We provide evidence consistent with firm managers opportunistically defining non-GAAP earnings in order to meet or beat analyst expectations. This result is robust to controlling for other tools of benchmark beating (e.g., discretionary accruals, real earnings management, and expectation management). We also find that managers tend to exclude more expenses from non-GAAP earnings when it is costlier to use accrual earnings management due to balance sheet constraints, indicating that these tools are substitutes. Lastly, we find that investors discount positive earnings surprises when accompanied by exclusions from GAAP earnings, suggesting that the market partially understands the opportunistic nature of these exclusions. Our evidence is consistent with managers opportunistically defining non-GAAP earnings in a way that analysts fail to fully anticipate, resulting in an increased likelihood of exceeding analyst forecasts.

This paper investigates the internal managerial control mechanisms at the disposal of a corporation's compensation-setting board or committee. The hypotheses tested are that both compensation changes and management changes are methods used to control top management, and that the use of these control methods is motivated by changes in the firm's stock price performance. Public data from the period 1977–1980 support our hypotheses. We conclude that the firm's board creates managerial incentives consistent with those of the firm's owners, both by setting compensation and following management change policies which benefit shareholders.

This study examines the capital-market effects of tipper-tippee insider trading laws. To do so, I exploit the unexpected decision issued by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in U.S. v. Newman 773 F.3d 438, which reduced legal jeopardy for Second Circuit-based market participants prior to being overturned. Consistent with Newman constraining insider trading enforcement, I find strong evidence of plausible insider trading in the Second Circuit following the ruling. I also document a substantial reduction in general trading activity in Second Circuit stocks, as well as an increase in daily quoted spreads and the price impact of trading. These findings are consistent with unchecked insider trading increasing transaction costs and crowding-out investors. In total, my results show that tipper-tippee insider trading restrictions play an important role in bolstering market integrity, and that market participants can to some degree counteract insider trading when public regulation is constrained.

To gain insight into the impact of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) auditor inspection program, I examine the association between the PCAOB’s access to inspect auditors of foreign SEC registrants and audit quality. Although the PCAOB is mandated to inspect all auditors of SEC registrants, certain foreign governments prohibit PCAOB inspections of their domestic auditors, providing variation in PCAOB inspection access that is not available when studying a sample of US companies. I find that auditors subject to PCAOB inspection access provide higher quality audits as measured by more going concern opinions, more reported material weaknesses, and less earnings management, relative to auditors not subject to PCAOB inspection access. There is no observable difference between the two sets of auditors prior to the PCAOB inspection regime. The positive effect of PCAOB inspection access on audit quality is observed in jurisdictions with, and without, a local audit regulator. Overall, the results are consistent with PCAOB inspection access being positively associated with audit quality

By analyzing a carefully constructed earnings announcements sample that discloses a ‘pro forma’ earnings number, Bhattacharya et al. (J. Account. Econom. 36 (1–3) (2003)) contribute to recent research documenting increasing differences between earnings as defined by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and alternative earnings definitions followed by capital markets. The paper provides interesting descriptive data on pro forma earnings per share relative to both GAAP earnings per share and actual earnings per share as tracked by I/B/E/S. Also, the authors conduct tests of the relative informativeness and persistence of these three earnings measures. Econometric and data limitations inhibit the inferences that can be drawn from some of these tests.

Research has shown that managers display self-serving behavior in a variety of discretionary information production decisions. We test whether such behavior is also manifest in discretionary information disclosure decisions — in particular, in the common stock return performance comparisons now required in corporate proxy statements. We find evidence that the industry and peer-company stock return benchmarks, and broader market indices, chosen by management for those comparisons are downward biased, thereby overstating relative reporting-firm performance. Cross-sectionally, the extent of the bias varies with key reporting-firm attributes, including firm performance and the character of firm ownership structure.

How do firms protect their human capital? We test whether firms facing an increased threat of being acquired strengthen their antitakeover provisions (ATPs) in order to bond with their employees. We use the adoption of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine (IDD) by US state courts, which exogenously decreases knowledge-worker mobility, thus elevating takeover risk and reducing employee incentives to innovate. Firms respond to the IDD adoption by strengthening ATPs that defend against hostile takeovers, especially when they have greater ex-ante employee mobility and human capital and place greater importance on employee relations. We find no evidence that managers strengthen ATPs for entrenchment or takeover bargaining purposes in this setting. Our findings show that ATPs can be used to credibly commit to employees in order to protect long-term value creation.

This paper re-evaluates evidence in Ayers and Freeman [Ayers, F., Freeman, R., 1997. Market assessment of industry and firm earnings information. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24, 205–218] suggesting that investors anticipate industry-wide components of earnings earlier than firm-specific components, and that post-earnings-announcement drift following annual earnings announcements is due primarily to firm-specific components of earnings. Our tests indicate that post-announcement drift is entirely attributable to coefficient bias due to measurement errors in the use of realized earnings changes as proxies for unexpected earnings. Also, coefficient differences in the market's anticipation of subsequent-year industry and firm-specific earnings become insignificant when we introduce suitable controls for non-linearity in the return/earnings relation.