We empirically examine standard agency predictions about how performance measures are optimally weighted to provide CEO incentives. Consistent with prior empirical research, we document that the relative weight on price and non-price performance measures in CEO cash pay is a decreasing function of the relative variances. Agency theory speaks to the weights in total compensation (annual total pay and changes in the CEO's equity portfolio value), however, and we document that very little of CEOs' total incentives come from cash pay. We also document that variation in the relative weight on price and non-price performance measures in CEO total compensation is an increasing function of the relative variances. The conflicting results using total compensation indicate that existing findings on cash pay cannot be interpreted as evidence supporting standard agency predictions. Based on our results, we suggest approaches for future research on performance measure use in CEO total compensation.

An event study demonstrates that disclosures of changes in deferred tax valuation allowances (VA) provide information beyond contemporaneous earnings reports. Prior research shows that, in setting VA, managers consider the extent that taxable income is available from various sources for the realization of deferred tax assets (DTA). Our evidence supports a characterization where investors use VA disclosures to infer management's expectations about DTA, its realizability, and future taxable income available for realization. These findings are more generally relevant for assessing the consequences of reporting standards that require or permit management judgment, especially about future outcomes. In particular, they support the view that discretion can be a vehicle for management to communicate expectations to the benefit of investors.

The concept of materiality provides a basis for auditors to ignore small misstatements, but the definition of “small” in this context is ambiguous. The issue of “materiality-standard-setting” has been raised recently by Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We examine how materiality uncertainty affects the auditor's evaluation of audit evidence and a manager's choice of earnings overstatement in a strategic auditing model where earnings misstatements also include unintentional system error. We find that when the expected cost of accepting financial statements that are materially misstated, which we refer to as an audit failure, is relatively large, an increase in materiality uncertainty results in a more conservative auditor evaluation of the audit evidence and a decrease in the amount of intentional overstatement. Alternatively, if the auditor's expected cost of extending audit procedures is relatively high, then an increase in materiality uncertainty results in a less conservative auditor evaluation of the audit evidence and an increase in the manager's earnings overstatement. The auditor also becomes increasingly conservative as the report increases when the information system is sufficiently noisy. Finally, when the expected cost of audit failure is large, the equilibrium audit risk can increase or decrease in materiality uncertainty despite the corresponding increase in auditor conservatism and decrease in intentional overstatement. Audit risk is the average probability of audit failure across all possible evidence outcomes.

The accuracy of sell-side analysts' forecast revisions is related to a number of factors, including characteristics of the analyst and the age of the forecast. In this study we examine whether there are differences in how sophisticated and unsophisticated investors use these factors to predict the relative accuracy of forecast revisions. We adapt the lens model methodological approach from the judgment and decision-making literature to investigate these differences in an archival setting. Our results suggest that sophisticated investors have greater knowledge overall about the relation of the factors to forecast accuracy. Further, our evidence is consistent with sophisticated investors relying more on the specific factors that provide the most benefits (relative to their costs) for predicting relative forecast accuracy.

This study examines the role of auditor industry expertise in the pricing of Big 5 audits in Australia. We test if the audit market prices an auditor's firm-wide industry expertise, or alternatively if the audit market only prices office-level expertise in those specific cities where the auditor is the industry leader. We document that there is an average premium of 24 percent associated with industry expertise when the auditor is both the city-specific industry leader and one of the top two firms nationally in the industry. However, the top two firms nationally do not earn a premium in cities where they are not city leaders. We further document that national leadership rankings are, in fact, driven by the specific offices where accounting firms are city leaders. Thus, the overall evidence supports that the market perception and pricing of industry expertise in Australia is primarily based on office-level industry leadership in city-specific audit markets.

On October 23, 2000, the SEC implemented Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), which prohibits firms from privately disclosing value-relevant information to select securities markets professionals without simultaneously disclosing the same information to the public. We examine whether Regulation FD's prohibition of selective disclosure impairs the flow of financial information to the capital markets prior to earnings announcements. After implementation of FD, we find (1) improved informational efficiency of stock prices prior to earnings announcements, as evidenced by smaller deviations between pre-and post-announcement stock prices; (2) no reliable evidence of change in analysts' earnings forecast errors or dispersion; and (3) a substantial increase in the volume of firms' voluntary, forward-looking, earnings-related disclosures. Overall, we find no evidence Regulation FD impaired the information available to investors prior to earnings announcements, and some of our evidence is consistent with improvement.