Changes in regulations governing capital markets always provide a rich setting for archival researchers to examine how such changes affect the behavior of market participants. Barniv et al. (2009; hereafter, BHMT) and Chen and Chen (2009; hereafter CC) examine the impacts of recently enacted regulations aimed at curbing perceived abused by sell-side analysts. There were no less than six significant regulations issued between 2000 and 2003 that affected the activities of analysts. BHMT and CC emphasize different regulations, but both predict that analysts' recommendation will be less biased as a result of the collective regulatory changes. The evidence in both studies is strong and convincing that the association between analysts' earnings forecasts and stock recommendations has changed, consistent with analysts' personal conflicts of interest having less impact on their analyses. However, the attribution of what regulation, if any, effected this change is less clear. Collectively, the similarities and differences in the studies provide a nice setting to understand how different authors approach the same research question

From 1994 to 1998, Bradshaw (2004) finds that analysts' stock recommendations relate negatively to residual income valuation estimates (scaled by current price) but positively to valuation heuristics based on the price-to-earnings-to-growth ratio and long-term growth. These results are surprising, especially considering that future returns relate positively to residual income valuation estimates and negatively to heuristics. Using a large sample of analysts for the 1993–2005 period, we consider whether recent regulatory reforms affect this apparent inconsistent analyst behavior. Consistent with the intent of these reforms, we find that the negative relation between analysts' stock recommendations and residual income valuations is diminishing following regulations. We also show that residual income valuations, developed using analysts' earnings forecasts, relate more positively with future returns. However, we document that stock recommendations continue to relate negatively with future returns. We conclude that recent regulations have affected analysts' outputs—forecasted earnings and stock recommendations—but investors should be aware that factors other than identifying mispriced stocks continue to influence how analysts recommend stocks

This study examines whether peer reviews conducted under the AICPA's self-regulatory model have been effective at signaling audit quality. Prior research has examined whether peer-review reports are associated with perceived audit quality. We examine whether peer-review reports are associated with actual audit quality. Using a unique data set obtained from the files of an insurance company, we find that peer-review findings are indeed useful in predicting audit failure (i.e., malpractice claims alleging auditor negligence), and that certain types of findings are particularly useful in this regard. We also find that peer-review findings are associated with other firm-specific indicators of potentially weak quality control or risky practices within accounting firms. Taken together, we interpret our findings to indicate that self-regulated peer review as mandated by the AICPA does provide effective signals regarding audit-firm quality

This research investigates how financial statement users' judgments and decisions are affected by the extent to which a firm's actual accounting choices match users' expectations. Based on prior communications research, I predict and find that users' credibility judgments are more extreme when a firm's actual accounting choices do not match expectations. Experiment 1 supports this prediction in a stock-based compensation context, and Experiment 2 supports it in an accounting estimate context. Further, evidence from Experiment 1 supports the prediction that credibility judgments mediate the effect of a mismatch on investment decisions. Finally, evidence from Experiment 2 partially supports the prediction that users who encounter a mismatch between actual and expected accounting choices are more likely to search for additional information than are users who encounter a match. The results have implications for accounting researchers, regulators, and managers interested in understanding how firms' accounting choices affect users' decisions

We examine the financial reporting practices of small privately held businesses that are not subject to SEC regulation. Specifically, we determine the factors associated with the production and use of financial statements for firms that have discretion in the preparation of financial statements and do not face the demands of public equity markets. In addition, for firms that prepare financial statements, we determine the factors associated with the sophistication of the financial statements in terms of whether the financials are compiled, reviewed, and/or audited by a professional accountant and whether the firm produces accrual-based financial statements. Finally, we examine the potential benefits afforded firms producing financial statements, having audited financial statements, and having accrual-based financial statements. We find that firms with audited financial statements benefit in the form of greater access to credit and that firms with accrual-based financial statements benefit in the form of a lower cost of credit