Knowledge that Transforms

Research suggesting the existence of the accrual anomaly runs into the issue that risk serves as a competing explanation for abnormal returns. This paper proposes a novel approach to distinguish between risk and anomaly explanations for the negative association between accruals and returns. The intuition is that high-risk stocks should experience relatively high and low returns more often than low-risk stocks. Thus, a variable that has the opposite correlations with high returns than with low returns is unlikely to capture risk, which points toward an anomaly. The paper implements this perspective via two logistic regressions predicting relatively high and low returns. Controlling for standard risk measures, we document that low accruals increase the probability of large positive returns, but reduce the likelihood of large negative returns. This finding is inconsistent with the prediction that accruals reflect risk and supports the hypothesis that the accrual “anomaly” is indeed an anomaly.

Considerable recent audit regulation, both proposed and mandated, and accounting research has focused on auditor independence threats arising over long auditor tenure. Psychology research, however, suggests independence threats also likely arise when auditor tenure is short because auditors can quickly develop a strong client identity, raising questions about the effectiveness of mandatory audit partner or firm rotation to address independence concerns. Relying on Social Identity Theory, I examine mechanisms for promoting auditor independence that can be implemented regardless of auditor tenure or rotation. I conduct two experiments in a setting with no prior auditor-client history. As predicted, auditors who identify more strongly with their clients, by sharing their values, agree more with the client's preferred accounting treatment, unless the salience or arousal of their professional identity is heightened. Further, as predicted, heightening professional identity salience increases professional skepticism. My results provide an improved understanding of the joint effects of identity strength and salience on auditor judgments and suggest a cost-effective alternative to auditor rotation to maintain auditor independence, even when auditor tenure is short.

This study examines the relationship between accounting credibility and firms' ability to fund their investments. Theory suggests that credible reporting resulting from external audits enables firms to attract external funds needed for their investments. The tests exploit monetary policy tightening that creates a liquidity shortage for banks, which, in turn, either requires banks to raise additional funds to restore liquidity or forces them to restrict their investments in the form of lending. Studying small non-public banks for which external audits are voluntary, I find that audited banks can better access funds during periods of monetary tightening than unaudited banks. As such, adverse liquidity shocks impede the lending of audited banks less. Overall, these findings present new evidence on how accounting credibility affects firms' ability to invest. Data Availability: The data are available from the sources indicated in the text.

Using a comprehensive dataset of international cross-listings spanning 34 (50) home (target) countries, we examine whether mandatory IFRS adoption facilitates firms' cross-listing activities. Our results using difference-in-differences analyses show that firms that mandatorily adopt IFRS exhibit significantly higher cross-listing propensity and intensity following IFRS adoption. We also find that firms from mandatory IFRS adoption countries are more likely to cross-list their securities in countries also mandating IFRS and countries with larger and more liquid capital markets. We further find that IFRS adoption has a greater effect on mandatory IFRS adopters from countries with larger accounting differences from IFRS, lower disclosure requirements, and less access to external capital prior to IFRS adoption. Our findings are consistent with the notion that mandatory IFRS adoption facilitates firms' cross-listing activities and highlight the importance of considering the change in cross-listings when examining the capital market consequences of mandatory IFRS adoption.

Using a large sample of U.S. firms spanning the period 2000–2010, we document a strong positive association between the sensitivity of CEO compensation portfolio to stock return volatility (vega) and audit fees. We also show that the positive association between vega and audit fees is weaker in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) period. In supplementary tests, we show that the relation between vega and audit fees is stronger for firms with older CEOs and in firms where the CEO is also chairman of the board. Collectively, our results suggest that audit firms incorporate executive risk-taking incentives in the fees they charge for their services.

We examine a life-cycle cost concept that applies to both manufacturing and service industries in which upfront capacity investments are essential. Borrowing from the energy literature, we refer to this cost measure as the Levelized Product Cost (LC). Per unit of output, the levelized cost aggregates a share of the initial capacity investment with periodic fixed and variable operating costs. We relate this cost measure to the notion of full cost, as commonly calculated in managerial accounting texts. Our analysis identifies conditions under which the LC can be interpreted as the long-run marginal product cost. In particular, the LC is the relevant unit cost that firms should impute for investments in productive capacity.

Although lower-level auditors increasingly carry out mandatory analytical procedures (APs) in audits, they do not perform as well as partners and managers. In order to improve performance in APs by lower-level auditors, we investigated tasks requiring creativity, where training in metacognition—consciously thinking about one's thought process—improves task performance. As a result, we train lower-level auditors to use a sequential thought process comprised of two metacognitive skills: divergent thinking, where they generate explanations for unusual evidence, followed by convergent thinking, where they evaluate explanations generated and eliminate those judged infeasible. To test the efficacy of our training, we conducted an experiment with three conditions: both divergent and convergent thinking, divergent thinking only, and a control. We found that training auditors in only divergent thinking increases both the number and quality of explanations generated for an unusual situation. However, the combination of divergent and convergent thinking training leads to improved explanation generation over divergent thinking alone and, more importantly, leads to a greater likelihood of generating and choosing the correct explanation.

This paper examines whether financial statement information can predict future realized equity volatility incremental to market-based equity volatility forecasts. I use an analytical framework to identify accounting-based drivers of realized volatility. My main hypothesis is that accounting-based drivers can be used to forecast future realized volatility incremental to either past realized volatility or option-implied volatility. I confirm this empirically and document abnormal returns to an option-based trading strategy that takes a long (short) position in firms with financial statement information indicative of high (low) future realized volatility. These results suggest that accounting-based volatility drivers may serve as useful indicators of variance risk. Finally, I demonstrate that the incorporation of accounting-based fundamental information into forecasting models yields lower forecast errors relative to models based solely on past realized volatility.

We examine contagion in earnings management using 2,376 restatements announced during the years 1997–2008. Controlling for industry and firm characteristics, firms are more likely to begin managing earnings after the public announcement of a restatement by another firm in their industry or neighborhood. Such contagion is absent when the restating firm is disciplined by the SEC or class action lawsuits, suggesting deterrent effects of enforcement activity. Contagion among peers is observed (1) in the same account as the one restated by the target firm, or (2) when larger target firms restate or the restatement is prominently disclosed, or (3) when the target firm's restatement is less severe. Contagion stops during the years 2003–2005, possibly due to the enforcement associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), but reappears during 2006–2008, perhaps because the sting associated with SOX has worn off. In sum, peers' actions appear to affect a firm's earnings management decisions.

This paper examines shareholder wealth effects in U.S. and home-country markets relating to the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) decision to eliminate the Form 20-F reconciliation. During the period of examined events, we find positive cumulative abnormal returns for the treatment sample of U.S. cross-listed firms that prepare financial statements under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), but no such effects for our control sample comprising cross-listed non-IFRS, U.S. domestic, or home-country firms. We find the stock market impact for our treatment sample to be positively related to our proxy for cost savings and negatively related to the pre-adoption reconciliation magnitude from IFRS to U.S. GAAP. This suggests shareholders place some value on reconciliation information, but the costs of preparing and auditing reconciliations generally outweigh concern about information loss. Moreover, we find that information loss is less pronounced for firms having used IFRS for a longer period, suggesting the learning effect mitigates information loss. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from sources identified in the article.