Despite private access to managers, issuer-paid credit rating agencies (CRAs) are often criticized for failing to promptly reflect material negative private information in their ratings and being ineffective corporate watchdogs. We utilize a novel dataset of private SEC investigations to examine the timeliness and informativeness of CRAs’ rating adjustments in response to material negative private information. Our evidence suggests that CRAs adjust ratings downward within a quarter following the opening of an SEC investigation. Moreover, these adjustments are over three times larger for those investigations that ultimately yield an enforcement action than for those that do not, suggesting that CRAs quickly form sophisticated expectations about the materiality of the private information. Additionally, rating downgrades during the investigations are more informative to the stock market than other rating downgrades. Overall, our evidence suggests that CRAs reduce information asymmetry in the capital markets by timely incorporating material private information in their ratings. Data Availability: All data are available from the sources cited in the text.

Evidence reveals that managers exercise discretion over budget estimates, but little is known about whether revenues or expenses are more susceptible to budget discretion. Drawing upon regulatory focus theory, we predict a pattern of budget discretion that has not previously been identified. To test our theory, we conduct a series of experiments where managers face a goal to either minimize the performance metric to avoid missing the target (minimal budget goal) or maximize the performance metric to achieve a desired outcome (maximal budget goal). When managers face a minimal budget goal, they are more likely to make self-interested budget estimates for uncertain expenses than monetarily equivalent uncertain revenues. Conversely, when managers face a maximal budget goal, they are more likely to make self-interested budget estimates for uncertain revenues than monetarily equivalent uncertain expenses. Thus, managers prefer acts of inclusion over acts of exclusion when pursuing their budget goals.

We examine whether auditor scrutiny over the allowance for loan losses (ALL) is associated with bank lending decisions. Using PCAOB inspection findings over the ALL to capture increases in auditor scrutiny, we find that auditor scrutiny is associated with a larger ALL for homogeneous loans (i.e., residential mortgages and consumer loans) but not for heterogeneous loans (i.e., commercial real estate; commercial and industrial loans). We next find that auditor scrutiny is associated with a shift in lending away from homogeneous loans, consistent with auditor scrutiny reducing the relative attractiveness of homogeneous loans. These findings suggest that policymakers and audit regulators can indirectly affect bank lending by exercising their authority in ways that affect auditor scrutiny. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from the sources discussed in the paper.