Knowledge that Transforms

We study how the precision of managers’ private post-contract pre-decision information affects the pay–performance relation. Endogenizing the information environment, we find that firms may optimally tie executive pay closer to firm performance as agency problems become more pronounced. Specifically, varying parameters measuring the severity of the agency problem, we identify parameter regions where firms with more pronounced agency problems optimally combine uninformative signals with a higher incentive rate than firms with less pronounced agency problems that optimally choose a perfect signal. We find this relation for various measures of the agency conflict such as the incongruency of the performance measure, its susceptibility to manipulation, or the agent’s degree of risk aversion. Because the pay–performance sensitivity is frequently used for measuring the efficiency of real-world compensation arrangements, our results provide relevant insights for empirical research studying the determinants of the relation between executive pay and firm performance.

We study the effects of the disclosure of critical audit matters (CAMs) on an auditor’s audit effort and an investor’s scrutiny effort decisions and on investment efficiency. Both the auditor and the investor can prevent a bad investment by respectively auditing and scrutinizing the firm’s financial reports to detect misstatements about the investment value. Investment efficiency is determined by the investor’s total mix of information. The disclosure of CAMs helps the investor assess investment risk and infer the auditor’s effort and thus enables the investor to fine-tune scrutiny effort, which can in turn adversely influence the auditor’s effort decision. We show when and why the disclosure of CAMs increases or decreases ex ante audit effort, ex ante investor scrutiny, and investment efficiency. Our analyses have both testable empirical implications and policy implications.

There is limited evidence on the construct validity of the dependent measures commonly used in the literature on nonprofessional investor judgments. In this paper, we first survey the literature to understand the types of dependent measures typically used by researchers. We then conduct factor analyses to uncover linkages between dependent measures and the constructs underlying these nonprofessional investor judgments. Our results suggest that, while the wide variety of dependent measures can appear on their face to represent many nuanced economic constructs, these measures capture three distinct factors. These factors relate to nonprofessional investors’ (1) expectations regarding future firm performance and value, (2) holistic perceptions of the firm, and (3) evaluations of the risk associated with investing in the firm. Next, we provide recommendations for selecting, analyzing, and reporting dependent measures in future research. Finally, we provide directions for future research to further our understanding of the judgments made by investors.

This study examines the incremental predictive power of aggregate measures of financial misreporting for recession and real gross domestic product (GDP) growth. We draw on prior research suggesting that misreporting has real economic effects because it represents misinformation on which firms base their investment, hiring, and production decisions. We find that aggregate M-Score incrementally predicts recessions at forecast horizons of five to eight quarters ahead. We also find that aggregate M-Score is significantly associated with lower future growth in real GDP, real investment, consumption, and industrial production. Additionally, our result that aggregate M-Score predicts lower real investment one to four quarters ahead partially accounts for why misreporting predicts recessions five to eight quarters ahead. Our findings are weaker when we use aggregate F-Score as a proxy for misreporting. Overall, this study provides novel evidence that aggregate misreporting measures can aid forecasters and regulators in predicting recessions and real GDP growth.

There is limited evidence about when, why, and which individuals incur costs to acquire nonpublic information about a firm, largely due to the difficulty of observing private information acquisition. To overcome this difficulty, we obtain data on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We predict and find that perceived information asymmetry between managers and outsiders resulting from both proprietary and agency costs triggers FOIA search. We categorize organizations making FOIA requests using their business descriptions and find that many, including law and intellectual property firms, are not expressly interested in obtaining information for near-term equity trading. Instead, their search activity relates to determinants beyond financial characteristics, including patent litigation and executive turnover. Taken together, we provide evidence on private information search by a relatively unexamined set of organizations and shed new light on the function of the SEC’s Office of FOIA Services.

We explore whether accounting fraud can be detected using the information of firms economically linked to a focal firm. Specifically, we examine whether customer information disclosed by a supplier firm, combined with customers’ accounting information, helps to detect the supplier’s revenue fraud. We first confirm the economic link between the supplier and customers by showing a strong positive correlation between the supplier’s sales growth and the growth rate of total customer purchases. We then introduce two variables based on customer accounting information—the discrepancy between supplier sales growth and customer purchase growth and customer excess purchases—and show that they are predictive of supplier revenue fraud. We conduct a battery of cross-sectional tests and generally find results to vary cross-sectionally in a predictable way. Finally, the out-of-sample tests indicate that adding the two variables to Dechow, Ge, Larson, and Sloan (2011) model increases fraud prediction accuracy.

We study audit quality and investment efficiency when an analyst’s information can curb overvaluation and auditors are subject to legal liability following audit failure. With the auditor’s damage payment based on price inflation after audit failure, the analyst’s information brings prices closer to fundamentals and provides a hedge to the auditor against legal liability risk. This weakens incentives for audit quality, and the analyst responds with more information production due to the penalty for mispricing. Consequently, in equilibrium, stricter legal liability leads to higher audit quality that reduces overinvestment but also less information production that increases underinvestment. Thus, stricter liability has a nonmonotonic effect on firm value; it increases the value of firms with a high valued growth option but reduces the value of firms with a low valued growth option. The results have implications for the optimal level of legal liability that maximizes the expected value of the firm.

Although the shareholder benefits of investor conferences are well-documented, evidence on whether these conferences facilitate managerial opportunism is scarce. We examine whether managers opportunistically exploit heightened attention around the conference to “hype” the stock. We find that (1) managers increase the quantity of voluntary disclosure leading up to the conference, (2) these disclosures are more positive in tone and increase prices to a greater extent than post-conference disclosures, and (3) these disclosures are more pronounced when insiders sell their shares immediately prior to the conference. In circumstances where pre-conference disclosures coincide with pre-conference insider net selling, we find evidence of a significant return reversal––large positive returns before the conference and large negative returns after the conference––and that the firm is more likely to be named in a securities class action lawsuit. Collectively, our findings are consistent with some managers hyping the stock prior to the conference.

We conduct an experiment in the securities-based crowdfunding setting to investigate whether some investors avoid accounting information for psychological reasons, even when they understand the information is useful in their decision-making. Results suggest investors who experience relatively more psychological discomfort when working with quantitative information are relatively less likely to acquire the financial statements of a potential crowdfunding investment. Importantly, this effect is incremental to any effect of investors' quantitative ability (i.e., their numeracy) and attenuates with an intervention designed to help investors overcome their psychological discomfort. Altogether, the results extend our understanding of the theory of information avoidance, provide a behavioral explanation for investors' documented underuse of accounting information, and can inform regulators as they revise crowdfunding regulations.

A growing literature provides evidence that peer considerations play a central role in shaping a firm’s behavior. This paper documents that the frequency of forced CEO turnovers by product market peer firms is negatively associated with a firm’s real earnings management. I find that the disciplinary role of forced CEO turnover explains the observed relation. These effects are stronger when firms are suspected to engage in real earnings management to meet or just beat earnings benchmarks. I find some evidence that peers’ forced CEO turnovers reveal a link between real earnings management and subsequent operating failure. Overall, my findings suggest that observing product market peers’ forced CEO turnovers provides an informative signal to discipline a firm’s real earnings management behavior. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified in the text.