Knowledge that Transforms

Regulators' interest in analyst reports stems from the belief that small investors are unaware of the conflicts sell-side analysts face and may, as a consequence, be misled into making suboptimal investment decisions. We examine who trades on security analyst stock recommendations by extending prior research to focus on investor-specific responses to revisions. We find that both large and small traders react to analyst reports; however, large investors appear to trade more than small traders in response to the information conveyed by the analyst's recommendation and earnings forecast revision (proxied by the magnitudes of the recommendation change and the earnings forecast revision, respectively). We also find that small investors do not fully account for the effects of analysts' incentives on the credibility of analyst reports, as captured by the type of recommendation (i.e., upgrade versus downgrade or buy versus sell). In particular, small investors not only trade more than large investors following upgrade and buy recommendations, but also trade more following upgrade and buy recommendations than they do following downgrade and hold/sell recommendations. Furthermore, we observe that, on average, small traders are net purchasers following recommendation revisions regardless of the type of the recommendation; large traders tend to be net sellers following downgrades and sells. Consequently, large traders generate statistically positive returns from their trading, while small traders generate statistically negative returns from their trading. These findings are consistent with large investors being more sophisticated processors of information, and provide some support for regulators' concerns that analysts may more easily mislead small investors.

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141 (SFAS No. 141)'s requirement that an acquirer in a business combination estimate the fair value of the target's separately identifiable assets and liabilities (including research and development capital) provides a rare occasion where estimated fair values of U.S. firms' research and development (R&D) capital based on private information about their R&D activities are publicly disclosed. The degree to which equity values impound the estimated fair values of R&D depends upon the extent to which the private information implicit in the R&D estimates is reflected in investor expectations. Financial statement recognition of R&D capital and analyst activities have been cited as alternative mechanisms by which private information about firms' R&D activities can be revealed to investors. I investigate the degree to which both mechanisms lead to the public revelation of the private information implicit in the R&D fair value estimates by examining whether financial statement recognition of R&D assets by the target prior to the merger announcement and/or analyst coverage of a target prior to the merger announcement influence the degree to which the target's pre-merger announcement equity value reflects the acquirer's subsequently disclosed estimate of the fair value of the target's R&D capital. I find that the degree to which a target's pre-merger announcement equity value reflects the estimated fair value of its R&D capital is increasing in the amount of R&D-related intangibles captured in the target's pre-merger announcement balance sheets and in the number of analysts covering the target prior to the merger announcement. This evidence is consistent with the notion that both financial statement recognition and analysts' private information search activities lead to the revelation of private information about the value of R&D assets that investors incorporate into equity values. I further find that the positive relation between analyst following and the market's valuation of R&D capital is strongest for the portion of the estimated fair value of R&D capital that is unrecognized by the target prior to the merger announcement. This finding is consistent with analysts filling in the information gap left by the lack of financial statement recognition. The results of this study confirm the theorized roles of financial statement recognition and analyst activities in aiding the market's valuation of intangible assets.

This study extends current literature related to nonaudit services by investigating internal audit outsourcing to the external auditor. We posit that certain types of internal audit outsourcing (i.e., those which are nonroutine, and thus tend to be nonrecurring in nature) are unlikely to lead to economic bonding, while offering significant potential for improvements in audit coverage and scope when provided by the external auditor. Alternatively, outsourcing routine internal audit tasks is more likely to lead to economic bonding, as well as potentially threatening internal auditor independence. Our results are consistent with firms with independent, active, and expert audit committees being less likely to outsource routine internal auditing activities to the external auditor. However, the outsourcing of nonroutine internal audit activities such as special projects and EDP consulting are not negatively related to effective audit committees. Additionally, outsourcing of either type of internal audit activity to an outside service provider other than the external auditor is not related to effective audit committees. Collectively, we interpret these findings as supportive of an effective audit committee's ability to monitor the sourcing of the firm's total (i.e., internal and external) audit coverage, while simultaneously exhibiting concern for external auditor independence.

We investigate a key assumption underlying much of the experimental research in financial accounting that graduate business students are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors. To conduct our investigation, we categorize recent experimental studies in financial accounting, based on the relative level of integrative complexity inherent in each study's task. We then conduct experiments using two tasks, one that is relatively low in integrative complexity and one that is relatively high in integrative complexity, and compare the responses of two groups of M.B.A. students and nonprofessional investors. Our results suggest that using M.B.A. students as a proxy for nonprofessional investors is a valid methodological choice, provided researchers give careful consideration to aligning a task's integrative complexity with the appropriate level of M.B.A. student. M.B.A. students who have completed their core M.B.A. courses and are enrolled in or have completed a financial statement analysis course are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors in tasks that are relatively low in integrative complexity. Though less definitive, the majority of our tests also suggest that these students are a good proxy for nonprofessional investors in tasks that are relatively high in integrative complexity. However, care must be taken when using students in the first-year core financial accounting course. In tasks that are relatively low in integrative complexity, these students perform similarly to nonprofessional investors except when they are asked to make an investment decision. In tasks that are relatively high in integrative complexity, these students acquire information similarly to nonprofessional investors, but they do not appear to integrate the information in a similar manner.

We exploit the change in U.S. segment reporting rules (from SFAS No. 14 to SFAS No. 131) to examine two motives for managers to conceal segment profits: proprietary costs and agency costs. Managers face proprietary costs of segment disclosure if the revelation of a segment that earns high abnormal profits attracts more competition and, hence, reduces the abnormal profits. Managers face agency costs of segment disclosure if the revelation of a segment that earns low abnormal profits reveals unresolved agency problems and, hence, leads to heightened external monitoring. By comparing a hand-collected sample of restated SFAS No. 131 segments with historical SFAS No. 14 segments, we examine at the segment level whether managers' disclosure decisions are influenced by their proprietary and agency cost motives to conceal segment profits. Specifically, we test two hypotheses: (1) when the proprietary cost motive dominates, managers tend to withhold the segments with relatively high abnormal profits (hereafter, the proprietary cost motive hypothesis), and (2) when the agency cost motive dominates, managers tend to withhold the segments with relatively low abnormal profits (hereafter, the agency cost motive hypothesis). Our results are consistent with the agency cost motive hypothesis, whereas we find mixed evidence with regard to the proprietary cost motive hypothesis.

Investment decisions frequently require coordination across multiple divisions of a firm. This paper explores a class of capital budgeting mechanisms in which the divisions issue reports regarding the anticipated profitability of proposed projects. To hold the divisions accountable for their reports, the central office ties the project acceptance decision to a system of cost allocations comprised of depreciation and capital charges. If the proposed project concerns a common asset that benefits multiple divisions, then our analysis derives a sharing rule for dividing the asset among the users. Capital charges are based on a hurdle rate determined by the divisional reports. We find that this hurdle rate deviates from the firm's cost of capital in a manner that depends crucially on whether the coordination problem is one of implementing a common asset or choosing among multiple competing projects. We also find that more severe divisional agency problems will increase the hurdle rate for common assets, yet this is generally not true for competing projects.

This study investigates three related questions: (1) Why did some firms provide private earnings guidance to analysts before Regulation Fair Disclosure? (2) How did the exogenous shock of Regulation Fair Disclosure affect these firms' disclosure policies? (3) What are the economic consequences of this disclosure regulation? To address these questions, I develop a new measure of private earnings guidance. Consistent with theory, I find that firms were more likely to provide private earnings guidance if they had higher proprietary information costs, and if their earnings were more predictive of other firms' earnings. Policymakers enacted Regulation Fair Disclosure to stop private earnings guidance, but they also intended for managers to replace private earnings guidance with public earnings guidance, thereby improving the information environment. However, I find that roughly half of the firms that I classify as relying more on private earnings guidance replace private earnings guidance with non-disclosure instead of public earnings guidance, and as a result, these firms suffer significant deterioration in their information environments. Consistent with theory, firms are more likely to replace private earnings guidance with nondisclosure if they have lower information asymmetry and higher proprietary information costs. On the other hand, firms that replace private earnings guidance with public earnings guidance, on average, prevent significant deterioration in their information environments. Evidence that firms respond to disclosure regulation as predicted by theory can help policymakers anticipate which firms' information environments are likely to be adversely affected by new disclosure regulations.

In recent years, many companies have emphasized adjusted-GAAP earnings numbers in their quarterly press releases. While managers use different names to describe these nonstandard earnings metrics, the financial press frequently refers to them as “pro forma” earnings. Managers and other advocates of pro forma reporting argue that these disclosures provide a clearer picture of companies' core earnings. On the other hand, regulators, policymakers, and the financial press often allege that managers' pro forma earnings disclosures are opportunistic attempts to mislead investors. Recent evidence suggests that while many pro forma earnings disclosures are altruistically motivated, some may represent managers' attempts to portray overly optimistic financial performance. If this is the case, then less wealthy, less sophisticated, individual investors are arguably the most at risk of being misled. Consequently, this study investigates who trades on pro forma earnings information. Our intraday investigation of transactions around earnings announcements containing pro forma earnings information reveals that less sophisticated investors' announcement-period abnormal trading is significantly positively associated with the magnitude and direction of the earnings surprise based on pro forma earnings. In contrast, we find no association between sophisticated investors' trading and manager-reported pro forma information. Overall, our analyses and numerous robustness tests suggest that the segment of the market that relies on pro forma earnings information is populated predominantly by less sophisticated individual investors. This evidence is particularly relevant to standard-setters and regulators given that Section 401(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and subsequent SEC regulations are specifically designed to protect ordinary investors from misleading pro forma information.

Prior studies propose four explanations for accounting conservatism, and recent studies classify conservatism into two forms: conditional and unconditional conservatism. This paper examines whether each proposed explanation applies to conditional conservatism, unconditional conservatism, or both. The findings are as follows: (1) contracting induces conditional conservatism; (2) litigation induces both forms; (3) regulation induces unconditional conservatism; and (4) taxation induces unconditional conservatism. These findings indicate that the two forms of conservatism play distinct roles in contracting, regulation, and taxation, as well as a common role in litigation. They also play an interrelated role, as suggested by the finding that unconditional conservatism reduces conditional conservatism. The combined evidence implies that because the two forms meet distinct needs but are negatively interrelated, it is necessary to trade them off.

We report experimental results for a simple bimatrix game between a manager and an auditor. We investigate whether the quality of audited financial statements improves if the relative proportion of perfectly honest auditors increases. We find that the quality of audited reports is higher if computerized auditors who always perform a high audit effort are present. This result is in direct contrast to the Nash prediction for our game. The Quantal Response Equilibrium, which explicitly takes into account boundedly rational behavior, supports our experimental data. Our main findings depend neither on framing nor the payoff matrix we use.