We develop a Clawback Strength Index and show that while some firms adopt unambiguous and strong clawback provisions, others adopt weak ones. We find that strong clawback adopters experience improvements in financial reporting quality, fewer CEO turnovers, and lower CEO pay. We advance two possible explanations: First, clawback strength may be primarily responsible for the improvements in reporting quality. Second, strong clawbacks may yield benefits because they are part of a broader reform package. While our findings on reporting quality and CEO turnover are consistent with both explanations, our results on CEO pay support only the broader reform explanation.

We investigate how the prevalence of materialistic bank CEOs has evolved over time, and how risk management policies, non-CEO executives’ behavior and tail risk vary with CEO materialism. We document that the proportion of banks run by materialistic CEOs increased significantly from 1994 to 2004, that the strength of risk management functions is significantly lower for banks with materialistic CEOs, and that non-CEO executives in banks with materialistic CEOs insider trade more aggressively around government intervention during the financial crisis. Finally, we find that banks with materialistic CEOs have significantly more downside tail risk relative to banks with non-materialistic CEOs.

We use an experiment with experienced managers to provide more-direct evidence on how reporting goals and firm performance influence language choices. We find that bad news disclosures are less readable than good news, but only when managers have a stronger self-enhancement motive. Our results suggest that this difference is driven mainly by attempts to write more readable good news reports as opposed to intentional obfuscation of poor performance. In order to frame poor performance in a positive light, managers also focus more on the future, provide causal explanations for poor performance, and use more passive voice and fewer personal pronouns.

We use newly available GAAP forecasts to document that traditionally-identified GAAP forecast errors contain 37% measurement error. Correcting for this measurement error, we settle a long-standing debate regarding investor preference for GAAP versus non-GAAP earnings and provide strong evidence of a preference for non-GAAP earnings. We also revisit the use of non-GAAP exclusions to meet analysts’ forecasts when GAAP earnings fall short. Results indicate that 34% of these traditionally-identified meet-or-beat firms are misidentified due to measurement error, and this error masks evidence that firms more frequently exclude transitory rather than recurring expenses for meet-or-beat purposes.