This paper reports the results of an experiment designed to investigate how legal regimes affect social welfare. We investigate four legal regimes, each consisting of a liability rule (strict or negligence) and a damage measure (out-of-pocket or independent-of-investment). The results of the experiment are for the most part consistent with the qualitative predictions of Schwartz's (1997) model; however, subjects' actual choices deviate from the point predictions of the model. We explore whether these deviations arise because: (1) subjects form faulty anticipations of their counterparts' actions and/or (2) subjects do not choose the optimal responses given their anticipations. We find that subjects behave differently under the four regimes in terms of anticipation errors and departures from best responses. For example, subjects playing the role of auditors anticipate investments most accurately under the regime with strict liability combined with out-of-pocket damages, but are least likely to choose the optimal response given their anticipations. This finding implies that noneconomic factors likely play a role in determining subjects' choices.

This paper reports two experiments in which Big 5 audit managers estimate reported (audited) earnings conditional on analysts' consensus forecast, auditing standards, and auditor discovery of a quantitatively immaterial earnings overstatement. We find that auditors judge overstatement correction less likely if it would cause a missed forecast, even for objectively measured misstatements. This behavior is consistent with SEC Chairman Levitt's concerns about opportunistic corrections to manage earnings to forecasts. Also, SAS No. 89's mandated representations and communications do not increase corrections that would cause a missed forecast, indicating that the Auditing Standards Board has limited ability to reduce opportunistic corrections through such regulations.

Despite the common use of negotiations to set budgets in practice, accounting research has focused primarily on budgets set unilaterally by subordinates, while goal-setting research in management has focused primarily on budgets set unilaterally by superiors. In addition, budgeting research in accounting has focused almost exclusively on the planning aspects of budgets to the exclusion of their motivational aspects. This study complements prior research in two ways. First, the study examines how budgets and the economic consequences of the budget-setting process differ when budgets are set through a negotiation process vs. when set unilaterally. The study also considers factors associated with negotiation agreement and the relation between agreement and the economic consequences of negotiated budgets. Second, the economic consequences examined are budgetary slack and subordinate performance, allowing us to address the trade-offs between the planning and motivational aspects of budgets. Negotiated budgets differ from unilaterally set budgets in a manner consistent with social norms and/or information transfer occurring during negotiations. Both the budgets and the economic consequences of the budgetsetting process differ when budgets are set through a negotiation process where superiors have final authority in the event of a negotiation impasse vs. when set unilaterally by superiors. Further, negotiation agreement significantly affects the economic consequences of negotiated budgets. Budgets set through a negotiation process ending in agreement contain significantly less slack. A failed negotiation followed by superiors imposing a budget has a significant detrimental effect on subordinate performance.

This paper provides evidence that managers strategically select the prior-period earnings amount that is used as a benchmark to evaluate current-period earnings in quarterly earnings announcements. Managers are more likely to separately announce a prior-period gain from the sale of property, plant, and equipment (PPE) than a loss. This strategy provides the lowest possible benchmark for evaluating current earnings, thereby allowing the manager to highlight the most favorable change in earnings. This strategic disclosure behavior is more likely to occur when it prevents a negative earnings surprise. The observed strategic disclosure decisions are consistent with a conjecture by managers that the nonrecurring nature of the prior-period gain/loss will be forgotten unless it is separately announced. Consistent with this conjecture, there is some evidence that equity investors, one potential target of strategic reporting, use the benchmark that managers provide in earnings announcements to evaluate current earnings, even when the components of this benchmark have different persistence. However, cross-sectional analyses provide no evidence that managers ex post exploit the equity mispricing that occurs between the earnings announcement date and the release of the financial statements.