This study examines the extent to which parsimonious and general cross‐sectional valuation models, restricted to include only publicly available historical accounting information, explain share prices in the cross section, identify periods when market mispricing may be more pervasive, and also identify which shares within those cross sections are more likely to be mispriced. Our model simply includes historical book value, earnings, dividends, and growth, but it explains on average over 60 percent of the cross‐sectional variation in share prices in annual estimations across 1975–2011. We also examine the extent to which the residuals indicate mispricing. The quintile of stocks picked by our model as most likely underpriced outperform the quintile of stocks picked as most likely overpriced by an average of 9.9 percent over the following 12 months, after controlling for size. We also predict and find that value residuals are better predictors of future abnormal returns: (i) among firms that are not covered by analysts; (ii) among firms that face fewer accounting measurement challenges; and (iii) when we estimate value model parameters by industry/year. We also predict and find our approach works better in periods when the mapping of fundamentals into prices is weaker. This study contributes a novel and straightforward approach to map accounting fundamentals into share prices in order to identify mispricing in time‐series and in the cross section.

Firms’ Corporate Social Responsibility ( CSR ) reports typically frame their strategies in terms of either community or global efforts (i.e., “strategy frame”). Further, the style used to depict CSR performance in reports often highlights either pictures or words (i.e., “presentation style”). These two prominent disclosure features of CSR reports promote a natural fit or misfit in the focus (relatively low‐level or high‐level focus) investors adopt when thinking about the firm and its CSR efforts. Further, these disclosure features likely have different effects on investors depending on their numeracy or, in other words, the way that they naturally process numerical information. In this study, we predict and find that a fit between the strategy frame and the presentation style of a firm's CSR report causes less numerate investors to be more willing to invest than when a fit is not present. Specifically, we find that a fit leads less numerate investors to experience subjective feelings of processing fluency and, in turn, positive affect that serves as a cue that the positive CSR performance information can be relied upon, which positively influences willingness to invest. Our results have implications for both CSR reports as well as other types of firm disclosures that increasingly vary along similar disclosure characteristics. Our results also contribute to both the growing literature on presentation effects in accounting, as well as the broader business literature on CSR reporting.

Since most audit engagements identify multiple proposed audit adjustments, auditors must decide how best to present and negotiate these adjustments with their clients. Prior research indicates that auditors can negotiate adjustments individually (a sequential strategy) or can negotiate multiple adjustments within the same negotiation setting (a simultaneous strategy). This paper examines the relative effectiveness of a simultaneous versus sequential negotiation strategy in eliciting concessions from clients and engendering greater client satisfaction. Participants negotiated audit adjustments with a simulated auditor who employed one of the two negotiation strategies. We find evidence that a simultaneous strategy elicits significantly greater total concessions from client managers and also generates more positive attitudes toward the auditor. We also manipulate the magnitude of the issues negotiated and find that significantly greater concessions are offered when larger issues are presented first. These findings have important implications for auditors, as they suggest that negotiating issues simultaneously and presenting larger issues first can result in significantly improved negotiation outcomes.

Trust is often posited to substitute for management control in interfirm transactions. However, this raises questions of how trust arises in new relationships, and whether trust that is not based on prior experience transacting together is sufficient to persuade managers to forgo investments in management controls. We use an experiment to test whether two features of the early stage of an interfirm relationship influence a buyer's initial trust in a supplier and have consequences for subsequent investments in management controls and in the collaboration. These two features are the autonomy of the buyer's manager to choose a supplier (i.e., delegation of decision‐making authority) and the supplier's willingness to share information with the buyer. We find that the buyer manager's initial trust in the supplier is associated positively with both the autonomy to choose the supplier and the supplier's willingness to share information. Information content and supplier characteristics are held constant, so these results are novel and distinct from prior studies of the antecedents of trust. We find that higher initial trust is associated with reduced expenditures for management controls and increased investments in the collaboration. Thus, we conclude that delegation of decision‐making authority and supplier information‐sharing behavior in the early stages of a relationship influence the formation of initial trust, which has real consequences for investments in management control and in the collaboration.

We examine whether the presence of female directors and female audit committee members affect audit quality in terms of audit effort and auditor choice by using observations from a sample of U.S. firms, spanning the years 2001–2011. We find, after controlling for endogeneity and other board, firm, and industry characteristics, that firms with gender‐diverse boards (audit committees) pay 6 percent (8 percent) higher audit fees and are 6 percent (7 percent) more likely to choose specialist auditors compared to all‐male boards (audit committees). Our findings suggest that boards (audit committees) with female directors (members) are likely to demand higher audit quality, ceteris paribus.