This paper analyzes the adjustment processes of financial ratios in the presence of costly adjustment and information uncertainty. The paper proposes a generalized partial adjustment-adaptive expectations model to characterize dynamic financial ratio adjustment processes. The proposed model incorporates the persistence of changes in industry averages into the process of financial ratio adjustment. The Gauss-Newton nonlinear regression method is used to estimate the structural parameters of the generalized model. Results show that adjustment to target ratios is not instantaneous. Results also show that there are differences in the patterns of ratio adjustment for firms in different industries with different sizes.

We examine whether internal governance affects the extent of real earnings management in U.S. corporations. Internal governance refers to the process through which key subordinate executives provide checks and balances in the organization and affect corporate decisions. Using the number of years to retirement to capture key subordinate executives' horizon incentives and using their compensation relative to CEO compensation to capture their influence within the firm, we find that the extent of real earnings management decreases with key subordinate executives' horizon and influence. The results are robust to alternative measures of internal governance and to various approaches used to address potential endogeneity, including a difference-in-differences approach. In cross-sectional analyses, we find that the effect of internal governance is stronger for firms with more complex operations where key subordinate executives' contribution is higher, is enhanced when CEOs are less powerful, is weaker when the capital markets benefit of meeting or beating earnings benchmarks is higher, and is stronger in the post-SOX period. This paper contributes to the literature by examining how internal governance affects the extent of real earnings management and by shedding light on how the members of the management team work together in shaping financial reporting quality.

Despite the potential of algorithms to improve judgment quality, recent research suggests that individuals may be averse to algorithmic use. We experimentally examine whether and how managers’ use of an algorithm-advised performance rating is influenced by rating valence and the decision rights managers have to adjust the algorithm. We find that managers are less willing to use an algorithm to evaluate subordinate performance when it advises a low, rather than high, rating. We further show that when the algorithm-advised rating is low, allowing managers to adjust how the algorithm computes the rating, compared with adjusting the rating itself or not allowing any adjustment, increases algorithmic use. Further analyses show this effect to be consistent with managers’ increased understanding of an algorithm when involved in its computation. Our findings inform organizations’ implementation of performance evaluation algorithms by showing how rating valence and decision rights jointly influence managers’ use of the algorithms.

We examine how the ordering of information within quarterly earnings announcements influences investor response to those announcements. Specifically, we examine whether earlier discussion of earnings information, and earlier discussion of qualitatively positive or negative information, is associated with stronger responses to that information. Controlling for the linguistic content of the earnings announcement, we find a positive relation between investor response to information and the prioritization of that information in the earnings announcement. We find no evidence of investor over-reaction and, to the contrary, find some evidence that investors under-react to prioritized information. Our evidence, in conjunction with experimental evidence in Elliott (2006), suggests that information placement influences investors' responses. However, unlike the experimental evidence in Elliott (2006), our archival results suggest that investor response to information placement is warranted, rather than the result of an unintentional cognitive effect. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

In this paper, we examine why Chinese reverse merger (RM) firms have lower financial reporting quality than U.S. IPO firms. We find that the financial reporting quality of U.S. RM firms is similar to that of matched U.S. IPO firms, but Chinese RM firms exhibit lower financial reporting quality than Chinese ADR firms. We also find that Chinese RM firms exhibit lower financial reporting quality than U.S. RM firms. These results indicate that the use of the RM process is associated with poor financial reporting quality only in firms from China, where legal enforcement and investor protection are weak. In addition, we find that compared with Chinese ADR firms, Chinese RM firms have weaker bonding incentives (as measured by CEO turnover-performance sensitivity) and poorer corporate governance. These factors, in turn, contribute to the lower financial reporting quality of Chinese RM firms. Overall, our results suggest that the less scrutinized RM process allows the Chinese firms with weak bonding incentives and poor governance to gain access to U.S. capital markets, resulting in poor financial reporting quality.