We find that bidders are more likely to hold conference calls at merger announcements when the mergers are financed with stock and when the transactions are large. After controlling for endogeneity, we also find that conference calls are associated with more favorable market reactions to merger announcements. A content analysis of merger-related information releases for a limited subsample indicates that the more favorable reaction is related to the fact that, compared to press releases, conference calls provide a greater volume of information and place greater emphasis on forward-looking details. We find no evidence that the superior announcement returns associated with conference calls subsequently reverse or that conference calls are positively associated with pre-merger announcement abnormal accruals. Overall, the results suggest that managers use conference calls around merger announcements to credibly convey favorable private information to the market.

As an alternative way to shed light on the debate over whether accruals quality is a priced risk factor, we examine the effect of seasonality on the pricing of the modified Dechow and Dichev (2002) accruals quality measure (AQ). We find that (1) high AQ stocks outperform low AQ stocks only in January; (2) during the rest of the calendar year, high AQ firms underperform low AQ firms such that there is no AQ premium on an annual basis; (3) about half of the January AQ premium occurs during the first five trading days of January; (4) a January AQ premium is observed in almost every year of our sample period; and (5) the January AQ premium reflects, at least partly, the stock price effects of tax loss selling around the turn of the year. Taken together, these findings are difficult to reconcile with a risk interpretation of accruals quality.

We examine how subjective performance evaluations are influenced by the level and controllability of an accompanying measure of a separate performance dimension. In our experiment, supervisors evaluate the office administration performance of a hypothetical subordinate. We find that supervisors' subjective evaluations are directionally influenced by an accompanying objective measure of sales performance, even after excluding participants who perceive informativeness across measures. Consistent with concerns for fairness and motivation, we also find an asymmetric uncontrollability effect—supervisors' evaluations are higher when an uncontrollable factor decreases the subordinate's sales (i.e., they compensate for bad luck), but are not lower when the uncontrollable factor increases the subordinate's sales (i.e., they do not punish for good luck). This evidence suggests that supervisors use discretion provided to evaluate performance on one task to adjust for perceived deficiencies in the evaluation of performance on other tasks. Our study integrates theories of cognitive bias and motivation, highlighting the need to consider the potentially interactive effects of different performance measures in multi-task settings.