Knowledge that Transforms

We consider an investor's choice of conservative reporting, bonus payments, and investment decisions in the presence of the hidden‐information agency problem of a manager's productivity and the hidden‐action agency problem of a manager's diversion of resources. It is important to consider the hidden‐action and hidden‐information agency problems in isolation and their interaction to gain insights into the drivers of demand for conservatism. We show that the conservative (nonconservative) regime is optimal for the high‐productivity (low‐productivity) manager when both agency problems exist, even though the nonconservative regime is optimal for both the high‐ and low‐productivity managers when only the hidden‐action or the hidden‐information problem exists. Essentially, the low‐productivity manager can misrepresent as the high‐productivity manager to obtain high investment levels and divert resources only in the presence of both agency problems. This added layer of agency problem creates the demand for conservatism and highlights the importance of the interaction between the hidden‐action and hidden‐information agency problems. Furthermore, we show that as the conservatism level increases (i) the optimal investment level conditional on a good report for the high‐productivity manager increases and approaches the first‐best level (i.e., ex‐post investment efficiency increases); (ii) the expected optimal investment level for the high‐productivity manager decreases and diverges from the expected first‐best level (i.e., ex‐ante investment efficiency decreases); and (iii) the expected bonus payment to the high‐ and low‐productivity managers decreases. These findings provide insights into how the demand for conservatism arises in the presence of both hidden‐information and hidden‐action agency problems and provide empirical guidance relating conservatism to investment efficiency.

We investigate whether Article 11 pro forma financial information assists investors in valuing IPOs. While the SEC expects it to be helpful in assisting investment decisions, Article 11 pro forma financial information is based on registrants' understanding and assumptions, and registrants can exercise their own judgment when preparing pro forma financial statements. It is therefore an empirical question whether the information contained in pro forma financial statements is useful to investors. We examine the association between pro forma adjustments of earnings and book value of equity and the IPO offer value and find asymmetric results. While positive pro forma adjustments of earnings and book value of equity are positively associated with the IPO offer value, negative pro forma adjustments of earnings and book value of equity are negatively associated with the IPO offer value, suggesting that negative pro forma adjustments are priced as growth opportunities. Additional analyses reveal that the association between pro forma adjustments of book value of equity and the IPO offer value varies across different time periods and industries and that pro forma adjustments of book value of equity are initially mispriced by investors. In contrast, we do not find similar results for pro forma adjustments of earnings. Further empirical tests show that the asymmetric results of mispricing of pro forma adjustments of earnings and book value of equity may be explained by the requirements of Article 11 of Regulation S‐X for pro forma adjustments dictating that adjustments to earnings reflect only recurring items while adjustments to book value reflect both recurring and nonrecurring items.

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.

We provide the first direct analysis of the magnitude of unreliable quantitative information disclosed in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. CSR report reliability is of particular interest to fund managers for investment decisions as well as to policymakers for regulating and monitoring purposes. However, surprisingly little is known about CSR reporting reliability despite concerns raised in the prior literature. We examine how often CSR reports for the Global Fortune 250 (G250) are restated, the magnitude of restatements, and factors associated with restatements during the period 2006 to 2013. During this sample period, the occurrence of restatements increased monotonically, with 39% of G250 CSR reports including one or more line‐item restatements. The magnitude of the line‐item restatements is quite high, with a median restatement of about 10%. We also find evidence of bias in the revised items toward overstatement. We find that restatements occur more frequently in firms that have reported a high level of social performance and that have environmental targets. The occurrence of restatement is also positively associated with firms residing in strong law countries and having their CSR reports audited. Our analysis of reporting bias indicates a negative association between use of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines and the likelihood of an overstatement. We also find a positive association between having the CSR report audited and the likelihood of revisions associated with overstatements. Together, our exploratory results indicate that CSR information may be unreliable and firms that face pressure to perform well have more restatements. However, our evidence is consistent with the restatements resulting from improvements in information systems over time rather than intentional bias. Our findings will help investors and fund managers better judge the reliability of CSR disclosures, and inform regulators and standard setters on ways to enhance the reliability of CSR reporting. Finally, we contribute to the audit literature examining sustainability assurance.

We examine the causal effects of corporate governance on earnings management using shareholder‐sponsored proposals that pass or fail by a small margin of votes in annual shareholder meetings. This setting provides a causal estimate that overcomes concerns of endogeneity. Specifically, compared with firms whose shareholder proposals fall just short of a majority threshold, firms whose shareholder proposals narrowly pass have similar characteristics but a discretely higher likelihood of implementing improvements in governance. As such, we expect that firms whose shareholder proposals pass the threshold by a small margin exhibit a significantly lower level of earnings management. Employing a regression discontinuity design, we find results that support our expectation based on the propensity to just meet or beat analysts' forecasts by one cent as a proxy for earnings management. In addition, we show that the results are driven by governance changes that increase directors' monitoring. Our results are robust to using discretionary accruals as an alternative measure of earnings management. Collectively, the results suggest that improvements in corporate governance curtail earnings management, and support the underlying premise of regulators that improvements in corporate governance would improve financial reporting.

This study explores close US congressional elections involving politicians who have influence over the SEC to examine the effect of firms' political connections on their financial reporting. This question is important in understanding the overall effect of political connections on financial reporting. Our difference‐in‐differences tests reveal no evidence that firms experiencing a relative increase in political connections report more opportunistically after close elections in anticipation of preferential treatment by the SEC in its enforcement actions. In contrast, we find evidence that these firms report less opportunistically in response to an increase in their connections with SEC‐influential politicians. Further tests show that our findings are unlikely to be driven by capital market pressure, managerial equity incentives, or corporate governance. Overall, our results are consistent with political connections mitigating opportunistic reporting through enhanced scrutiny by the SEC of politically connected firms' financial reporting. Our findings provide new insights into the interactions among political connections, SEC oversight, and financial reporting by showing how politically connected firms alter their financial reporting in anticipation of differential treatment by the SEC.

We examine whether the strength of internal control over financial reporting (internal control) reduces the expropriation of resources from the firm by managers and controlling shareholders. Although we have ample evidence from prior literature that internal controls reduce errors in financial reports, it is less clear that they can curb resource extraction, because management may fail to enforce these controls. Exploiting the setting of China, where we have a rich internal control data set and established measures of resource extraction, we provide evidence consistent with internal controls curbing resource extraction on average. In particular, we document a negative association between internal control strength and resource extraction. We also find that the association between internal control strength and resource extraction is weaker in settings where we expect management to have fewer incentives to enforce these controls: within state‐owned firms and within non‐state‐owned firms that have a powerful controlling shareholder. We interpret these results as suggesting that internal controls must both exist and be enforced by management for the controls to safeguard assets. Although the analyses are conducted using Chinese data, we expect the spirit of our findings to generalize to other settings—management can “window dress” internal control procedures while still engaging in undesirable behavior.

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.

We examine how jurors' negligence judgments and attorneys' out‐of‐court settlements are differently impacted by two features of a materially misstated accounting estimate—the amount of estimate uncertainty and whether the misstated account is disaggregated into its own line‐item or aggregated with other accounts into a single financial statement line‐item. We predict and find that jurors and attorneys react to estimate uncertainty in opposite directions under common conditions. This finding is important because when jurors' judgments and attorneys' settlements differ, research into juror judgments alone may not capture a complete picture of auditor liability because the vast majority of audit litigation is resolved by attorneys in out‐of‐court settlement without ever going to trial. Consistent with attribution theory, results from our first experiment show that jurors hold auditors more responsible for misstatements of lower estimate uncertainty when the misstated account is disaggregated, as opposed to misstatements that are of higher uncertainty and/or aggregated with other, accurate accounts. However, in a second experiment we find that attorneys negotiate auditor settlements under the incorrect assumption that jurors will hold auditors more responsible for failing to prevent misstatements of higher uncertainty. Our results illustrate that accounting research should not focus solely on juror judgments in the study of how specific factors impact auditor liability, and that attorneys would benefit from a better understanding of juror decision making.

We exploit the staggered introduction of the PCAOB's international inspection program to examine the role that the stringency of public audit oversight plays in shaping US institutional investors' home bias. Analyzing a sample of foreign firms listed in the United States, we evaluate whether US institutional investors hold larger equity stakes in these firms—a longstanding issue that reflects investor portfolio decisions—if their auditors are exposed to the threat of a PCAOB inspection. In a differences‐in‐differences framework, we find that US‐listed foreign firms enjoy an increase in US institutional investors' equity positions after their auditors become subject to PCAOB inspection access. Cross‐sectional analysis implies that the benefit of the PCAOB inspection threat in mitigating US institutional investors' home bias is concentrated in foreign countries without a strict local audit oversight system; active US institutional investors that are known to value accounting transparency; and firms from countries that grant PCAOB access later (after the onset of its international inspection program in 2005). Our evidence suggests that foreign firms become better known in the capital markets under the PCAOB inspection program, which induces US institutional investors to acquire larger equity stakes in US‐listed foreign firms given the lower information asymmetry that ensues under the PCAOB inspection threat.