Using a sample of 856 management earnings forecasts, we provide evidence that managers release larger shock‐earnings forecasts in nontrading periods. Our results do not depend on whether the magnitude of the shock is measured exogenously (unexpected accounting earnings) or endogenously (security market reaction). The timing effects are more pronounced for less‐precise (i.e., open‐interval and closed‐interval) forecasts. Also, we provide evidence of an overnight reaction to closed‐period management forecast releases. Our results are consistent with explanations for voluntary disclosure that rely on a precommitted policy of information asymmetry reduction (see Diamond 1985; King, Pownall, and Waymire 1990). These explanations lead to predictions of strategic timing of greater shocks in the nontrading period in order to provide the less‐informed with a period for information evaluation. Résumé. À partir d'un échantillon de 856 prévisions de bénéfices publiées par la direction de diverses entreprises, les auteurs démontrent que les prévisions publiées par les gestionnaires en période où les titres ne sont pas négociés ont davantage d'impact. Les résultats qu'ils obtiennent ne dépendent pas du caractère exogène (bénéfices comptables inattendus) ou endogène (réaction du marché des valeurs mobilières) de la mesure de l'impact. L'effet du choix du moment est plus prononcé pour les prévisions moins précises (c'est‐à‐dire à intervalle ouvert et à intervalle fermé). Les auteurs démontrent aussi qu'il se produit une réaction à la publication de prévisions par la direction en période de fermeture, dans les vingt‐quatre heures qui suivent la publication. Les résultats de l'étude sont conformes au principe de la présentation facultative d'information dont l'explication repose sur une politique, préalablement adoptée, de réduction de l'asymétrie de l'information (voir Diamond, 1985; King, Pownall et Waymire, 1990). Cette explication mène à des prédictions voulant que l'on choisisse, à des fins stratégiques, les périodes de non‐négociation des titres pour publier les prévisions de bénéfices dont l'impact est plus grand, de manière à laisser aux investisseurs moins bien informés un certain laps de temps pour évaluer l'information.

This paper examines the security market response to the announcement of sell‐side analysts' decisions to initiate coverage of a firm. We examine the market reaction to the initiation announcement and the accompanying investment recommendation, by disaggregating our sample based on existing analyst coverage at the announcement date. We find, on average, a significantly larger, positive stock price reaction to buy recommendations conveyed in announcements of coverage initiation for firms with a small existing analyst following compared to such announcements for firms receiving no prior analyst coverage. Tests show that the relation between the extent of preexisting analyst coverage and market response is nonlinear and concave down in shape. Specifically we find that lightly followed firms, on average, experience larger price reactions to announcements of coverage initiations than either previously uncovered firms or more heavily followed firms. We test for and find that this result holds over a range of definitions of light coverage and is not attributable to the presence of an underwriting relationship existing between the analyst's employer and the firm receiving coverage. We do find that initiations by analysts named to Institutional Investor magazine's “All‐American Research Team” produce a significantly larger market reaction than do initiations by non‐All‐American security analysts. In addition, similar to the market response associated with other types of information events, we observe that proxies for the richness of the initiated firms' preannouncement information environment are associated with event‐day average abnormal returns.

Regulators and researchers provide evidence that auditors' judgment quality is problematic in complex audit tasks. We introduce a framework for improving auditor judgment in these tasks. The framework builds on dual‐process theory to recognize that high‐quality judgment in complex tasks requires that auditors (i) possess the knowledge needed for the task, (ii) recognize the need for analytical (versus heuristic) processing, and (iii) have sufficient cognitive capacity to complete the analytical processing. Based on the framework, we predict that auditors' need for cognition (NFC), a characteristic theoretically linked to recognizing the need for analytical processing, is associated with higher quality complex judgments. Analysis of 11 studies supports this assertion. We demonstrate the usefulness of the framework by predicting and finding that priming auditors with an accuracy goal improves judgments, particularly for lower NFC auditors, who are less likely to spontaneously engage in analytical processing. The framework facilitates systematic development of interventions to improve auditor judgment by highlighting that solutions should address the specific conditions causing judgment problems.

Firms have increasingly adopted open work environments. Although openness is thought to have benefits, it could also expose firms to an unanticipated cost. An open (closed) internal reporting environment makes it more (less) likely that managers will observe a colleague's communications with senior executives. This increase in what one manager knows about another manager's communication to senior executives could facilitate employee collusion to extract resources from the firm. To test whether internal reporting openness results in more collusion, we conduct an experiment in which two managers each make separate reports to the firm about cost information they know in common but that remains unknown by the firm. Because both managers face the same truth‐inducing contract, conventional economic theory predicts that they will not collude to misreport costs regardless of reporting openness. However, using behavioral theory involving trust and reciprocity, we predict and find that managers honor their nonbinding collusive agreements and successfully collude more often in an open versus closed internal reporting environment, leading to lower firm welfare in the open environment. These results suggest that firms should consider how the cost of collusion compares to the benefits of openness.

Recent accounting research indicates that capital markets price firms' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and that disclosed emissions levels are negatively associated with firms' market values. The departure point for this study is to investigate whether investors value firms differently based on the strategies firms use to mitigate GHG emissions. These strategies include making operational changes, which reduces emissions attributable to the firm, and purchasing offsets, which reduces emissions unattributable to the firm. Using an experiment, we hold constant a firm's financial performance, investment in emissions mitigation, and net emissions, and find evidence that nonprofessional investors perceive the firm to be more valuable when it primarily uses an operational change strategy versus an offsets strategy. However, consistent with theory, this result only occurs when the firm's prior sustainability performance is below the industry average and not when it is above the industry average. This difference in firm value is consistent with the notion that nonprofessional investors believe information about a firm's emissions management strategy is material. Supplemental exploratory analyses reveal that our results are mediated by investors' perception that an operational change strategy is more socially and environmentally responsible than an offsets strategy for below industry average firms. Implications for our findings on theory and practice are discussed.

Many CEOs engage in activism by publicly expressing their views on social, environmental, and political issues, while other CEOs refrain from doing so—a behavior we term CEO inactivism. We use two experiments to examine how CEO (in)activism impacts investor decisions. Our results are consistent with our theoretical predictions. When a CEO expresses an activist position that is consistent versus inconsistent with investors' views, investors invest more in the CEO's firm because they perceive the CEO more positively. We also find that CEO inactivism can lead to investment decisions that are as favorable as when the CEO expresses a position consistent with investors' views; our process evidence suggests that this may occur because CEO inactivism increases the likelihood that investors believe the CEO shares their position on a social issue. Finally, we do not find evidence that investor decisions are influenced by whether CEO (in)activism is in response to an external prompt. This study contributes to the emerging literature on CEO activism, a unique form of voluntary disclosure, by providing evidence about how CEO (in)activism influences investors. We also contribute to the literature examining the impact of social media disclosure on investor decisions. Finally, our findings have practical implications for CEOs, who increasingly face external pressures to engage in activism.

We provide a list of points to consider ( PTC s) to help researchers self‐assess whether they have addressed certain common issues that arise frequently in accounting research seminars and in reviewers’ and editors’ comments on papers submitted to journals. Anticipating and addressing such issues can help accounting researchers, especially doctoral students and junior faculty members, convert an initial empirical accounting research idea into a thoughtful and carefully designed study. Doing this also allows outside readers to provide more beneficial feedback rather than commenting on the common issues that could have been dealt with in advance. The list, provided in the appendix, consists of five sections: Research Question; Theory; Contribution; Research Design and Analysis; and Interpretation of Results and Conclusions. In each section, we include critical items that readers, journal referees, and seminar participants are likely to raise and offer suggestions for how to address them. The text elaborates on some of the more challenging items, such as how to increase a study's contribution, and provides examples of how such issues have been effectively addressed in previous accounting studies.