ABSTRACT We explore the theoretical relation between earnings and market returns as well as the properties of earnings frequency distributions under the assumption that managers use unbiased accounting information to sequentially decide on real options their firms have and report generated earnings truthfully, with the market pricing the firm based on those reported earnings. We generate benchmarks against which empirically observed earnings‐returns relations and aggregate earnings distributions can be evaluated. This parsimonious model shows a coherent set of results: reported losses are less persistent than reported gains, decision making diminishes the S‐shaped market response to earnings and earnings relate to returns asymmetrically in the way documented by Basu [1997]. Furthermore, the implied frequency distribution of aggregate earnings is neither symmetric nor necessarily single‐peaked. Instead, it may exhibit a kink at zero and look similar to the plots reported by Burgstahler and Dichev [1997]. However, within our model, none of these phenomena are due to reporting noise, bias, or some undesirable strategic managerial behavior. They are the natural consequences of using past earnings as the basis for value increasing managerial decision making that in turn generates the future earnings on which future decisions will be based.

ABSTRACT We develop a theoretical model of the firm that links properties (stewardship vs. valuation focus) of financial reporting regimes with the informational properties of optimal managerial accounting systems. We show that, contrary to the standard textbook proposition, properties of management and financial accounting systems are not independent. Significantly, we provide an explicit connection between exogenous and observable properties of a firm's financial reporting system and the quality of the managerial accounting system on which manager(s) base real economic decisions. As the quality of those economic decisions can also be inferred from publicly available data, our theory generates new opportunities for empirical managerial accounting research on large nonproprietary samples. Further, by being able to identify enhanced performance due to improved managerial accounting information, our theory provides opportunities to gain a better understanding of the link between particular managerial accounting practices and the quality of the information produced.

ABSTRACT We investigate the dynamics of internal forecasting in multi‐location firms and the relations between forecast characteristics and investment. Using U.S. Census microdata on plant‐level growth expectations, we find that plants within multi‐location firms make forecasts that are both more certain and less accurate than those of standalone plants. We provide evidence suggesting that headquarters infers uncertainty from inter‐plant forecast disagreement, and that headquarters is able to facilitate the use of relevant information held by one plant but applicable to another. Differences between peer and focal plants' forecasts predict forecast errors and relate to investment decisions at the focal plant, suggesting that information from multiple sources is integrated into capital allocation decisions. Headquarters' heavier use of peer plant forecast information when focal plants are more uncertain likely weakens focal plant managers' incentives to consider extreme scenarios when forecasting.

ABSTRACT Formal theory and empirical research are complementary in building and advancing the body of knowledge in accounting in order to understand real‐world phenomena. We offer thoughts on opportunities for empiricists and theorists to collaborate, build on each other's work, and iterate over models and data to make progress. For empiricists, we see room for more descriptive work, more experimental work on testing formal theories, and more work on quantifying theoretical parameters. For theorists, we see room for theories explicitly tied to descriptive evidence, new theories on individuals' decision making in a data‐rich world, theories focused on accounting institutions and measurement issues, and richer theories for guiding empirical work and providing practical insights. We also encourage explicitly combining formal theory and empirical models by having both in one paper and by structural estimation.