Knowledge that Transforms

ABSTRACT Auditing standards require that auditors’ reliance on a specialist is commensurate with the specialist’s competence. In assessing competence, auditors encounter cues diagnostic of the specialist’s social status but less so of competence. In an experiment, we manipulate specialist status and find that auditors mistake status for competence unless they are prompted to separate the constructs. This raises the possibility that auditors could over-rely on high-status specialists. However, auditors also assess high-status specialists as more influential, and when the specialist disagrees with the client, they rely more on high-status specialists because of this perceived influence. Thus, high-status specialists can increase auditors’ willingness to challenge the client by providing a strong ally. Additional analyses suggest that auditors are aware that they rely on the specialist’s influence rather than competence, indicating that auditors do not use the process that auditing standards envision to evaluate and rely on specialists. Data Availability: Data are available upon request. JEL Classifications: M42.

ABSTRACT We examine how the shifting of legal liability between auditors and clients affects financial reporting quality. We exploit the state-level adoption and rejection of a common law doctrine, the Audit Interference Rule (AIR), which shifts legal liability between auditors and clients, while not affecting total legal liability. The likelihood of restatements declines following staggered rejections of the AIR that shift risk to clients. Path analysis indicates that audit fees increase following AIR rejections, suggesting that relatively greater liability exposure for clients leads to a greater demand for assurance services that, in turn, reduces the likelihood of restatements. We further find greater improvements in financial reporting quality following the rejections of the AIR among clients with higher litigation risk and larger clients. Broadly, we provide novel evidence that clients’ incentives relating to increased liability exposure appear to dominate auditors’ disincentives relating to decreased liability exposure on financial reporting quality. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: K15; M41; M42.

ABSTRACT We study whether recognition versus disclosure affects debt contracting using SFAS 158 as a setting. Upon recognition of previously disclosed pension liabilities, we find that debt contracts of firms that have high pension underfunding contain relatively more covenants based on the balance sheet and a lower cost of debt. Additional analysis suggests that improved reliability of recognized information is a likely mechanism for these findings. We also document that recognition did not affect the credit risk of the borrower or the use of income statement–based covenants that were unaffected by the accounting standard change. Collectively, our evidence suggests that recognition of previously disclosed accounting information can facilitate the incorporation of that information into lenders’ screening and monitoring. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified in the study.

ABSTRACT I study productive activity, measurement, and compensation in a principal agent model that relaxes common restrictions on the action set of the agent, the distribution of performance measures, and the shape of the wage schedule. The solution to this relaxed problem unifies insights from extant theory and shares features with well-known empirical phenomena. In particular, the optimal outcome distribution has a kink, optimal measurement is conservative, and optimal wages ensure congruent incentives and resemble accounting-based bonus plans featuring a floor, hurdle bonus, incentive zone, and ceiling, with thresholds that may reference other performance measures. Beyond these specific insights, the paper provides a flexible framework for studying how incentives are shaped through measurement and contracts.

ABSTRACT We study off-the-clock indiscretion accusations against corporate officers and directors and examine the extent, effectiveness, and context of auditors’ response. In the year that indiscretion allegations are first publicized, auditors charge higher fees and are more likely to resign. Auditors respond to allegations against both top executives and board members. Further, reactions are strongest when allegations demonstrate a lack of individual integrity and, separately, when the audit office has previously audited other similarly accused clients. Importantly, the resulting increase in auditors’ effort partially negates the association between indiscretions and lower financial reporting quality. However, auditors are primarily reactive, rather than proactive, and their response is stronger when the accused client is less important economically. These results suggest that company leadership’s off-the-clock indiscretions are signals to auditors of poor tone at the top, but the audit response is not uniform across all clients. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; M48; G34.

ABSTRACT We examine firms’ voluntary disclosures of innovation under technology coopetition, focusing on technology standard setting organizations (SSOs). Technology coopetition is characterized by (1) cooperation to determine technology standards, which requires information sharing to reach consensus, and (2) competition for standard implementation to obtain standard-essential patents, which create incentives for firms to deviate from the expected level of information sharing. We document a decrease in 10-K narrative R&D disclosures, more generic 10-K narrative R&D disclosures, and a longer delay of patent disclosures via the USPTO after a firm joins an SSO. Among alternative explanations, our evidence is most supportive of the hypothesis that firms strategically withhold innovation information. JEL Classifications: L15; M41; O32.

ABSTRACT SPACs are formed to combine with and provide a private firm public trading status and a capital infusion. Firms that enter the public market through a SPAC combination are believed to possess greater voluntary disclosure discretion than traditional IPOs as they obtain their public trading status through a merger. Consistent with regulators’ concerns, recent research finds that SPACs use this discretion opportunistically by issuing optimistic guidance. This study examines how investors respond to these disclosures. We find that optimistic projections increase retail purchasing, which is higher than that of institutional purchasing. Additionally, we find that investors partially see through the optimism and exit at the redemption date. Furthermore, we find that institutional investors increasingly divest their holdings for combinations with optimistic projections. Investors as a whole, however, fail to see through the optimism, as combinations with optimistic projections considerably underperform in the two years following the combination. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from the sources identified in the text. JEL Classifications: M41.

ABSTRACT In 2010, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board proposed a rule change requiring the display of current credit ratings on the EMMA website, a centralized repository of municipal bond information. Before the rule change, current credit ratings were freely available on individual rating agencies’ websites or on EMMA if municipalities provided relevant continuing disclosures, making it unclear whether the rule change would benefit investors. A difference-in-differences analysis reveals the rule change is associated with a 6–8 basis-point decrease in investor transaction costs. This effect is concentrated among the intended beneficiaries (retail investors) when credit risk information demand is high (long-maturity bonds) and current credit rating information on EMMA is low (no continuing disclosure of rating changes was provided on EMMA). The rule change appears to have helped retail investors become aware of current credit ratings by filling a disclosure gap on EMMA for municipalities without continuing disclosures of rating changes.

ABSTRACT Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are an important way for non-Big 4 accounting firms to grow their businesses. Non-Big 4 firms also account for the vast majority of PCAOB inspections. Consistent with negative inspection reports signaling low quality at inspected firms, we find that non-Big 4 accounting firms conduct fewer M&A deals after they receive negative inspection reports. Additional analyses support our hypothesized signaling mechanism: (1) the chilling effect of inspection reports on M&A activity is stronger when the inspected firm’s business is focused on public company audits, (2) the effect is stronger when stakeholders at the target firm know less about the acquirer because the acquirer is located in a different city, and (3) clients at the target firm switch to new firms rather than move over to the acquirer if the acquirer received a negative inspection report prior to the M&A date. JEL Classifications: D82; G34; G38; M42; M48.

ABSTRACT Firms with correlated fundamentals often issue reports sequentially, leading to information spillovers. The theoretical literature has investigated multifirm reporting, but only when firms report simultaneously. We examine the implications of sequential reporting, where firms aim to maximize their market price and can manipulate their reports. The introduction of sequentiality significantly alters the biasing behavior of firms and the resulting informational environment relative to simultaneous reporting. In particular, a lead firm always manipulates more when reports are issued sequentially. Moreover, relative to simultaneous reporting, sequential reporting reduces the overall information available to the market about each firm, resulting in less efficient and less volatile prices. Additionally, we find that stronger correlation in firm fundamentals can amplify the lead firm’s incentive for manipulation under sequentiality, in contrast to simultaneous reporting. We offer further results regarding, for example, market response coefficients, and provide a number of empirical implications. JEL Classifications: C72; D82; D83; G14; M41.