We examine the efficiency implications of a manager's financial reporting system choice and disclosure management. When a manager has some private information that is not captured by a firm's financial reporting system and may manipulate the financial report at some cost, we show that the manager may not choose the most precise financial reporting system. We examine how reporting system choice varies with the precision of the manager's private information captured by the reporting system, precision of information that is not captured by the reporting system, and the manager's cost of manipulating the report. We consider the effect of reporting discretion on the efficiency with which investors allocate resources.

From 1996 to 1998, listed companies in China were required to achieve a minimum return on equity (ROE) of 10 percent in each of the previous three years before they could apply for permission to issue additional shares. As a result of this rule, there was a heavy concentration of ROEs in the area just above 10 percent. We show that the Chinese regulators appear to have scrutinized firms using excess amounts of nonoperating income to reach the 10 percent hurdle. In addition, their ability to do so seems to have improved over time, which allows them to be better able to identify firms that subsequently performed better. However, many firms were still able to gain rights issue approval through excess nonoperating income. We show that these firms subsequently underperformed other approved firms that did not use the same practice, indicating that the Chinese regulators' objective of guiding capital resources toward the well-performing sectors is partially compromised by earnings management.

This paper compares two attributes of a deferred tax liability (DTL) that arise from differences in book and tax depreciation methods. The first attribute is the effect of the DTL on the market value of the firm. The second is the length of time between when the asset is placed into service and when the DTL associated with that asset begins to reverse. The paper shows that a decrease in the time it takes for the DTL to begin to reverse is neither necessary nor sufficient for the value of the DTL to increase. It also shows that the value of the DTL is not equal to the present value of the future deferred tax expense. The effect of one dollar of DTL on firm value depends only on the tax depreciation rate and the discount rate.

This study investigates the effect of shareholder capital gains taxes on the structure of corporate acquisitions. We analyze a sample of large publicly traded firms acquired in taxable cash-for-stock and tax-free stock-for-stock acquisitions from 1975 to 2000. We model acquisition structure (i.e., taxable cash-for-stock acquisitions versus tax-free stock-for-stock acquisitions) as a function of target shareholder capital gains taxes and other economic factors believed to influence acquisition structure. Consistent with expectations, we find a positive association between the capital gains tax rate for individual investors and the use of tax-free stock-for-stock acquisitions. In addition, we find that the effect of the capital gains tax rate for individuals decreases with target institutional ownership (a proxy that represents the likelihood the price-setting shareholder is not subject to the individual capital gains tax rate). We reconcile our analyses with previous studies and identify a plausible explanation for the lack of results in prior research. In supplemental analysis, we also report evidence that corporations “time” the completion of taxable acquisitions around major tax rate changes to minimize shareholder capital gains taxes. In sum, results suggest that shareholder-level taxes have a significant effect on the choice of taxable cash-for-stock versus tax-free stock-for-stock acquisitions, and this effect varies with the tax status of target shareholders.

This paper investigates auditors' assessments of earnings manipulation risk and corporate governance risk, and their planning and pricing decisions in the presence of these identified risks. To conduct this investigation, we use engagement partners' assessments of their existing clients made during the participating public accounting firm's client continuance risk assessment process. We find that auditors plan increased effort and billing rates for clients with earnings manipulation risk, and that the positive relationships between earnings manipulation risk and both effort and billing rates are greater for clients that also have heightened corporate governance risk. These findings provide evidence that auditors assess situations involving both an aggressive management and inadequate corporate governance, and that there is a relationship between those assessments and auditors' planning and pricing decisions.

Prior research has examined audit pricing for publicly held firms and provided some evidence of a Big 8 premium in pricing. We investigate audit pricing among private firms, and provide evidence that private firms do not pay such a premium on average. The relatively greater degree of dispersion in auditor choice (between Big 5 and non-Big 5 auditors) in our large sample of privately held audit clients allows us to predict the auditor choice for each firm and to control for potential self-selection. We reject the null hypothesis that clients are randomly allocated across Big 5 and non-Big 5 auditors. Using standard OLS regressions, we document a Big 5 premium; however this premium vanishes once we control for self-selection bias. Moreover, we find that client firms choosing Big 5 auditors generally would have faced higher fees had they chosen non-Big 5 auditors, given their firm-specific characteristics. Our results are consistent with audit markets for private firms being segmented along cost-effective lines. Further, our results suggest that auditees in our setting do not, on average, view Big 5 auditors as superior in terms of the perceived quality of the services provided to a degree significant enough to warrant a fee premium.

Due to recent technological advancements such as online workpapers and email, audit firms have alternative methods of workpaper review that they did not have in the past. While audit workpaper preparers typically know they will be reviewed, and know the form their review will take, prior research has focused on comparing the judgments of auditors who expect to be reviewed with auditors who expect to remain anonymous. This study examines the effects on preparers of using two different methods of review: face-to-face and electronic review. The study also compares both review groups to a no-review control group. Consistent with the Heuristic-Systematic Model, we find that the method of review affects preparer effectiveness and efficiency. Specifically, preparers anticipating a face-to-face review are more concerned with audit effectiveness, produce higher quality judgments, are less efficient at their task, are less likely to be influenced by prior year workpapers, and feel more accountable than preparers in both the electronic review and no-review conditions. Interestingly, electronic review preparers generally do not differ from the no-review group. These results suggest that how a review will be conducted, and not merely the expectation that a review will occur, affects the decision-maker's judgments and perceptions.