U sing lenders who become members of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as an exogenous shock, we examine whether and how lenders’ commitment to transparent climate-related disclosures affects borrowers’ environmental performance. We find that borrowers of TCFD-member lenders, relative to control firms, significantly improve their environmental performance after the TCFD launch. Lenders’ disclosure commitments influence borrowers through credit rationing and monitoring. Specifically, polluting borrowers face higher borrowing costs, reduced access to credit, and greater incorporation of environmental action covenants in loan agreements. Additionally, polluting borrowers of TCFD-member lenders experience heightened financial constraints. Finally, borrowers of TCFD-member lenders are more likely to adopt the TCFD framework for climate-related disclosure after the TCFD establishment. Together, these findings illuminate the role of lenders in driving corporate environmental performance improvement through their commitment to transparent climate-related disclosures.

Companies’ strategic alternatives announcements lead to negative future stock returns. First, we investigate whether this anomaly exists. We demonstrate that it is significant and pervasive across years, industries, firm size, and information environments and that it is not driven by confounding variables nor risk. We then investigate why the market misprices the announcements and find that investors appear overly optimistic about a potential merger or acquisition and do not fully incorporate the negative fundamental news conveyed by the announcement. Meanwhile, short sellers exploit the mispricing. We also evaluate market frictions as limits to arbitrage. This study’s contributions are (i) evaluating behavioral and risk explanations for an event that causes extreme stock returns, (ii) challenging investors’ widely held belief that such announcements reflect good news, and (iii) warning investors and analysts about a behavioral bias they might unknowingly adopt.

We examine the impact of auditors’ reputation impairments on their private-client market share to explore how conducting low-quality audits affects auditors’ broader client portfolios. Prior evidence implies that an audit office loses public-client market share after a client announces a restatement. However, auditors’ private clients may be less concerned about auditor reputation and quality, given that they have lower agency costs and their financial statement users are often creditors that can rely on direct monitoring to narrow information asymmetry. Also, differences between public and private company audits cast doubt on whether public-client restatements are relevant to private clients. We find that the private-client market share of a Big Four audit office falls by, on average, 5 percent the year after a public client announces a restatement. This evidence suggests that Big Four offices cannot simply replace lost public-client revenue with private-client revenue after suffering reputation damage.

Relative performance evaluation (RPE) is widely used to filter out common shocks, but it is prone to collusion. We study the performance of RPE when agents are differentially productive (or evaluated in a biased manner). While such diversity is always costly in a static setting, it can be useful in repeated interactions, because it makes it harder for agents to collude. We identify conditions under which the principal prefers independent or joint performance evaluation if agents are identical but prefers RPE if they are diverse. In low-skill industries, the principal should offer asymmetric contracts even to homogeneous agents—a form of favoritism—as the cheapest way to combat collusion. Our results generate novel empirical predictions and contribute to the recent literature linking accounting and labor economics.

This paper examines earnings management in response to changes in tax planning and financial reporting incentives around the corporate income tax rate decrease from 35% to 21% enacted by Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017. Given the higher level of book-tax conformity of real activities manipulation (RAM) relative to accrual-based earnings management (AEM), we hypothesize that firms concertedly use these techniques for different purposes. Specifically, we predict and find that firms use RAM to reduce taxable income prior to the TCJA with firms in our sample saving between $9.1 billion and $11.0 billion in taxes by shifting taxable income from the high-tax to the low-tax period. We also predict and find that firms use AEM, which has lower book-tax conformity than RAM, to simultaneously increase book income in the high-tax period. These results inform policymakers, regulators, and researchers on the economic effects of corporate tax reform

Analyzing a panel of earnings announcers from 1998–2022, we document that the aggregate market return on quarterly earnings announcement dates is positively associated with the announcing firm’s subsequent three-day abnormal returns. This phenomenon is strongest for firms with extreme earnings surprises and dissipates by day seven, indicating a short-lived delay in incorporating the aggregate news. We also document a sluggish return response to same-day macro news disclosures, especially when earnings surprises are extreme. Effects strengthen when investors exert more effort in acquiring announcing firm information, measured by SEC EDGAR filing downloads, when macronews has a larger impact on a firm’s stock returns, when firms are smaller, and when investors’ attention and processing capacity are more constrained, proxied by retail trading. Overall, the findings support the notion that investors have finite information processing capacity and that intensive efforts to acquire firm earnings news delay the incorporation of macroeconomic news into prices.

We examine the relation between the gender composition of audit teams and two important audit outcomes—audit quality and audit fees. We identify gender composition across auditor ranks with novel audit-office level data for 20 large U.S. public accounting firms from 2010 to 2018. We find engagements of audit offices with more female auditors are associated with higher audit quality and lower audit fees. We find the association between gender composition and audit outcomes is strongest at the staff level, and among audit seniors in particular. The results also strengthen in offices with more supportive workplace environments. Overall, our large-scale evidence provides important insights on the role of gender composition of audit teams.

Using federal judge ideology as an exogenous measure of issuing firms’ litigation risk, we document that the initial public offerings (IPOs) of the firms headquartered in more liberal circuits are more underpriced. The effect is mitigated when plaintiffs’ pleading standards are more stringent and is amplified when judges have more discretion in their decisions. The effect is also amplified among deep pocketed issuing firms, while it is mitigated among issuing firms hiring reputable intermediaries in the IPO process. The results of additional analysis suggest that issuing firms located in more liberal circuits are more likely to become targets of lawsuits after their IPOs and that these lawsuits are less likely to be dismissed by the courts and result in larger settlements. Collectively, our findings underscore the salience of litigation risk stemming from the issuing firms’ legal environment in driving IPO underpricing.

Research suggests that board members value financial reporting quality because executive dismissal often follows low reporting quality events. However, inferences about the board’s demand for reporting quality in these studies are confounded by board members’ reputation incentives because the events examined are public (e.g., restatements). We investigate boards’ demand for reporting quality by exploiting a private signal of misreporting: audit adjustments communicated to the Board by the external auditor. We first survey 29 audit committee chairs to understand whether boards use audit adjustments in their oversight of management and then conduct an empirical investigation to answer our research question. We find an increased likelihood of CFO dismissal following audit adjustments. This association is driven by adjustments that reduce income and by firms with better board oversight. These findings suggest that boards proactively use nonpublic signals of reporting quality and incorporate information from auditors into their monitoring function.

Recent years have witnessed significant growth in corporate sustainability reporting. Yet existing research provides mixed evidence on the information content of these reports for investors. We examine the stock market reaction to the announcement of a sample of US corporate sustainability reports incorporating Sustainability Accounting Standards Board metrics that are intended to provide financially material information to investors. Using standard measures of information content, we cannot find compelling evidence that these reports provide a significant amount of new information to investors. Further analysis of a subset of common metrics indicates that they are either financially immaterial or preempted by traditional financial disclosures. Finally, we show that most firms target their sustainability reports at a broad set of sustainability-oriented stakeholders rather than a narrow set of financially oriented investors.