Abstract Financial reporting fraud continues to cost companies millions of dollars annually and is a major source of concern for regulators, stakeholders, and auditors. While academic research has largely focused on external auditors' fraud detection efforts, we analyze whether auditors can help prevent occurrences of fraud through low‐cost reputational signals of higher “strategic reasoning”; strategic reasoning refers to strategies that individuals take in light of the anticipated actions of others (see van der Hoek et al., 2005, A logic for strategic reasoning, AAMAS '05, 157−164). Specifically, we consider the potential impact on manager behavior of signaling whether audit professionals use zero‐, first‐, and second‐order audit approaches. Zero‐order audit approaches involve making decisions based mostly on the auditor's incentives, first‐order approaches involve decisions based mostly on the client's incentives, and second‐ or higher‐order audit approaches involve decisions based on the client's incentives while recognizing that the client will respond to the auditor's decisions (see Wilks & Zimbelman, 2004, Accounting Horizons , 18 (3), 173–184). Using a context‐rich experiment in which manager participants have no history of interacting with the auditor, we find that the likelihood of fraud occurring is lower when it is signaled that audit partners and their teams use a first‐ or second‐order strategic audit approach compared to a zero‐order approach, due to an increase in the perceived likelihood of the auditor detecting fraud. We also consider whether signaling an auditor's level of strategic reasoning influences the level of effort used to conceal fraud and find an increase in the expected level of fraud effort for managers in the first‐ and second‐order audit conditions.

Abstract This study uses valuation allowances (VAs) for deferred tax assets to examine whether hedge fund activists (HFAs) use and affect financial reporting of income taxes. Specifically, we investigate whether HFAs target firms with VAs and whether target firms are more likely to release VAs post‐intervention. We find that the existence, magnitude, and increases in VAs increase the marginal probability that HFAs will target a firm by between 12% and 24%. We also find that target firms are 4.6% more likely to release VAs following the intervention, and this effect persists for up to 2 years. Releases of VAs appear to stem from implemented tax avoidance strategies and changes in financial reporting of income taxes rather than real changes in operating performance or earnings management. Overall, HFAs appear to understand the interplay between tax planning and financial reporting of income taxes and use both to unlock value in target firms.

Abstract Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) 141 (Accounting Standards Codification [ASC] 805) requires that firms record identifiable assets and liabilities acquired in business combinations at fair value. While the FASB argued that these fair values should provide users with incremental decision‐useful information, opponents have continuously argued that they are too difficult to reliably estimate and could be subject to managerial discretion. Using hand‐collected data from US mergers and acquisitions, we find that, on average, fair value adjustments predict future cash flows incrementally beyond pre‐deal book values and cash flows, goodwill, and other firm and deal characteristics. We also find that the relation between fair value adjustments and future cash flows varies predictably based on several factors that affect managers' ability and incentives to provide accurate estimates. Furthermore, despite prevailing concerns about their usefulness, we find that fair values for intangible assets predict future cash flows, on average. However, we find that this relation is driven primarily by the fair values of customer‐ and contract‐related intangible assets and that the fair values of other types of identifiable intangibles do not necessarily convey incremental decision‐useful information. Finally, we find that users appear to rely on the information conveyed by these disclosures, as evidenced by revisions to analysts' forecasts and changes in stock prices. Overall, our findings provide insight regarding the usefulness of current standards and users' reliance on fair values in business combinations.

Abstract Reciprocity plays a critical role in the way employees respond to managerial control decisions. The current consensus is that employees punish managers for implementing unkind controls (negative reciprocity) more than they reward managers for implementing kind controls (positive reciprocity). We challenge this consensus. Prior research focuses on settings that emphasize employees' immediate reciprocal responses. However, in the workplace, employees often respond over long periods of time to sticky control decisions (e.g., budgets, pay, decision rights). Focusing on these long‐term settings, we predict and find that, while negative reciprocity is initially stronger than positive reciprocity, it also fades more over time than positive reciprocity. This differential fading is so pronounced in our setting that positive reciprocity is stronger overall in the long run. Thus, in long‐term settings, positive responses to kind controls may play a more important role than negative responses to unkind controls. Our results inform managerial decisions about the use of kind versus unkind controls and suggest potential long‐term benefits of pay disparity and other policies that treat employees differentially.

Abstract In this study, we examine whether environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds' investment decisions are sensitive to the existence and extent of firms' voluntary environmental disclosures. We create our measures of voluntary environmental disclosure using bigrams extracted from the Global Reporting Initiative standards. We provide robust evidence that voluntary environmental disclosure in conference calls is associated with greater ESG fund ownership in the subsequent period, incremental to firms' ESG ratings. We also provide evidence that fund managers' reliance on environmental disclosure is concentrated in water, waste, emissions, and compliance disclosures. ESG fund ownership increases with environmental disclosure that is more positive and specific. Our primary finding persists both when we rely on the sustainability report as an alternative proxy for environmental disclosure and when we use fund‐level tests. Overall, our evidence is consistent with ESG funds relying on firms' disclosures when making investing decisions and inconsistent with recent regulatory concerns that ESG fund managers are not following through on their stated investing strategies.