Tax aggressiveness presents nontax risks to firms’ cash flow. Evaluating these risks requires information beyond the accounting function’s expertise, resulting in high processing costs to acquire and integrate risk information relevant to tax strategies. Managers can rationally adapt by making assumptions about risk information, potentially resulting in decision biases when evaluating the risk-reward tradeoff of tax aggressiveness. Using a novel regulatory setting in the U.S. insurance industry, I examine whether the adoption of mandated enterprise risk assessments updates managers’ prior beliefs about the nontax risks of tax aggressiveness. I find that as regulation requires managers to accept processing costs to acquire and integrate risk information, managers learn about previously underestimated nontax risks and significantly reduce tax aggressiveness. Results suggest that absent firm-wide internal risk information, managers can use aggressive tax positions without fully considering nontax risks. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified in the paper

We exploit a regulatory change to examine whether bank regulator strictness is affected when regulators no longer rely on external assurance. In the absence of external assurance, we find that banks report higher nonaccrual loans, higher troubled debt restructurings, and both a timelier loan loss provision and higher quality allowance for loan loss reserve. Further, regulators spend more days performing targeted bank examinations for banks affected by the regulatory change. We do not find evidence of operational deterioration, but rather the findings are consistent with increased regulator strictness over the reporting of problem assets, particularly during targeted examinations. Overall, our results suggest that regulators become stricter when they can no longer rely on the work of external auditors and that third-party assurance is an imperfect substitute for direct regulatory monitoring. Data Availability: Bank regulatory rating and examination dates are confidential and were obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. All other data are available from the public sources cited in the text

Uniformity is an essential feature of financial reporting, yet its desirability has long been debated. We study a model in which firms decide whether to adopt either their locally preferred accounting methods or a common method, followed by an investor allocating capital across firms. Firms’ choices of a common method are strategic complements in attaining more comparable reports. As a result, multiple equilibria may exist. Specifically, an equilibrium in which firms use their local methods always exists. However, an equilibrium in which firms adopt a common method exists if uniformity improves comparability significantly and firm-specific productivity shocks are large relative to the common productivity shock. Firms may fail to coordinate on adopting the Pareto-dominant accounting method, which may not even emerge as an equilibrium if investments exhibit substitutability. These coordination problems provide accounting regulation an opportunity to facilitate efficient capital allocation, thus providing a microfoundation for accounting measurement regulation

We argue that contracting with the federal government involves significant proprietary information cost due to regulations requiring contractors to provide proprietary information, which may become available to outsiders via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. We provide evidence by showing that firms become more willing to bid for government contracts after a recent Supreme Court ruling on FOIA (Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media) that improved information protection for contractors and that this effect strengthens when the contracts entail higher proprietary information cost for contractors. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text

Although the increase in non-GAAP earnings metrics has drawn unfavorable attention from regulators and standard setters, it can provide valuable experience for investors. We investigate whether experience with non-GAAP earnings metrics influences investors’ pricing of non-GAAP exclusions. We measure experience as the frequency with which managers or analysts provide non-GAAP earnings over the prior eight quarters and find that experience aids in the pricing of non-GAAP exclusions. Absent prior experience with non-GAAP earnings metrics, investors appear to overestimate the persistence of exclusions at the earnings announcement, which corrects in the following months. Cross-sectional tests suggest that experience facilitates investors’ pricing of non-GAAP exclusions by reducing their information processing costs

Using the staggered adoption of takeover laws, this study examines implications of takeover threats on earnings management around the world. I find that the enactment of takeover legislation leads to increased earnings management (abnormally high accruals, target beating, and poor accruals quality). Results are driven by underperforming managers with higher turnover risk in countries with high increases in turnover sensitivity to performance, indicating job security concerns as the channel through which takeover laws increase earnings management. Furthermore, results are strongest in countries with weak investor protection, where existing governance mechanisms are weaker and earnings management is more prevalent. Moreover, regulation provisions that most directly increase takeover threats experience greater earnings management responses. Additionally, I show that accounting restatements and fraud scandals become more frequent following takeover legislation. Overall, I provide evidence that takeover reforms, although enhancing discipline of underperforming managers, inadvertently incentivize accounting manipulation due to heightened job security concerns

Regulators and researchers express concern about auditors who leave their firms for employment at their clients, due to lingering relationships which might represent a threat to audit quality. These relationships could negatively impact audit quality through undue influences of the client personnel on auditor judgment. We examine how these relationships influence novice auditors during evidence collection. Understanding the effects of alumni affiliation on evidence collection is important because undiscovered issues at this phase may go unaddressed, potentially hurting audit quality. Contrary to most research findings, we find that alumni affiliation can benefit the audit by increasing auditors’ evidence collection. However, we also find, when auditors become depleted, the benefits of alumni affiliation actually reverse, as auditors overrely on the relationship, leading them to prematurely cease evidence collection. These findings have implications for both practitioners and researchers. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request

We provide the first evidence after Regulation G on firms’ non-GAAP EPS denominator choices and whether they are informative or opportunistic. From 2013 to 2019, 17 percent of annual non-GAAP EPS numbers use denominators different from that of GAAP diluted EPS, which makes denominator adjustments among the most prevalent individual types of non-GAAP adjustments. For firms reporting GAAP and non-GAAP profits or GAAP losses and non-GAAP profits, we provide evidence consistent with denominator adjustments increasing non-GAAP EPS informativeness. Our evidence also suggests that opportunism in denominator choices is concentrated in firms reporting GAAP losses and non-GAAP profits and failing to adjust the denominator. Such nonadjustment is inconsistent with SEC requirements to report non-GAAP EPS “on a diluted basis” because the EPS denominator for a GAAP loss excludes dilutive claims. Although the SEC largely overlooks such firms, they are more likely, on average, to report non-GAAP EPS that analysts consider inflated

SPACs are formed to combine with and provide a private firm public trading status and a capital infusion. Firms that enter the public market through a SPAC combination are believed to possess greater voluntary disclosure discretion than traditional IPOs as they obtain their public trading status through a merger. Consistent with regulators’ concerns, recent research finds that SPACs use this discretion opportunistically by issuing optimistic guidance. This study examines how investors respond to these disclosures. We find that optimistic projections increase retail purchasing, which is higher than that of institutional purchasing. Additionally, we find that investors partially see through the optimism and exit at the redemption date. Furthermore, we find that institutional investors increasingly divest their holdings for combinations with optimistic projections. Investors as a whole, however, fail to see through the optimism, as combinations with optimistic projections considerably underperform in the two years following the combination. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from the sources identified in the text