Abstract Professional skepticism is an essential element of a healthy audit. In this study, we present a framework in which the two elements of professional skepticism—skeptical judgment and skeptical action—differ in that skeptical judgment involves paying attention to audit risks, whereas skeptical action often involves overcoming personal risks. This distinction suggests that the optimal conditions for skeptical judgment may differ from the optimal conditions for converting that judgment to skeptical action. Specifically, interventions that promote vigilance will facilitate judgment because they make potential accounting issues salient, but such a focus will also draw attention to potential adverse consequences of taking action. To test this proposition, we conduct two studies in which we align skeptical judgment and skeptical action with two pairs of distinct and contrasting mindsets to operationalize differential vigilance. Our results suggest a duality in skepticism which has important implications for researchers and practitioners designing interventions to improve audit quality.

Abstract We examine how progressive individual tax rates affect risk‐taking by pass‐through businesses (PTBs). PTBs generate over 60% of US business income and make up roughly 95% of business tax returns, yet there is limited research on how progressive tax rates affect project selection. We study PTBs using the setting of thoroughbred racing and examine how progressive tax rates affect the decision to enter a risky stakes race or a less risky allowance race. This setting provides a unique opportunity to observe the choice between two mutually exclusive projects that differ only in expected payoffs and risk. Using a difference‐in‐differences design surrounding the reduction in progressivity under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we find that investment in stakes races increases in the United States relative to Canada. We find further evidence of a negative relation between progressive tax rates and risk‐taking using a plausibly exogenous shock in progressivity in California and exploiting cross‐sectional variation in the progressivity of state tax rates. Overall, our findings should be of interest to policy‐makers considering changes to progressive rates. Results indicate that increases to progressive tax rates may discourage risk‐taking by the small businesses that drive economic growth.

Abstract We document strikingly opposite time‐series patterns of analyst forecast errors (FEs) and associated market reactions, illustrating that analyst forecasts have become a less useful benchmark of the market's earnings expectations in recent years. The mean FE has increased from negative one to two cents in the 1990s to positive one to two cents in the 2010s, whereas average earnings announcement returns have declined from 0.30% in the 1990s to −0.30% in the 2010s, turning negative in the past 17 years. Underlying the time‐series pattern of increasing FEs is a secular trend where firms move away from just meeting or beating, to which the market reaction has become increasingly negative, toward a large beat, while the frequency of meeting or beating the consensus analyst forecast remains stable during the same period. We develop a parsimonious predictive model of earnings surprises based on peer and past analysts' FEs and find that our predicted FE closely mirrors reported FE, with the average value hovering around one to two cents in most years of the past two decades. The market reaction to “around zero” unexpected FE (FE minus predicted FE) is indistinguishable from zero over time, suggesting that our model serves as a good benchmark of the market's expectation. Our evidence has broad implications for appropriate earnings benchmarking, for the disappearing discontinuity of the earnings surprise distribution around zero, for earnings management to beat analysts' forecasts, for empirical designs when examining the earnings‐return relation, and for the disappearing earnings announcement premium.

Abstract We provide evidence that some managers use a multi‐period, coordinated strategy involving inflated current‐period discretionary accruals and optimistic forecasts of future earnings to delay the revelation of bad news. Inflating discretionary accruals increases investor expectations of future performance, and issuing optimistic earnings forecasts of future earnings supports the inflated accruals and extends the horizon for managers to benefit. This strategy is more pronounced for firms that engage in earnings management outside of GAAP, suggesting intentional behavior. Our evidence indicates that managers use this coordinated strategy when firms experience significant bad news and cannot delay revealing all of the bad news through accrual management. We also find that managers use this coordinated strategy when focusing on short‐term performance due to career concerns (i.e., dismissal) or retirement or when they have shorter stock option vesting schedules, which motivates them to inflate investor expectations for shorter‐term personal benefits. Furthermore, managers using this strategy do not hold deep in the money exercisable stock options, which is consistent with managers' private assessment of a higher (lower) likelihood of releasing bad (good) news in the future.