This study examines Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 142 adoption decisions, focusing on the trade‐off between recording certain current goodwill impairment charges below the line and uncertain future impairment charges included in income from continuing operations. We examine several potentially important economic incentives that firms face when making this accounting choice. We find evidence suggesting that firms' equity market concerns affect their preference for above‐the‐line vs. below‐the‐line accounting treatment, and firms' debt contracting, bonus, turnover, and exchange delisting incentives affect their decisions to accelerate or delay expense recognition. Our study contributes to the accounting choice literature by examining managers' use of discretion when adopting a mandatory accounting change and by developing and testing explicit cross‐sectional hypotheses of the determinants of firms' preferences for immediate below‐the‐line versus delayed above‐the‐line expense recognition.

This paper investigates how banks alter the timing and magnitude of transactions and accruals to achieve primary capital, tax, and earnings goals. Recent research, including Moyer [1990], Scholes, Wilson, and Wolfson [1990], and Collins, Shackelford, and Wahlen [1995], provides evidence that banks execute transactions and manage accruals to achieve some or all of these objectives. A common feature of these studies is the assumption that when managers make a particular accrual or transaction decision, all other decisions are fixed. We relax this assumption and allow such decisions to be determined simultaneously.

We ask whether credit rating agencies receive higher fees and gain greater market share when they provide more favorable ratings. To investigate this question, we use the 2010 rating scale recalibration by Moody's and Fitch, which increased ratings absent any underlying change in issuer credit quality. Consistent with prior research, we find that the recalibration allowed the clients of Moody's and Fitch to receive better ratings and lower yields. We add to this evidence by showing that the recalibration also led to larger fees and to increases in the market shares of Moody's and Fitch. These results are consistent with critics’ concerns about the effects of the issuer‐pay model on the credit ratings market.