Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT We advance a theory asserting that CSR performance may exacerbate, not necessarily moderate, a company's negative stock price response to negative events. In testing this theory, we hypothesize and find that CSR performance alleviates (magnifies) the immediate negative stock price response to inadvertent (fraudulent) restatement announcements, and that these findings are robust to specifications that consider alternative CSR measures and a multitude of control variables shown by prior research to have explanatory power for the cross-sectional variation in stock returns. Overall, using restatement announcements as a channel through which CSR performance may affect company value, we show, in contrast to prior research, that depending on management conduct leading to the restatement, a company's CSR performance may destroy, not necessarily enhance, firm value. Our findings may, thus, inform researchers, market participants, and regulators. Data Availability: The data used in this study are publicly available from sources indicated in the text.

ABSTRACT We examine the effect of performance-based pay on misreporting intended to benefit a social mission. We show that performance-based pay decreases people's propensity to misreport for a social mission in a not-for-profit setting (Experiment 1). We similarly show that in a for-profit setting, performance-based pay also decreases misreporting propensity for a social mission, although not for a non-social mission (Experiment 2). Finally, using a framed field experiment with participants attending a conference hosted by a real charity, we show that performance-based pay reduces actual misreporting when misreporting leads to more donations for the charity (Experiment 3). These results are consistent with our theory suggesting that, relative to fixed pay, performance-based pay imposes additional costs on misreporting employees' self-concepts of benevolence and honesty. JEL Classifications: C93; J33; L31; M4; M52.

ABSTRACT Auditors experience difficulty auditing accounts for which it is difficult to identify in advance all the evidence necessary to perform an effective audit. These accounts are challenging because they commonly require auditors to collect additional, relevant evidence in response to new information received during evidence collection. We address this experimentally by examining whether changing the focus of audit programs from plan-focused (i.e., focused on the planned audit procedures) to goal-focused (i.e., focused on the task goal) improves auditors' collection of relevant evidence that is not identifiable at audit program creation. We expect goal-focused auditors to remain open to more ways to achieve their goal. Consequently, we expect and find that goal-focused auditors collect more effective evidence than plan-focused auditors and follow up more effectively on this evidence. This suggests that a goal-focused approach improves audit quality on tasks requiring auditors to flexibly respond to new information.

ABSTRACT We find that firms are less likely to disclose information regarding a negative economic event for which the firm is likely to be blamed than a negative event for which the firm is likely to be perceived as blameless. We identify 383 material negative events (casualty accidents, oil spills, catastrophes, investor class action lawsuits) and find that firms are approximately four times less likely to disclose information following a negative blamed event than a blameless event. Consistent with disclosure of blamed events resulting in greater costs to the firm, we find that firms that disclose after a blamed, but not a blameless, event experience greater reputation and litigation costs than firms that do not disclose. We find that blame attribution provides incremental information over manager career concerns in the disclosure decision. These findings suggest that an event-specific factor—blame attribution—affects firms' propensity to provide disclosures about negative economic events. Data Availability: The list of 383 material negative economic events is available upon request. JEL Classifications: K22; M41.

ABSTRACT We investigate the role of Relative Performance Evaluation (RPE) theory in CEO pay and turnover using a product similarity-based definition of peers (Hoberg and Phillips 2016). RPE predicts that firms filter out common shocks (i.e., those affecting the firm and its peers) while evaluating CEO performance, and that the extent of filtering increases with the number of peers. Despite the intuitive appeal of the theory, previous tests of RPE find weak and inconsistent evidence, which we argue is due to the imprecise categorization of peers. Using product market peers, we find three pieces of evidence consistent with RPE in relation to CEO pay and forced turnover: (1) on average, firms partially filter out common shocks to stock returns, (2) the extent of filtering increases with the number of peers, and (3) firms completely filter out common shocks in the presence of a large number of peers. JEL Classifications: M40; M41; G30; J33.

ABSTRACT Using experiments with 58 corporate managers and 215 auditors, we examine whether managers attempt to reduce the perceived intentionality of their fraudulent misstatements by perpetrating fraud via omission, as opposed to a more active form of commission, and how auditors evaluate the resulting misstatements. We find that managers choose to omit a transaction from the financial statements rather than record a transaction inappropriately. They also choose to omit critical information from supporting documents rather than provide misleading information. However, auditors generally believe misstatements involving omissions are unintentional. Specifically, we find auditors are less skeptical of an omitted transaction compared to a misrecorded transaction. They are also less skeptical of a misstatement that results from management omitting information from a supporting document compared to misrepresenting information. Overall, our studies identify a method of fraud—omission—that managers are likely to use, but that auditors are unlikely to judge as being intentional.

ABSTRACT 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. JEL Classifications: G14; G41; M40.

ABSTRACT Prior research finds that unrealized gains/losses on cash flow hedges are negatively associated with future earnings, and that investors and analysts fail to anticipate this association. These studies speculate that this mispricing is due to either poor derivatives disclosures or the accounting model for cash flow hedges. We examine whether enhanced mandatory derivatives disclosures set forth in FAS 161 improve users' understanding of firms' hedging activities and offer three main findings. First, we find that this mispricing does not persist after FAS 161. Second, we find that the correction of mispricing is greatest when disclosure might help investors most. Finally, we find that analyst forecast accuracy improves after FAS 161. Overall, our results suggest that the enhanced mandatory derivative disclosures required by FAS 161 improved users' understanding of the effects of derivative and hedging activities on future firm performance and firm value—and consequently mitigated investor mispricing.

ABSTRACT Advisors frequently have an interest in the decisions their advisees make, forcing advisees to distinguish their advisors' unbiased beliefs from their self-interested bias. This task is likely to be especially hard when psychological forces distort advisors' beliefs to make some of their bias sincerely held. In our first experiment, we show that advisors bias both their recommendations and their own actions toward their persuasion goal, and that advisees are better at distinguishing between the unbiased, sincerely biased, and insincerely biased parts of their advisor's recommendation when they meet face-to-face to discuss, compared with when they receive only a written recommendation. Our second experiment shows that advisees distinguish their advisor's bias from their advisor's unbiased beliefs more accurately when the advisors are asked to provide fact-based information about their own actions. Both experiments show that post-report interactions are more helpful for identifying insincere bias than sincere bias. Data Availability: All raw data (excluding identifiable information), data processing code for tabulated analyses, and full experimental materials are available from the authors.

ABSTRACT Our study is the first to provide systematic evidence of a hump-shaped CEO tenure-firm value relation. Cross-sectionally, firm value starts to decline after fewer years of CEO tenure in more dynamic industries, if CEOs are less adaptable to changes, and in the presence of greater labor market frictions. Overall, the dynamics of CEO-firm match quality appear to be a first-order driver of the CEO tenure-firm value association, as explained by CEO characteristics (adaptability), firm/industry characteristics (dynamism), and labor market characteristics that facilitate optimal matching between firms and CEOs. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified in the study. JEL Classifications: G30; G34; J24.