Using experiments with 58 corporate managers and 215 auditors, we examine whether managers attempt to reduce the perceived intentionality of their fraudulent misstatements by perpetrating fraud via omission, as opposed to a more active form of commission, and how auditors evaluate the resulting misstatements. We find that managers choose to omit a transaction from the financial statements rather than record a transaction inappropriately. They also choose to omit critical information from supporting documents rather than provide misleading information. However, auditors generally believe misstatements involving omissions are unintentional. Specifically, we find auditors are less skeptical of an omitted transaction compared to a misrecorded transaction. They are also less skeptical of a misstatement that results from management omitting information from a supporting document compared to misrepresenting information. Overall, our studies identify a method of fraud—omission—that managers are likely to use, but that auditors are unlikely to judge as being intentional.

This paper studies effects of the five-year net operating loss carryback enacted near the ends of the 2001 and 2007–2009 U.S. recessions—a policy that gave firms larger U.S. federal tax refunds as a fiscal stimulus measure. Following the end of the 2001 recession, I find that the policy had little effect on firm financial conditions, and I find that firms allocated $0.40 of every refund dollar to investment in that period. In contrast, the policy improved firm financial conditions following the 2007–2009 recession, reducing bankruptcy risk and the probability of future credit-rating downgrades. In this period, I find that firms initially used the refunds to increase cash holdings before paying down debt in the following year. These results highlight the importance of considering macroeconomic conditions when studying firm uses of tax-related cash flow and the related effects on firm financial health.

We investigate the joint effects of auditors' reporting choice and audit committee effectiveness on management disclosures about complex estimates. A new PCAOB standard requires auditors to report on Critical Audit Matters (CAMs): issues “communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee” about accounts or disclosures that (1) “are material to the financial statements,” and (2) “involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment” (PCAOB 2017a, 11). Consistent with investor arguments, we find that audit committee effectiveness and more detailed CAM reporting encourage managers' disclosures of the risk underlying complex estimates. When the auditor's report is more informative about a complex estimate and the audit committee is more effective, management's related financial disclosures are more forthcoming. However, less informative auditor disclosures or more effective audit committees alone do not prompt greater management disclosure. Thus, expanded auditor reporting and more effective audit committees, together, can enhance the disclosures investors value.

We study how home-market reporting requirements and listing choices associate with ongoing SEC disclosures by foreign firms and the investor response. The SEC defers material event and interim financial disclosure obligations to foreign firms' home-market regulator or exchange. We find that a growing number of foreign firms incorporate in disclosure havens and have few or no event-driven disclosure obligations. These firms furnish fewer 6-K disclosures, but experience greater investor interest and market response to each filing. There is little evidence that the SEC substitutes for lower information flow with additional monitoring. Our results indicate that the SEC's one-size-fits-all approach to foreign firm disclosure has led to increasing disparity in information flow, despite the strong demand for and reaction to disclosures by firms from weaker regimes.

Periodic demand forecasts are the primary planning and coordination mechanism within organizations. Because most demand forecasts incorporate human judgment, they are subject to both unintentional error and intentional opportunistic bias. We examine whether a disaggregation of the forecast into various sources of demand reduces forecast error and bias. Using proprietary data from a manufacturing organization, we find that absolute demand forecast error declines following the implementation of a disaggregated forecast system. We also find a favorable effect of forecast disaggregation on finished goods inventory without a corresponding increase in costly production plan changes. We further document a decline in positive forecast bias, except for products whose production is limited owing to scarce production resources. This implies that disaggregation alone is not sufficient to overcome heightened incentives of self-interested sales managers to positively bias the forecast for the very products that an organization would like to avoid tying up in inventory. Data Availability: Data are the property of the research partner and may not be redistributed by the authors.

Prior research finds that unrealized gains/losses on cash flow hedges are negatively associated with future earnings, and that investors and analysts fail to anticipate this association. These studies speculate that this mispricing is due to either poor derivatives disclosures or the accounting model for cash flow hedges. We examine whether enhanced mandatory derivatives disclosures set forth in FAS 161 improve users' understanding of firms' hedging activities and offer three main findings. First, we find that this mispricing does not persist after FAS 161. Second, we find that the correction of mispricing is greatest when disclosure might help investors most. Finally, we find that analyst forecast accuracy improves after FAS 161. Overall, our results suggest that the enhanced mandatory derivative disclosures required by FAS 161 improved users' understanding of the effects of derivative and hedging activities on future firm performance and firm value—and consequently mitigated investor mispricing.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that insurers spend a minimum amount of their premium revenue on policyholder benefits. The Act specifies enforcement via a combination of insurer self-reporting, government examinations, and payment of policyholder rebates in cases where insurers fail to meet the required spending amount. We find that insurers' reported estimates are consistently overstated in situations in which more accurate estimates would have triggered rebate payments; publicly traded insurers (particularly those exhibiting poor financial reporting quality) exhibit the strongest evidence of strategic over-estimating. In aggregate, we estimate that approximately 14 percent of insurers engage in strategic over-estimates, and that insurer over-estimates resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in underpaid policyholder rebates. Our study illustrates how a combination of regulatory design choices and lax oversight can weaken the effectiveness of accounting-based regulation and have substantial economic consequences.

Informed by Perceptual Deterrence Theory, we conduct multiple experiments to investigate when and how auditor actions can help deter manager opportunism. In Study 1A, we find that managers are less likely to use real earnings management (REM) when they expect auditors to both increase scrutiny and communicate their observations to the board. However, this effect occurs only when managers' operational decisions are inconsistent (versus consistent) with peer behavior. Study 1B findings suggest that increased auditor scrutiny alone (without auditor-board communication) is not likely to deter REM. In Study 2, we find that increased auditor scrutiny with communication to the board effectively deters both accruals-based earnings management (AEM) and REM, reducing the total level of manager opportunism. However, without communication, increased auditor scrutiny deters AEM, but also induces more REM. Our findings highlight the importance of auditor-board communication and demonstrate how auditor actions can contribute to the deterrence of manager opportunism. Data Availability: Contact the authors.

Although formal guidance instructs firms to avoid issuing lengthy and boilerplate risk factor disclosures, regulators and users of financial statements note these disclosures are excessively long and boilerplate. The persistence of these characteristics is surprising given that prior research finds that firms disclosing lengthy and boilerplate risk factors experience negative capital market consequences. We investigate two potential sources of firms' incentives to issue such disclosures by examining how judicial and regulatory assessments of firms' risk factor disclosures correlate with the disclosure length and boilerplate. Results suggest that lengthier and more boilerplate risk factor disclosures are less likely to be considered inadequate under judicial and regulatory review. Further analysis finds that when risk factor language is assessed as adequate in judicial review, industry peers borrow that language more frequently, and that judicial assessments of risk factor disclosures prompt industry peers to lengthen their risk factor disclosures.

We examine the effect of performance-based pay on misreporting intended to benefit a social mission. We show that performance-based pay decreases people's propensity to misreport for a social mission in a not-for-profit setting (Experiment 1). We similarly show that in a for-profit setting, performance-based pay also decreases misreporting propensity for a social mission, although not for a non-social mission (Experiment 2). Finally, using a framed field experiment with participants attending a conference hosted by a real charity, we show that performance-based pay reduces actual misreporting when misreporting leads to more donations for the charity (Experiment 3). These results are consistent with our theory suggesting that, relative to fixed pay, performance-based pay imposes additional costs on misreporting employees' self-concepts of benevolence and honesty.