We find that bond price quotes impound bad earnings news on a more timely basis than good earnings news and that the bond market impounds bad news on a more timely basis than the stock market. We also find that the timeliness of the bond market reaction to bad news is concentrated primarily among speculative‐grade bonds, consistent with earnings news having a larger effect on bond price quotes when default risk is high. In addition, we find that a portion of the bad news impounded by the bond market reverses following the earnings announcement. Overall, our findings are consistent with bondholders’ asymmetric payoff function having important implications for the valuation role of accounting information in the bond market. Specifically, our findings indicate that bond quotes impound bad earnings news much earlier in the pre‐earnings announcement period than stock prices. In addition, bondholders appear to overreact to the bad earnings news initially and correct this overreaction subsequent to the earnings announcement.

This paper investigates how external auditor provision of significant nonaudit services and client pressure to use the work of internal audit influence external auditors' use of internal auditors' work. More specifically, we study how external audit evidence gathering choices are influenced by nonaudit fees and client pressure. Our research is motivated by an observation that the magnitude of nonaudit services provided to audit clients introduces the risk that client management may leverage its position with the external auditor and potentially affect the audit process. We address this issue by extending prior research and focusing on the importance of various explanatory variables, including nonaudit service revenues, client pressure, internal audit quality, and coordination, to the external auditor's decision to rely on the work of internal audit. We use data primarily obtained through surveys completed by internal and external auditors. The survey responses represent 74 separate audit engagements. Our findings reveal that when significant nonaudit services are not provided to a client, internal audit quality and the level of internal‐external auditor coordination positively affect auditors' internal audit reliance decisions. However, when the auditor provides significant nonaudit services to the client, internal audit quality and the extent of internal ‐ external auditor coordination do not significantly affect auditors' reliance decisions. Furthermore, when significant nonaudit services are provided, client pressure significantly increases the extent of internal audit reliance. Thus, external auditors appear to be more affected by client pressure and less concerned about internal audit quality and coordination when making internal audit reliance decisions at clients for whom significant nonaudit services are also provided.

The objective of this study is to investigate the role, if any, that management discussion and analysis (MD&A) plays in a firm's disclosure package. First, we present evidence regarding the usefulness of MD&A. Our evidence is uniformly supportive of the view that MD&A is a source of new and useful information and indicates that MD&A is used for financial analysis purposes by at least one significant user group, sell‐side analysts, who are members of the Toronto Society of Financial Analysts. We then provide evidence on disclosure quality. The results reveal that, overall, MD&A disclosure quality varies with disclosure stimuli similar to those found to influence disclosure choice in other disclosure channels. However, a more refined analysis of the MD&A subcomponents reveals that different factors influence disclosure quality for those subcomponents. Taken together, our results are consistent with the notion that MD&A is a part of a firm's overall disclosure package.

In this study, we appeal to theories advanced by Darrough and Stoughton (1990) to enhance our understanding of why some firms may voluntarily include directional forecasts in their annual reports while others do not. The data are consistent with their predictions that a firm's disclosure policy reflects its concern for both financial market valuation and product market competition. We find that for “good news firms, the probability of forecasting is increasing in the financing requirements but decreasing in the threat of competitor entry. The converse holds for “bad news” firms. These results lend further empirical support to the observation that the familiar good news hypothesis tested in the management earnings forecast literature offers only a partial explanation for the decision to forecast. Interestingly, however, even after controlling for financial and product market considerations, an overall voluntary disclosure bias still exists in the data. The data also provide support for the OSC's concern about a voluntary disclosure bias. Only 17.5 percent of our sample forecasts represent revisions downward relative to the previous year's results. However, in contrast to the OSC's concern about a general lack of forward‐looking disclosures in annual reports, 35.9 percent of our sample firms include directional forecasts in their MD&A or elsewhere in the annual report.

Résumé. Les auteurs font appel aux théories proposées par Darrough et Stoughton (1990) afin de mieux comprendre pourquoi certaines entreprises incorporent volontairement des prévisions directionnelles à leurs rapports annuels alors que d'autres s'en abstiennent. Les données qu'ils recueillent sont conformes à leurs prédictions selon lesquelles la politique d'information d'une entreprise reflète ses préoccupations à l'égard de la cote d'évaluation que lui attribue le marché des capitaux et à l'égard de la concurrence à laquelle elle doit faire face sur le marché des produits. Les auteurs constatent que pour les entreprises dont l'information est favorable, la probabilité de produire de l'information prévisionnelle croît lorsque l'entreprise a besoin de capitaux, mais décroît lorsqu'un nouveau concurrent menace d'entrer sur le marché. L'inverse est vrai pour les entreprises dont l'information est défavorable. Ces résultats viennent étayer plus solidement, sur le plan empirique, l'observation selon laquelle l'hypothèse familière de l'information favorable vérifiée dans les travaux portant sur la prévision des résultats par la direction n'offre qu'une explication partielle à la décision de produire de l'information prévisionnelle. Chose intéressante, toutefois, même une fois contrôlés les facteurs relatifs au marché des capitaux et au marché des produits, les données révèlent toujours une distorsion globale dans la présentation volontaire d'information. Elles viennent également légitimer les préoccupations de la CVMO à l'égard de cette distorsion dans la présentation volontaire d'information. Seulement 17,5 pour cent des prévisions de l'échantillon sélectionné par les auteurs indiquent une baisse par rapport aux résultats de l'exercice précédent. Toutefois, par contraste avec les préoccupations de la CVMO en ce qui a trait à l'absence générale d'information prospective dans les rapports annuels, 35,9 pour cent des entreprises de l'échantillon constitué par les auteurs incorporent des prévisions directionnelles à leur rapport de gestion ou à d'autres sections de leur rapport annuel.

This study extends the growing literature on the deteminants of the variation in the relationship between unexpected earnings and abnormal security returns (the earnings response coefficient). We hypothesize that the firm's default risk as measured by financial leverage would affect the earnings response coefficient. We test this hypothesis by partitioning firms according to (1) the existence of debt in the capital structure (all‐equity versus levered firms) and (2) the level of leverage (low‐leverage versus high‐leverage firms). The results are generally consistent with our hypothesis. Specifically, we find that the earnings response coefficients are larger for all‐equity and low‐leverage firms vis‐à‐vis matched‐levered and high‐leverage firms, even after controlling for the effects of equity beta, persistence, risk premium, and measurement error in unexpected earnings. Our findings are also robust with respect to the choice of earnings measure, either before or after interest charges. Résumé. L'étude s'inscrit dans le prolongement des travaux de plus en plus nombreux portant sur les déterminants de la fluctuation de la relation entre les bénéfices imprévus et les rendements anormaux des titres (le coefficient de réponse des bénéfices). Les auteurs posent l'hypothèse que le risque de non‐paiement de l'entreprise, mesuré en termes de levier financier, influe sur le coefficient de réponse des bénéfices. Les auteurs testent cette hypothèse en classant les entreprises selon 1) l'existence ou non de capitaux empruntés dans la structure du capital (entreprises dont les capitaux sont exclusivement des capitaux propres par rapport aux entreprises dont les capitaux sont en partie empruntés) et 2) l'importance du levier financier (entreprises dont le levier financier est faible par rapport aux entreprises dont l'importance du levier financier est élevée). Dans l'ensemble. les résultats confirment l'hypothèse. De façon plus précise, les coefficients de réponse des bénéfices sont plus élevés pour les entreprises dont les capitaux sont exclusivement des capitaux propres et les entreprises dont le levier financier est faible, par rapport aux entreprises, classées selon la taille et le secteur d'activité, dont les capitaux sont davantage constitués de capitaux empruntés et dont le levier financier est élevé, même lorsque sont contrôlées les répercussions du bêta des capitaux propres, de la persistance, de la prime de risque et de l'erreur de mesure des bénéfices imprévus. Les résultats de leur étude résistent également à l'analyse lorsqu'ils font intervenir le choix de la mesure des bénéfices, avant ou après avoir tenu compte des intérêts débiteurs.

Prior research (e.g., Dechow, Huson, and Sloan ) documents that, on average, compensation practices appear to shield CEO pay from income‐decreasing special items. In some circumstances, compensation shielding can be efficient. For example, it may encourage CEOs with earnings‐sensitive pay to take an action that reduces current earnings but nevertheless enhances value. Compensation shielding can be inefficient in other circumstances, such as when a board of directors is captured by an overly powerful CEO or the magnitude of negative special items has been overstated (e.g., by shifting core expenses into special items). This paper explores whether strong governance can explain cross‐sectional variation in compensation shielding, and whether stronger governance and auditing are associated with less shifting of expenses. We find that strong corporate governance mechanisms, as captured by board (and committee) independence, the Sarbanes‐Oxley (2002) Act (SOX) and its related governance reforms, and switches to Big 4 auditors, are all associated with less compensation shielding. While our evidence suggests that strong overall governance is associated with a reduction in manipulation of core earnings through classification shifting in the cross‐section, we find inconclusive evidence to suggest that board independence or SOX influence classification shifting.

We investigate the equity valuation effects of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006). The PPA 2006 has two main provisions: (1) firms must fully fund their pension plans within seven years (previously allowed 30 years to fund 90 percent of the pension liability) and (2) firms receive a tax deduction for contributions up to 150 percent of the pension liability (previously 100 percent). After controlling for the effects of SFAS 158, growth opportunities, the cost of external funds, and other information released during our sample period, we examine pension firms’ abnormal returns surrounding key dates in the legislative process leading to the adoption of the PPA 2006. First, we find a mean negative abnormal return of −4.20 percent during the period in which the PPA 2006 was first voted on by Congress. The mean (median) firm in our sample experienced a $310 million ($60 million) decline in market capitalization. Second, we find that the valuation effect was more negative for firms with larger unfunded pension liabilities and larger capital expenditure requirements, while firms with higher marginal tax rates experienced a positive effect. Third, we find no evidence of differential valuation effects for firms in different “at risk” categories as defined by the PPA 2006. Finally, we find a significant number of pension freezes occurred during our sample period. Our results are stronger when excluding these firms from our sample.

Les auteurs étudient les répercussions de la Pension Protection Act de 2006 (PPA 2006) sur la valeur boursière des actions. La PPA 2006 contient deux dispositions principales : 1) les entreprises doivent assurer la capitalisation intégrale de leur régime de retraite en sept ans (alors qu’une période de trente ans leur était auparavant accordée pour capitaliser 90 pour cent de leur passif au titre du régime) et 2) elles peuvent se prévaloir d’une déduction fiscale à l’égard des cotisations à concurrence de 150 pour cent du passif au titre du régime (alors que le plafond de la déduction était antérieurement de 100 pour cent). Une fois contrôlés l’incidence de la norme SFAS 158, les possibilités de croissance, le coût du financement externe et les autres informations publiées au cours de la période d’échantillonnage, les auteurs examinent les rendements anormaux des entreprises ayant un régime de retraite, à proximité des dates marquantes du processus législatif ayant menéà l’adoption de la PPA 2006. Premièrement, ils observent un rendement anormal moyen négatif de – 4,20 pour la période au cours de laquelle la PPA 2006 a fait l’objet d’un premier vote au Congrès. La capitalisation boursière de l’entreprise moyenne (médiane) de l’échantillon a enregistré un déclin de 310 millions de dollars (60 millions de dollars). Deuxièmement, les auteurs constatent que les répercussions sur la valeur boursière sont plus négatives dans le cas des entreprises présentant des passifs non capitalisés plus importants au titre du régime et devant faire face à des dépenses en immobilisations plus substantielles, alors que les entreprises dont les taux d’imposition marginaux sont plus élevés enregistrent des répercussions positives. Troisièmement, les auteurs ne relèvent aucun élément permettant d’affirmer que les répercussions sur la valeur boursière varient selon les différentes catégories de risque définies par la PPA 2006. Enfin, ils recensent un nombre appréciable de cas de blocage du régime au cours de la période soumise à l’étude. Les résultats sont plus marqués encore lorsque ces entreprises sont retirées de l’échantillon.

We investigate the equity valuation effects of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (hereafter PPA 2006). The PPA 2006 has two main provisions: (1) firms must fully fund their pension plans within seven years (previously allowed 30 years to fund 90 percent of the pension liability), and (2) firms receive a tax deduction for contributions up to 150 percent of the pension liability (previously 100 percent). After controlling for the effects of SFAS 158, growth opportunities, the cost of external funds and other information released during our sample period, we examine pension firms' abnormal returns surrounding key dates in the legislative process leading to the adoption of the PPA 2006. First, we find a mean negative abnormal return of -4.20 percent during the period in which the PPA 2006 was first voted on by Congress. The mean (median) firm in our sample experienced a $310 million ($60 million) decline in market capitalization. Second, we find that the valuation effect was more negative for firms with larger unfunded pension liabilities and larger capital expenditure requirements, while firms with higher marginal tax rates experienced a positive effect. Third, we find no evidence of differential valuation effects for firms in different at risk categories as defined by the PPA 2006. Finally, we find a significant number of pension freezes occurred during our sample period. Our results are stronger when excluding these firms from our sample.