In this study we use the recently mandated risk factor disclosure to examine the spillover effect of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) review of qualitative corporate disclosure. We find that firms not receiving any comment letter (“No‐letter Firms”) modify their subsequent year's disclosures to a larger extent if the SEC has commented on the risk factor disclosure of (i) the industry leader, (ii) a close rival, or (iii) numerous industry peers. We refer to this effect as “spillover.” Further, we find that after SEC comments on the industry leader's disclosure, No‐letter Firms also provide more firm‐specific disclosures in the subsequent year. The increased disclosure specificity reduces these firms’ likelihood of receiving SEC risk disclosure comments on their new filings. Our evidence suggests an indirect effect of the SEC review of qualitative disclosure.

We show that a firm can use its decentralized organizational structure and transfer price as commitment devices to obtain strategic advantage in the product market only when there are nonstrategic reasons to decentralize and to distort transfer prices away from marginal costs, such as the sales office's local knowledge about market conditions and the presence of tax rate differentials across the two tax jurisdictions. Surprisingly, an increase in the sales office's tax rates may help a firm increase overall profits. An increase in the sales office's tax rates causes the firm to increase its transfer price, which in turn dampens the sales office's competition and may more than offset the effect of increased tax rates on the firm's overall profits.

For a common resource, we suggest that the benefits of fixed cost allocations lie not in inducing optimal utilization of available capacity but in deciding how much capacity to acquire. In the presence of sequential information asymmetry between the owner and two symmetric users of the resource, we show that cost allocations form a part of the optimal incentive contract. We derive an optimal cost allocation scheme and provide an explicit link between the allocated costs under this scheme and the fixed costs of the resource. Résumé. Selon les auteurs, pour une ressource commune, les avantages de la répartition des coûts fixes résident non pas dans l'induction d'une utilisation optimale de la capacité disponible, mais dans la décision relative à la capacité devant être acquise. En présence d'asymétrie de l'information séquentielle entre le propriétaire et deux utilisateurs symétriques de la ressource, les auteurs démontrent que la répartition des coûts est un élément qui entre dans le contrat d'intéressement optimal. Ils dérivent un plan optimal de répartition des coûts et établissent un lien explicite entre les coûts répartis au moyen de ce plan et les coûts fixes de la ressource.

The alternative versions of the t ‐test found in event studies result from different weighting schemes for abnormal returns, different abnormal return models, and different correlational structures among abnormal returns. In the presence of dependencies among abnormal returns, the generalized least squares t ‐tests are much more sensitive to the mis‐specifications in the abnormal return model than are the nongeneralized t ‐tests. Therefore, when analyzing contemporaneous returns, particularly with samples exhibiting a large industry concentration, a nongeneralized t ‐test should be preferred to a generalized least squares t ‐test because of the dependencies that may exist. Because the generalized least squares t ‐tests are highly sensitive to errors in specifying an appropriate abnormal return model, a portfolio time‐series ordinary least squares regression should be preferred to a generalized least squares regression even when the variance or covariance matrix of abnormal returns can be estimated with a high degree of reliability. In testing for the mean effects, the concern for event period variance increases seems to be unwarranted, and the variance estimators using event period data are inefficient and biased. The issue is not whether variance increases in an event period, but which variance is to be used: that of the event period or of the nonevent period? Answers to such questions are presented in this paper. Résumé. Les différentes versions possibles du test t que l'on trouve dans les études d'événements résultent de différents systèmes de pondération des rendements anormaux, de différents modèles de rendements anormaux et de différentes structures de corrélation des rendements anormaux. Lorsqu'il existe une dépendance entre les rendements anormaux, les tests t généralisés des moindres carrés sont beaucoup plus sensibles aux défauts de construction du modèle des rendements anormaux que ne le sont les tests t non généralisés. C'est pourquoi lorsqu'on analyse des rendements simultanés, en particulier si l'échantillon présente une forte concentration industrielle, le test t non généralisé est préférable au test t généralisé des moindres carrés, compte tenu des dépendances qui peuvent exister. Les tests t généralisés des moindres carrés étant très sensibles aux défauts de construction du modèle approprié de rendements anormaux, l'application de la méthode classique des moindres carrés à une série chronologique relative à un portefeuille est préférable à la régression généralisée des moindres carrés, même s'il est possible d'estimer avec un degré élevé de fiabilité la matrice de variance ou de covariance des rendements anormaux. Dans le test des effets moyens, la préoccupation relative aux augmentations de la variance de la période d'événements semble être injustifiée, et les estimateurs de la variance fondés sur les données de la période d'événements sont inefficients et biaisés. Il ne s'agit pas de déterminer si la variance augmente pendant la période d'événements, mais quelle variance doit être utilisée: celle de la période d'événements ou une autre. Les auteurs répondent à ces questions.

In this paper, we analyze how financial analysts generate information, make decisions about firm coverage, and try to maintain their forecasting accuracy after the passage of Regulation Fair Disclosure (“Reg FD”). Using the model developed by Barron, Kim, Lim, and Stevens 1998, we find that analysts are investing more effort in idiosyncratic information discovery. In order to do this, individual analysts appear to be reducing coverage for well‐followed firms while increasing coverage of firms that were less followed prior to Reg FD. Analysts who had preferential links with firms that they covered, such as analysts from large brokerage houses, tend to have greater forecast accuracy in the pre‐FD period. However, these analysts are unable to sustain their forecasting superiority in the post‐FD period, which suggests that there has been a leveling of the information playing field among analysts. Overall, our results reflect a trend toward greater reliance on idiosyncratic information discovery on part of the financial analysts.

This paper analyzes the incentive effects of alternative legal systems on the auditor's decision making process. The first system, termed strict liability, holds the auditor liable whenever there is a loss, and the second system, termed negligence, holds the auditor liable for losses arising from the auditor's deviation from a prescribed due care standard. The auditor is assumed to have ex ante limited knowledge of the financial state of the client and the standard setting process. He revises his beliefs on the client's financial state based on a costless signal that may be interpreted as an internal audit report. The analysis shows that signal “quality” and auditor's perception of the client's financial state jointly determine the level of liability required to induce the auditor to adopt a socially optimal due care level. As in Simon's (1982) Model, negligence with supplementary insurance is preferred to strict liability. Further, negligence is shown to operate with less information than strict liability, in contrast to models such as Green (1978) and Shavell (1978). Résumé. Cet article analyse les effets incitatifs de systèmes juridiques alternatifs sur le processus décisionnel du vérificateur. Le premier système, dit de responsabilité stricte, considère le vérificateur responsable à chaque fois qu'il y a une perte, et le deuxième système, dit de négligence, considère le vérificateur responsable des pertes résultant de sa déviance d'une norme prescrite. Le vérificateur est supposé posséder ex ante une connaissance limitée de la situation financière du client ainsi que du processus de normalisation. Il révise ses opinions portant sur la situation financière du client à la lumière d'un signal sans frais qui peut être assimilé à un rapport de vérification interne. L'analyse montre qu'un signal «qualité» ainsi que la perception du vérificateur quant à la situation financière du client déterminent conjointement le niveau de responsabilité requis pour inciter le vérificateur à retenir un niveau de soin raisonnable socialement optimal. De même que le modèle de Simon (1982), le système de négligence avec assurances additionnelles est préféré à la responsabilité stricte. De plus, il est montré que le système de négligence fonctionne avec moins d'information que le système de responsabilité stricte, par opposition à d'autres modèles tels Green (1978) et Shavell (1978).

We show that a firm can use its decentralized organizational structure and transfer price as commitment devices to obtain strategic advantage in the product market only when there are nonstrategic reasons to decentralize and to distort transfer prices away from marginal costs, such as the sales office's local knowledge about market conditions and the presence of tax rate differentials across the two tax jurisdictions. Surprisingly, an increase in the sales office's tax rates may help a firm increase overall profits. An increase in the sales office's tax rates causes the firm to increase its transfer price, which in turn dampens the sales office's competition and may more than offset the effect of increased tax rates on the firm's overall profits.

The centrality of private information in the design of accounting institutions has been explored via agency models that address control concerns as well as disclosure models that amplify valuation issues. This paper derives disclosures by an entrepreneur‐owner when both control and valuation concerns are in play. In particular, the disclosures influence stock price not only via a direct impact on valuation of the firm's revenue but also via an indirect impact on the firm's cost of procuring inputs from a self‐interested and privately informed upstream supplier. In this setting, disclosures are judiciously designed to influence the supplier's decision to share cost information and to control information rents embedded in the procurement contract within the supply chain. Specifically, in order to convey that information rents are not in the offing and, thus, motivate information sharing by the supplier, the owner has incentives to convey a less “rosy” picture. In effect, when controlling supplier actions also becomes important, the owner discloses some unfavorable revenue news that she would have otherwise withheld and conceals some favorable revenue news that she would have otherwise revealed. Consequently, in our model, the disclosure region is either two‐tailed or intermediate, in contrast to the single‐tailed disclosure region implied by familiar valuation considerations alone.