We hypothesize that managers use their hierarchical role as reviewers of accounting judgments and estimates to manage earnings, which we call indirect earnings management (IEM). Across a series of experiments using highly experienced financial executives as participants, we provide evidence that IEM (1) is likely used by managers to achieve current and future earnings targets, (2) reduces both cognitive dissonance associated with managing earnings and the extent to which managers think that their behaviors constitute earnings management, and (3) is more likely to be used when corporate governance is strong than when corporate governance is weak. The results of this study suggest new directions for future research on earnings management and highlight the important role of the hierarchical structure of the accounting function in efforts to understand how earnings are managed

This paper uses a principal-agent model to study the interaction between hedging and earnings management. Hedging makes earnings management more difficult and they appear to be strategic substitutes in this model, which is both consistent with existing empirical evidence and provides a new explanation for that evidence. If hedging decision is contractible, hedging is efficient since it reduces both the risk premium and the equilibrium amount of earnings management. If hedging decision is not contractible, however, hedging does not always alleviate the agency problem. Surprisingly, sometimes a scenario of no hedging but allowing earnings management is efficient. The reason is that motivating hedging may require a more costly compensation scheme to mitigate the appeal of earnings management. In addition, this paper shows that tolerating some earnings management is always efficient when there is no hedge option, since it is costly to eliminate earnings management. Sometimes it is inefficient to take any action against earnings management. However, with the encouraged hedge option, the cost to eliminate earnings management can be reduced significantly and zero tolerance of earnings management may be efficient

Recent work in accounting suggests that managerial optimism can lead managers to escalate income‐increasing earnings management. In this paper, I examine how a fundamental attribute of the earnings management setting—the amount of time between the earnings management decision and the future reversal—serves as one potential source of managerial optimism. I conduct two experiments to test whether the amount of time between the earnings management decision and the future reversal systematically induces optimism that increases participants’ propensity to engage in behavior that is analogous to accruals‐based earnings management and to real earnings management, holding constant incentives, agency frictions, and the information environment. My results indicate that, independent of their innate optimism, the time between the earnings management decision and the future reversal likely encourages managers to overestimate their ability to compensate for current‐period earnings management through strong future performance. This optimism, in turn, likely increases managers’ propensity to engage in both forms of earnings management

In this paper, we model earnings management as a consequence of the interaction among self‐interested economic agents ‐ namely, the managers, the shareholders, and the regulators. In our model, a manager controls a stochastic production technology and makes periodic accounting reports about his or her performance; an owner chooses a compensation contract to induce desirable managerial inputs and reporting choices by the manager; and a regulatory body selects and enforces accounting standards to achieve certain social objectives. We show that various economic trade‐offs give rise to endogenous earnings management. Specifically, the owner may reduce agency costs by designing a compensation contract that tolerates some earnings management because such a contract allocates the compensation risk more efficiently. The earnings‐management activity produces accounting reports that deviate from those prescribed by accounting standards. Given such reports, the valuation of the firm may be nonlinear and s‐shaped, thereby recognizing the manager's reporting incentives. We also explore policy implications, noting that (1) the regulator may find enforcing a zero‐tolerance policy ‐ no earnings management allowed ‐ economically undesirable; and (2) when selecting the optimal accounting standard, valuation concerns may conflict with stewardship concerns. We conclude that earnings management is better understood in a strategic context that involves various economic trade‐offs

We reexamine the positive association between stock option vega and earnings management previously documented by Armstrong, Larcker, Ormazabal, and Taylor (2013; henceforth, ALOT). In contrast to ALOT, prior empirical research and practitioner literature emphasizes earnings management's goals of increasing stock price and reducing volatility. Specifically, we assess whether the association is robust to (i) employing discretionary accruals that are less prone to misspecification, (ii) focusing on a more recent time period, and (iii) including additional controls for period‐specific factors. Our main findings are as follows. First, we fail to find a positive association between vega and earnings management after controlling for performance‐related misspecification in discretionary accruals. Second, we find no association between vega and earnings management in a more recent time period, suggesting the results of ALOT may be sensitive to period‐specific factors. Last, the positive association vanishes when we control for year fixed effects, growth opportunities, or monitoring, suggesting the original results of ALOT's research may be sensitive to correlated, omitted variables. Overall, our results question the extent to which vega incentivizes earnings management. Our results may be of interest to boards of directors in designing executive compensation contracts, to regulators in crafting policies that maintain high levels of financial reporting quality, and to researchers seeking to identify settings where earnings management incentives are most salient

Despite a recent focus on the ethics of earnings management, research has generally not examined the specific ethical dilemma that arises when a choice to engage in earnings management results in positive organizational consequences. This study focuses on the consequences of earnings management behavior in response to the question: Do the ends of positive organizational consequences justify the means of earnings management? We investigate manager evaluations of, and reactions to, a scenario in which a hypothetical employee makes a choice whether or not to engage in earnings management behavior, with consequences that are either favorable or unfavorable to the organization. Two hundred and sixty-four experienced managers provided responses to the scenario in a controlled experimental research design. The results indicate that managers may be motivated to discount the ethical impact of earnings management behavior when the consequence has a favorable impact on the organization—implying that the ends justify the means. This finding, in turn, suggests that incrementalism, or the ethical “slippery slope” of overlooking seemingly minor ethical breaches, can undermine efforts to establish a strong ethical tone throughout the organization. Implications of these findings for corporate governance and future research are discussed

This study examines the relation between earnings management and block ownership of same‐industry peer firms by a common set of institutional investors (common institutional ownership). This relation is important given the tremendous growth of common institutional ownership and the significant influence of blockholders on financial reporting. We hypothesize that common institutional ownership mitigates earnings management by enhancing institutions' monitoring efficiency and by encouraging institutions to internalize the negative externality of a firm's earnings management on peer firms' investments. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that higher common institutional ownership is related to less earnings management. Analyses of a quasi‐natural experiment based on financial institution mergers show that this negative relation is unlikely to be driven by the endogeneity of common institutional ownership. Cross‐sectional tests provide evidence that the negative relation is stronger among firms for which common institutional ownership is likely to generate a greater reduction in institutions' information acquisition and processing costs, and among firms whose severe financial misstatements are more likely to distort co‐owned peer firms' investments, supporting both mechanisms underlying our hypothesis. Our findings inform the ongoing debate on the costs and benefits of common institutional ownership by highlighting an important benefit: the enhanced monitoring of financial reporting

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

We examine the consequences of real earnings management from an innovation perspective and investigate the patent output of firms likely to be managing earnings through altering their R&D expenditures. We find that R&D cuts related to earnings management lead to fewer patents, less influential patent output, and lower innovative efficiency compared to other R&D cuts. Our results thus suggest that real earnings management may obstruct firms’ technological progress and highlight the potential costs of managerial manipulation of R&D expenditures to alter reported earnings

We find evidence consistent with Italian nonlisted subsidiaries engaging in accrual and real earnings management, so that their listed parents can meet or beat benchmarks. Thus, the parent firm drives the earnings management of the subsidiaries. We identify parents that are more likely to have managed earnings as the ones that avoid a small loss or meet or beat analyst forecast by a few cents. Cross‐sectional analysis reveals that Big 4 auditors mitigate accrual earnings management at the subsidiary level and that family‐owned firms use earnings management through nonlisted subsidiaries mainly to avoid reporting losses. Finally, we find that parent firms communicate earnings management strategies to their subsidiaries using board proximity. Our evidence shows that business groups manage earnings differently from single firms, pushing earnings management down to subsidiaries. It also supports the monitoring role of Big 4 auditors in a business group setting and contributes to understanding financial reporting decisions in family‐owned firms