ABSTRACT: This study examines whether the market reacts more strongly to earnings forecast revisions when financial analysts supplement their earnings forecasts with sales forecasts. I find that earnings forecast revisions supplemented with sales forecast revisions have a greater impact on security prices than do stand-alone earnings forecast revisions, controlling for the incremental information content in sales forecasts. Supplemented earnings forecasts are more accurate ex post, controlling for other individual analyst characteristics. Results are robust to controlling for earnings persistence and time effects. Taken as a whole, financial analysts are more likely to supplement their earnings forecasts with sales forecasts when they have better information. Supplementary sales forecasts appear to lend credibility to earnings forecasts because financial analysts provide sales forecasts when they are more informed.

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation KEN McPHAIL, DIANE WALTERS, JAMES C. GAA; Accounting and Business Ethics: An Introduction. The Accounting Review 1 September 2010; 85 (5): 1817–1820. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.5.1817 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Accounting Review Search Advanced Search

ABSTRACT: We examine a communication game between an analyst and a decision-maker and investigate how the presence of public information affects the precision of the information the analyst gathers and communicates to the decision-maker. We characterize conditions under which public information causes the analyst to underinvest or overinvest in the information gathered relative to the case where analyst credibility is not an issue. We then discuss when the presence of public information causes the analyst to reduce the depth of coverage of the firm, suggesting that the introduction of public information can make the decision-maker strictly worse off.

ABSTRACT: We document the first systematic evidence on the characteristics and economic consequences of firms subject to employee allegations of corporate financial misdeeds. First, compared to a control group that avoided public whistle-blowing allegations, firms subject to whistle-blowing allegations were characterized by unique firm-specific factors that led employees to expose alleged financial misdeeds. Second, on average, whistle-blowing announcements were associated with a negative 2.8 percent market-adjusted five-day stock price reaction; this reaction was especially negative for allegations involving earnings management (−7.3 percent). Third, compared to a control group that exhibits similar characteristics, firms subject to whistle-blowing allegations were associated with further negative consequences including earnings restatements, shareholder lawsuits, and negative future operating and stock return performance. Finally, whistle-blowing targets exposed by the press were more likely to make subsequent improvements in corporate governance. Our results suggest whistle-blowing is far from a trivial nuisance for targeted firms, and on average, appears to be a useful mechanism for uncovering agency issues.

ABSTRACT: We develop a model to examine the effects of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes (FIN 48), on the strategic interaction between publicly traded corporate taxpayers and the government. Several of our findings contradict conjectures voiced by members of the business community regarding the economic effects of implementing FIN 48. Specifically, taxpayers with strong facts obtain higher expected payoffs from uncertain tax benefits and some disclosed liabilities understate the expected tax liability. Consistent with the common conjectures, however, some taxpayers are more likely to be audited or are deterred from entering into transactions that generate uncertain tax benefits because of FIN 48.

ABSTRACT: This study reports the result of an experiment examining two aspects of the audit context that auditors likely do not suspect can influence audited account balances: the magnitude of an audit difference and the presence of a prior client concession. Negotiation theory shows that negotiators’ initial positions (e.g., clients’ unaudited balances) as well as feelings of reciprocity created by prior negotiations serve to create expectations for the current negotiation and, in turn, affect the outcomes of such negotiations. Our results show that the magnitude of an audit difference involving an estimate (i.e., difference between client’s account balance and the auditor’s independent estimate) as well as the presence of a prior client concession influence auditors’ negotiation expectations. Specifically, auditors proposed smaller adjustments when the magnitude of the audit difference was high and when the client conceded on an audit issue prior to resolving the difference in estimates. These manipulations similarly influence the negotiated outcome, and this influence is fully mediated by the auditor’s initial negotiation position.

ABSTRACT: In a setting in which corporate headquarters dictates total sales targets, we study how supervisors allocate sales targets to individual stores. Specifically, we analyze whether supervisors strategically use discretion in the target-setting process to address compensation contracting issues. We first examine whether supervisors use discretion to manage compensation risk. The results are consistent with the agency-theoretic prediction that supervisors provide easier targets to stores facing higher levels of store-specific risk. Next, we examine whether discretion is used to mitigate fairness concerns. The results suggest that, consistent with behavioral arguments, supervisors use discretion to deal with fairness issues, even if the area of the supervisor’s discretion is not the source of the fairness concerns. Finally, we analyze whether supervisors use discretion in the target-setting process to reduce their potential confrontation costs. Consistent with research in psychology, we find that supervisors provide easier targets to store managers with relatively higher hierarchical status.