Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT We examine how open procurement data affect the competitiveness of award procedures and the execution of government contracts. The European Union recently made its historical procurement notices available for bulk download in a cohesive and user‐friendly database. Comparing government contracts above and below EU procurement size thresholds, we find that, after the open data initiative, procurement officials are more likely to award treated contracts through open bidding. In cross‐sectional analyses, we document variation in the open bidding effect consistent with two underlying mechanisms: (1) increased scrutiny by NGOs and investigative journalists and (2) learning by national procurement regulators. However, treated contracts are also more likely to experience costly modifications because the shift to open bidding introduces rigidity that limits officials’ discretion in selecting suppliers based on private information. Overall, our evidence indicates that open procurement data promote competitive bidding but lead to contracts with weaker execution performance. These inferences also hold in an alternative open data setting.

ABSTRACT We examine whether the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Codification made it easier for preparers and auditors to locate relevant accounting guidance. We find that areas of U.S. GAAP with more dispersed and voluminous guidance before the Codification experience a larger post‐Codification reduction in restatements. We find a similar decline in SEC comment letter questions referencing areas of U.S. GAAP with more dispersed and voluminous pre‐Codification guidance. Our results suggest that before the Codification, preparers and auditors had difficulty in locating the appropriate accounting guidance and that the Codification mitigated this difficulty.

ABSTRACT This paper studies whether and how environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure regulations imposed on banks generate transmission effects along the lending channel. I use a setting of U.S. firms borrowing from non‐U.S. banks and exploit the staggered adoption of ESG disclosure regulations in banks’ home countries. I find that exposed borrowers of affected banks improve their environmental and social (E&S) performance following the disclosure mandate. Consistent with banks enhancing both their engagement and selection activities, affected banks impose more environmental action covenants in loan contracts, and they are more likely to terminate a borrower with bad E&S records following the regulation. Further evidence shows that the transmission effects are stronger when a disclosure regulation is well‐enforced (as indicated by a greater increase in banks’ disclosure) and among borrowers with greater switching costs. Collectively, the findings document the role of lending relationships in transmitting the real effect of ESG disclosure regulations from banks to borrowing firms.

ABSTRACT In a tax—public goods reciprocity framework between citizens and the state, managers view taxes as a payment to the government in exchange for public goods, and hence they adjust their willingness to pay taxes as public good quality changes. We show that corporate tax planning intensity increases with ground‐level ozone pollution. Revisions in ozone pollution regulations cause counties that failed the revised and more stringent standards to reduce ozone pollution. Consequently, firms headquartered in these counties reduced corporate tax planning intensity relative to firms in other counties. The ozone‐tax link varies in the predicted directions with public attention to pollution, potential welfare loss due to ozone, managers’ stakeholder orientation, taxpayers’ polluting status, political preferences, and civic norms. We also find consistent results for Superfund cleanups of hazardous waste sites. Our research sheds light on reciprocity as a potential mechanism influencing corporate tax compliance.

ABSTRACT The controllability principle suggests that employees should not be held accountable for factors outside their control. This study develops novel theory to challenge that thinking. According to the theory, holding employees accountable for uncontrollable factors like peer performance can lead to improved decision‐making by increasing how much employees learn from those uncontrollable factors. I expect this effect to occur because goal‐focused employees only consider information that seems goal‐relevant, and uncontrollable factors only seem goal relevant when employees are held accountable for them. Results from a decision‐making experiment support the theory. In particular, paying participants based on uncontrollable factors improves their decision‐making despite providing them with weaker economic incentives. This positive effect is more pronounced when the uncontrollable factors are more informative and when individuals are more goal‐focused. These findings reveal a previously unexplored benefit of disregarding the controllability principle that can help explain why broad, uncontrollable metrics are so prevalent and successful in practice.

ABSTRACT We use machine learning for relative valuation and peer firm selection. In out‐of‐sample tests, our machine learning models substantially outperform traditional models in valuation accuracy. This outperformance persists over time and holds across different types of firms. The valuations produced by machine learning models behave like fundamental values. Overvalued stocks decrease in price and undervalued stocks increase in price in the following month. Determinants of valuation multiples identified by machine learning models are consistent with theoretical predictions derived from a discounted cash flow approach. Profitability ratios, growth measures, and efficiency ratios are the most important value drivers throughout our sample period. We derive a novel method to express valuation multiples predicted by our machine learning models as weighted averages of peer firm multiples. These weights are a measure of peer–firm comparability and can be used for selecting peer‐groups.

ABSTRACT We analyze the standard error bias associated with the use of generated regressors—independent variables generated from first‐step regressions—in accounting research settings. Under general conditions, generated regressors do not affect the consistency of coefficient estimates. However, commonly used generated regressors can cause standard errors to be understated. Problematic generated regressors include predicted values, coefficient estimates, and measures derived from these estimates. Widely used generated regressors in accounting include measures of earnings persistence, normal accruals, litigation risk, and conditional conservatism. Using simple regression models and simulation, we demonstrate how generated regressors can produce understated standard errors in accounting research settings. We also demonstrate how the magnitude of the standard error bias is inversely related to the precision of the generated regressor. Finally, we discuss bootstrapping as a correction for the bias and demonstrate the pairs cluster bootstrap as a tool to improve inferences in common accounting settings involving generated regressors.

ABSTRACT This study examines whether taxpayers intentionally avoid Internal Revenue Service (IRS) third‐party reports. In 2017 an IRS amendment created a quasi‐exogenous shock that reduced third‐party tax reporting of pari‐mutuel gambling winnings from certain types of wagers. I consider the effect that this rule change had on taxpayer behavior. Using a difference‐in‐differences research design comparing thoroughbred racing in the United States to Canada, I find a 27% increase in gambler's investment into wager‐types that became less likely to trigger third‐party reports. Further, I provide evidence that this effect was because of third‐party reporting, not withholding, and was stronger in more informed gambling populations. These findings suggest that taxpayers knowingly avoid third‐party reports, enabling underreporting of income to the IRS. This has important policy implications because underreported individual income is the largest driver of the $496 billion annual gap between legal tax liability and actual tax collections in the United States.

ABSTRACT A firm that must decide whether to retain or terminate a manager can rely on several sources of information to assess managerial ability. When it relies on a performance signal and monitoring, we show that a more informative signal can surprisingly increase the value of monitoring. Then, signal precision and monitoring are complements. This happens if a more precise information system makes some signals more negative indicators of managerial ability that still do not trigger termination. When the turnover cost is high enough and the manager is more entrenched after a positive performance, an increase in signal precision increases expected monitoring. In firms with a high turnover cost, a less informative signal is compounded by worse monitoring after a disappointing performance. This “bad corporate governance trap” makes it hard for these firms to eventually improve performance.

ABSTRACT Beginning in 2018, U.S. public firms were required to report the ratio of the chief executive officer's (CEO) compensation to their median employee's compensation in the annual proxy statement. Exploiting the staggered reporting of pay ratios, we find little evidence that total CEO compensation changes in response to pay ratio disclosure reform. However, we do find that boards significantly adjust the mix of compensation awarded by reducing the sensitivity of CEO pay to equity price changes, particularly when the CEO is likely to garner media scrutiny, and by reducing reliance on stock‐based and other compensation components that are most susceptible to media coverage surrounding the pay ratio disclosure. Firms ultimately disclosing higher pay ratios garner more media coverage around the filing of their proxy statement, and more negative‐toned coverage in the subsequent month. Finally, we find evidence that greater pay disparity is associated with greater selling activity by retail investors and more negative say‐on‐pay votes following pay ratio reform, consistent with a broad set of investors responding to public scrutiny resulting from pay ratio disclosures.