Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT Managers prioritize favorable analysts during earnings calls, reinforcing analysts’ incentives for optimism. However, managers also frequently interact with unfavorable analysts, and this study examines the determinants and benefits of these interactions. I find that managers interact more with unfavorable analysts when compelled to do so. I then examine two likely benefits of these interactions. First, unfavorable analysts attenuate their negative views after interacting with managers. Second, price reactions to management forecasts are stronger for managers who regularly interact with unfavorable analysts, consistent with enhanced reporting credibility. Finally, using peer firm restatements as exogenous shocks to investors’ perceptions of accounting quality, I find that nonrestating firms with managers who regularly interact with unfavorable analysts experience attenuated negative returns relative to other nonrestating peers. Overall, the empirical evidence indicates firms experience significant benefits when managers interact with unfavorable analysts and these benefits persist amongst compelled and voluntary interactions.

ABSTRACT Complexity in applying financial accounting standards can have real operational effects if firms alter their actions in response to increased reporting costs. We examine whether the introduction of ASU 2017‐12, designed to reduce compliance burden and better align hedge accounting rules with risk management practices, led to more effective hedging. Using detailed hedging disclosures, we show that firms that adopt the ASU expand the use of hedge‐accounted derivatives and reduce exposures to interest rate and foreign currency risks. ASU‐adopting firms also reduce cash flow volatility, increase their use of debt, invest more, and reduce information asymmetry in the equity market. Our analyses reveal that easing hedge effectiveness tests and reliefs targeting “cash flow hedges” and “net investment hedges of foreign operations” were the most influential of the ASU's reforms. Our study is the first to integrate the effects of hedge accounting frictions on firms’ risk management activities and resulting spillovers to debt financing and investments.

ABSTRACT This paper investigates why commercial lenders make markets for the loans that they sell on the secondary market. Using loan‐level data, I find that origination lenders with extensive borrower relationships and more reputational capital at stake are more likely to serve as market makers. Greater participation of origination lenders as market makers is associated with lower trading costs for their borrowers' loans. This association remains even in conditions where origination lenders could exploit their information advantage for market making profits. Lenders benefit from being market makers by maintaining strong subsequent lending relationships with their borrowers. Collectively, this evidence is consistent with origination lenders' participation in the secondary market being motivated by reducing trading frictions rather than market making profits.

ABSTRACT This study examines the relation between CEOs’ preferences for environmental protection (“nature‐loving preferences”) and corporate environmental actions. Drawing on social ecology research, I develop a proxy for CEOs’ nature‐loving preferences based on their childhood exposure to greenspace and validate it using their positive discussions of nature during earnings conference calls. Findings show a significant positive association between CEOs’ nature‐loving preferences and their firms’ participation in Clean Development Mechanism projects. This effect remains robust after addressing firm–CEO matching and omitted variable concerns. Cross‐sectional tests reveal stronger effects when local environmental demands are high and when CEOs have greater decision‐making power. Further analyses suggest that these CEOs are associated with greater corporate carbon reduction, while market reactions to their appointments remain neutral. The study highlights the link between CEOs’ personal environmental preferences and firms’ environmental actions, offering new insights into individual‐level factors behind corporate social responsibility.

ABSTRACT We examine whether U.S. immigration policy, specifically the H‐1B visa program, affects the likelihood of financial misconduct. We argue that employers have leverage over employees on H‐1B visas because such employees must maintain H‐1B–eligible employment to legally reside in the United States. We posit that companies relying on H‐1B visas to hire workers in accounting roles have an increased ability to misreport their financial statements due to the greater costs H‐1B employees face if they are unexpectedly fired for not following the demands of their bosses or for blowing the whistle on misconduct. Using the sharp reduction in the H‐1B visa cap in 2004 as a shock to such employment, we find that companies that relied on this visa program for accounting roles pre‐shock experience a 2.3 percentage point decline in accounting irregularities post‐shock. Cross‐sectional tests show that the reduction in irregularities is greater in companies where H‐1B employees have (1) a greater influence on financial reporting or (2) fewer job opportunities. In addition, the relation between H‐1B visa use and irregularities is stronger in companies whose investors are more focused on near‐term earnings targets. We corroborate our findings using the outcome of H‐1B visa lotteries as shocks to such employment.

ABSTRACT This paper examines how increased competition among environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating agencies relates to ESG rating quality. We exploit the entry of Sustainalytics as a new ESG rating agency in 2010. We conduct a difference‐in‐differences analysis and provide three main findings. First, we find that higher competition decreases incumbents' ESG rating disagreements of the same scope. The negative relation between competition and ESG rating disagreement persists for same‐scope rating metrics not covered by Sustainalytics, suggesting that neither learning nor herding drive the results. The relationship between competition and rating disagreement strengthens for firms with more ESG disclosures, which generally require more effort to analyze. Second, we find that incumbents' ratings of ESG concerns are more strongly associated with future negative ESG news for firms additionally covered by Sustainalytics. This finding is consistent with competition improving ratings' ability to predict future negative ESG incidents. Third, we find that incumbents evaluate more difficult‐to‐measure outcome metrics for firms covered by Sustainalytics, consistent with competition inducing more effort. Overall, our findings suggest that competition serves as an implicit disciplining mechanism of ESG rating agencies' quality.

ABSTRACT We investigate the effects of a qualitative tax disclosure mandate aimed at improving tax transparency and compliance by imposing reputational costs for firms. We use, as an exogenous shock, the 2016 UK reform that required large businesses to disclose their tax strategy. We find that treated firms—those that must publish a tax strategy report—also significantly increase the volume of tax strategy disclosure in their annual reports, but this disclosure contains more boilerplate. The standalone tax strategy reports contain narratives similar to those in the annual reports, are sticky, and their quality is correlated with those of disclosures on gender and human rights. Turning to real behavioral changes, we document no significant effect on tax planning across several proxies and firm characteristics. While we find that the mandate increased media attention on treated firms, our results suggest that this enforcement channel might not work in the context of qualitative disclosure, which may be hard to verify for outside stakeholders. Even in subsamples of firms for which we would expect higher reputational costs, we document similar responses. Taken together, our findings indicate that mandating qualitative tax disclosure has incentivized firms to portray themselves as good tax citizens without changing their practices.

ABSTRACT We examine firms' trade‐offs in their voluntary disclosure decisions following negative media coverage of climate change incidents. By combining a keyword discovery algorithm and a fine‐tuned BERT model, we identify “hard” and “soft” climate disclosures on Twitter. Our findings indicate that firms tend to issue climate tweets as a rapid response to negative climate incidents. Additionally, firms with a history of hard climate change disclosure, as measured by ESG reports, are more likely to issue climate‐related responses than firms without such a history. Furthermore, we show that prior hard disclosure is associated with hard responses when the incident receives moderate media attention, but with soft responses when the incident receives low media attention. Our findings provide empirical insights for dynamic disclosure theory by illustrating how prior disclosure shapes firms' response strategies to negative media coverage.

ABSTRACT We present the first comprehensive descriptive evidence on the labor market and personal consequences for audit professionals in the United States who are named in SEC or PCAOB enforcement actions. Three key findings emerge. First, between 38% and 73% of culpable auditors depart from their firms within one year after the enforcement event. These departure rates are three to four times higher compared with a sample of non‐culpable auditors. Second, 83% of culpable auditors departing from Big 4 accounting firms exit the profession, compared with 58% of a departing non‐culpable comparison group. In contrast, about 77% of the culpable auditors leaving non–Big 4 accounting firms remain in public accounting, compared with 51% of a departing non‐culpable comparison group. Third, using novel data on personal real estate holdings, we find that culpable auditors do not appear to engage in markedly different transactions around enforcement compared with a comparison sample of non‐culpable individuals.