find that when honesty is less salient, managers build more slack into their report under earned information than endowed information. In contrast, more salient honesty alleviates the effect of earned information on slack. In a supplemental experiment, I find similar results when all managers are endowed with information to report but psychological ownership is manipulated via different firm messaging. These results have important implications for theory and practice. For example, in a less salient honesty context, technological investments that reduce managers' effort needed to acquire information can also help decrease opportunistic reporting.

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to increase our understanding of how enabling perceptions of new management controls (MCs) can be fostered. Prior research suggests that employees are more likely to use new MCs if they perceive them as enabling. However, rapid implementation of new MCs due to circumstances such as mergers and acquisitions can leave employees feeling coerced into using them, making it difficult to foster enabling perceptions. Based on a case study where an acquirer faces pressure to impose rigid controls on an acquired firm, we suggest factors contributing to enabling perceptions. Using interviews, observation, and document analysis, we find that positive relationships and mutual trust between the acquirer and the acquiree facilitated enabling perceptions of the MCs. We show that managers at the acquirer actively fostered trust using trust‐building activities and communicated their intentions underlying the implementation of new MCs. Doing so helped employees rationalize the controls as tools to help them do their work tasks. We also find that positive relationships reinforced by regular meetings were a way of providing assistance to employees in dealing with rigid MCs. This study contributes to the literature on enabling controls by developing a processual framework that suggests how trust can foster enabling perceptions from the intentions behind the implementation of new MCs, to their development process and daily use. In doing so, the study further develops our understanding of the relationship between enabling control and trust and helps in understanding how rigid controls can be implemented without generating mistrust.

ABSTRACT Bundling managerial earnings guidance with quarterly earnings announcements (EAs) has become an increasingly common practice. This study investigates the impact of bundled guidance on analysts' forecast revisions. Our findings indicate that analysts respond more to bundled guidance than non‐bundled guidance. This effect increases with analysts' time pressure and cognitive constraints around the EA. Analysts' revisions also incorporate more of the bundled management guidance when accompanied by additional information, such as conference calls. We further find that analysts revise their forecasts more quickly following bundled guidance than non‐bundled guidance. Together, these findings are consistent with the notion that analysts place more weight on bundled guidance than on non‐bundled guidance in their forecast revisions as bundled guidance facilities analysts' timely forecast revisions following EAs. Finally, we find that analysts' forecast revisions following bundled guidance generate significant market reactions. Our findings enhance our understanding of analysts' information processing and shed light on why bundling can be an effective guidance strategy.

ABSTRACT This study examines how managers' use of expectation management is affected by their labor market mobility, which we measure by the enforceability of noncompete provisions in their employment contracts. Exploiting quasinatural experiments, our difference‐in‐differences analyses provide new causal insights to the growing literature on how managers' career concerns affect their disclosure choices. Consistent with a less mobile labor market imposing more pressure on managers to achieve earnings expectations, we predict and find that managers in US states that tightened enforcement of noncompete provisions are more likely to manage analyst expectations downward. We also find that downward expectation management is used to a greater extent than other tools such as real and accrual‐based earnings management. Additional analysis shows that the increase in expectation management is more pronounced for CEOs with lower general skills or shorter tenures, for firms with more independent boards, and for industries that are more homogeneous. Our path analysis suggests a significant link between increased use of expectation management after tightened noncompete enforcement and meeting and beating earnings expectations, which in turn is linked to lower executive turnover. Overall, our findings suggest that expectation management is an important channel through which noncompete enforcement reduces executive labor market mobility. Our study sheds light on the underlying mechanism through which labor market mobility affects disclosure choices and has important implications for both firms and regulators on the use and enforcement of noncompete provisions.