Knowledge that Transforms

We introduce the idea of cross‐regulatory disclosure avoidance, whereby firms attempt to counteract expansions of disclosure under one regulation through actions that reduce disclosure under a different one. We study whether firms redact information from material contracts when they face new rules to disclose segment information. Using SFAS No. 131 as a plausibly exogenous shock to segment disclosure, we find that firms increasing the number of reported segments after the rule change exhibit a greater increase in redaction than firms maintaining the same number of segments. Consistent with proprietary cost motives, the increases are concentrated among firms with greater divergence in profitability across segments, higher abnormal segment profitability, and more negative abnormal stock returns in response to the finalization of the rule. Also, treated firms that redact after the rule change have abnormally profitable segments that they previously did not disclose. Firms that observables predict would increase redaction but did not experience declines in sales growth and profit margin. We find no evidence that agency cost motives drive the increases in redaction or, more generally, nondisclosure of segment performance before SFAS No. 131.

We investigate how audit firms balance the tension between professional responsibility and client service by examining changes in partner assignments following adverse internal control opinions (ICOs). We find that partners are significantly more likely to be reassigned when they issued an adverse ICO to any of their clients in the previous year. Further, partners issuing adverse ICOs experience unfavorable changes in their client portfolios in the form of lower fees and less prestigious assignments. We find that consequences are more negative when adverse ICOs are issued to clients that are more important to the local office and that there are no consequences when partners issue continuing adverse opinions to clients they have “inherited” from an original adverse ICO partner. We also find that the consequences are stronger for partners of non‐Big 4 audit firms that are likely to be more sensitive to client service considerations. The negative portfolio effects we observe persist for at least three years, and our findings are robust to restrictions involving mandatory partner rotation and adverse ICOs that lead to client loss. Overall, our results are consistent with adverse ICO partners experiencing negative consequences as audit firms respond to client service incentives in the area of internal controls over financial reporting.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development introduced country‐by‐country reporting (CbCR) for multinational enterprises (MNEs) to help tax authorities combat tax‐motivated income shifting. This study uses confidential U.S. tax administrative data from 2011 to 2018 to examine the effect of U.S. CbCR adoption on the tax‐motivated income shifting and real activities of U.S. MNEs. We first document that while U.S. CbCR provides the Internal Revenue Service with incremental information about the location of U.S. MNEs’ global activities relative to existing U.S. tax return disclosures, substantial overlap exists between U.S. CbCR and existing disclosures. In contrast with prior CbCR studies in cross‐country settings, we fail to find evidence of a change in U.S. MNEs’ tax‐motivated income shifting or a reallocation of real activities based on tax incentives in response to U.S. CbCR using multiple empirical approaches. Overall, our study leverages U.S. tax administrative data to provide insights into the impact of the CbCR initiative on U.S. MNEs.

To what extent does the narrative context surrounding the numbers in financial statements alter the informativeness of these numbers, that is, contextualize them? Answering this question empirically presents a methodological challenge. Leveraging recent advances in deep learning, we propose a method to uncover the value of contextual information learned from the (deep) interactions between numeric and narrative disclosures. We show that the contextualization of accounting numbers makes them substantially more informative in shaping beliefs about a firm's future, especially when numeric data are less reliable. In fact, the informational value of interactions dominates the direct informational value of the narrative context. We corroborate this finding by showing that stock markets and financial analysts incorporate the interactions between narrative and numeric information when making forecasts. We also demonstrate the value of our approach by identifying rich firm‐year–specific heterogeneity in earnings persistence. We discuss a number of avenues for future research.

Interest in sustainability information, from investors, managers, researchers, and others, has been expanding rapidly. We discuss recent advances and open questions related to sustainability reporting and disclosure through the lens of a supply and demand framework. Our discussion builds on prior research on financial reporting and highlights unique aspects of the provision of sustainability information.

Forward‐looking information, often used by auditors to evaluate complex estimates and form conclusions about going‐concern audit report modifications, is commonly disclosed voluntarily by U.S. public companies. We experimentally examine how this disclosure behavior affects auditors’ skepticism toward such information. Prior research has shown that investors and analysts frequently interpret voluntarily disclosed forward‐looking information as credible. We demonstrate that auditors, in contrast, exhibit greater skepticism toward forecasted information that has been voluntarily disclosed (vs. mandatorily disclosed or held privately) because of their reduced trust in management, even when the forecasts align with prior year trends (vs. being more optimistic). Our results suggest that a manager's decision to disclose, rather than the disclosure content itself, leads to increased auditor skepticism. Our findings have implications not only for audit outcomes, but also for manager disclosure behavior, as increased auditor scrutiny could discourage future voluntary disclosure.

Using misstatement data, we find that the distribution of detected fraud features a heavy tail. We propose a theoretical mechanism that explains such a relatively high frequency of extreme frauds. In our dynamic model, a manager manipulates earnings for personal gain. A monitor of uncertain quality can detect fraud and punish the manager. As the monitor fails to detect fraud, the manager's posterior belief about the monitor's effectiveness decreases. Over time, the manager's learning leads to a slippery slope, in which the size of frauds grows steeply, and to a power law for detected fraud. Empirical analyses corroborate the slippery slope and the learning channel. As a policy implication, we establish that a higher detection intensity can increase fraud by enabling the manager to identify an ineffective monitor more quickly. Further, nondetection of frauds below a materiality threshold, paired with a sufficiently steep punishment scheme, can prevent large frauds.

We exploit the introduction of the Payment Practices Disclosure Regulation in the United Kingdom (UK) to examine the effects of mandating disclosure of customer‐supplier payment practices. We find that nondisclosing small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) experience a reduction in their accounts receivable by 8.3%, consistent with an acceleration of their trade credit collections. Further, SMEs exhibit fewer financial constraints after the regulation. We survey managers from large firms and SMEs to understand the underlying mechanisms. The required disclosures raise large firms’ reputational concerns and shift the bargaining power between large firms and SMEs. Additionally, the new disclosures compel executives at large firms to scrutinize their own firms’ payment practices, leading to increased accountability and a stronger focus on timely payment among senior managers.

We investigate whether improvements in banks' organizational capital and control systems facilitate increased loan origination to minority borrowers. We focus on bank supervisors' enforcement decisions and orders (EDOs) against banks and hypothesize that EDO‐imposed improvements in loan policies, internal governance, and employee training mitigate deficiencies in credit assessments and lending decisions that previously disadvantaged minority borrowers. We find that mortgage origination to minority borrowers increases following the resolution of EDOs, and more so for banks with stricter supervisors or more severe EDOs. Using a semisupervised machine learning method to analyze the text of EDOs, we find that such increases are higher for EDOs specifying revisions of loan policies, implementation of formal internal governance procedures, or more employee training. Overall, we find that EDO‐driven improvements in organizational capital generate unintended, positive social externalities that enhance access to credit for minority borrowers.

Complaints from institutional investors suggest that principles‐based disclosure regimes that rely on financial materiality standards produce inadequate nonfinancial environmental and social (E&S) information. Using the staggered introduction of 40 country‐level regulations that mandate disclosure, I document that reporting E&S information relates to increased investment from institutional owners and has material effects on firms’ investment and financing decisions. Firms mandated to disclose E&S information allocate more investment toward long‐term, innovative projects and raise more equity capital. Evidence indicates that disclosure attracts long‐term–oriented institutional clientele with E&S preferences, which then feeds back on firm decision making. Although the effects of nonfinancial disclosure are similar to those of improved financial disclosure, this clientele mechanism is unique. Taken together, these results suggest that jurisdictions that rely solely on financial materiality disclosure standards create nonfinancial information frictions with material effects on investors and firm decision making.