Knowledge that Transforms

Tax enforcement deters noncompliance, increasing tax revenue, but may also discourage taxpayer investment in activities that policymakers aim to incentivize through tax credits and deductions. This paper investigates this investment-revenue trade-off through the lens of the research and development (R&D) tax credit, a federal tax incentive that is highly scrutinized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). My results suggest that expectations about IRS corporate tax scrutiny are negatively associated with both R&D tax credits and R&D investment, on average. I estimate each $1 of aggregate enforcement spending is associated with a reduction in R&D tax credits of $2.64. In terms of elasticities, a 1 % increase in my estimate of IRS corporate tax scrutiny is associated with a decline in R&D tax credits and R&D investment of 0.4 % and 0.2 %, respectively. A survey of 116 managers further supports that the risk of IRS scrutiny affects both R&D tax credit take-up and R&D investment decisions. Moreover, both the survey responses and archival evidence underscore the importance of internal information quality in claiming R&D tax credits, suggesting tax policy simplification as a means to address enforcement-related declines in R&D investment.

We examine the effect of fair value standards on firms' litigation risk. The discretion required by fair value allows plaintiffs to “second guess” managers' judgments, potentially increasing litigation risk. Alternatively, the complexity of fair value may decrease litigation risk if it's more difficult to demonstrate scienter. Our evidence suggests firms that rely more on fair value standards are relatively less likely to be sued. We find no evidence of a relation between fair value and the risk of misstatements or fraud, but do find evidence of a slight increase in firms' litigation risk via an increase in volatility. However, the primary effect of fair value standards in reducing litigation risk dominates the volatility effect. Finally, we find average litigation rates increase after the passage of new standards, but less so for fair value standards. On balance, our evidence suggests fair value is a relatively low litigation risk area in GAAP.

We examine the effect of disclosure requirements on managers' stock repurchase decisions. In 2003, the SEC amended Rule 10b-18, significantly increasing the disclosure requirements for and transparency of stock repurchases for all issuers. While stock repurchases are often used by firms to efficiently return capital to shareholders, they can also be used opportunistically to increase earnings per share. We find that the 2003 SEC amendment enables investors to detect and discount opportunistic repurchases, curtails the extent to which firms use opportunistic repurchases, and reduces or eliminates the negative real effects stemming from opportunistic repurchases (reduced employment, reduced capital expenditures, and reduced R&D expenditures). Our evidence suggests that disclosures aimed at increasing the transparency of firms’ activities can significantly reduce the extent to which firms use these activities opportunistically to manage earnings, thereby reducing the accompanying real consequences of opportunistic behavior.

This study investigates how CEOs' experience of natural disasters and severe disease outbreaks in their formative years influences their firms' responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. We observe that firms whose CEOs experienced disease outbreaks akin to COVID-19 early in their lives demonstrated more conservative responses to the emergence of the COVID-19 in late February 2020, notably through a substantial slowdown in capital expenditure growth. Moreover, firms led by CEOs with early-life disease experience exhibit a more negative tone in their corporate disclosures and heightened pessimism in their earnings forecasts following the COVID-19 outbreak. These effects are more pronounced for firms in industries that were hit hard by the pandemic. Our findings suggest that severe events early in life leave indelible imprints on memory, thereby impacting CEOs’ decision-making when managing similar crises in their professional careers.

We study whether federal judges’ personal exposure to financial fraud affects their professional behavior, in the form of sentencing outcomes in white‐collar cases. Following the methodology outlined in our registered report, we construct a novel measure of financial fraud exposure based on judges’ direct shareholdings in firms that commit financial fraud. Using this measure, we exploit the random assignment of cases to judges to examine whether judges exposed to fraud in one firm are (1) less likely to rule in favor of defendants in white‐collar cases involving other firms and (2) less likely to grant favorable pretrial motions to defendants. We find minimal evidence in support of either (1) or (2), concluding that for all but the most serious frauds, judges are unlikely to let their personal victimhood experience affect their professional sentencing behavior with respect to related cases. Our study broadens our understanding of the spillover effects of financial fraud enforcement and contributes to the literature on how judges’ personal experiences can shape judicial decision‐making.

We study the impact of social connections between judges and executives on the outcomes of Securities Class Action Litigation (SCAL). Judges who are socially connected to a firm's executives are significantly more likely to dismiss lawsuits against the firm. There is also evidence of faster resolution and lower payout amounts in connected cases. The favorable outcomes cannot be explained by the lower severity of connected cases, or by court, judge, or firm characteristics. Our results are more pronounced when executives connected to the judge are named defendants in the lawsuits, when connected cases involve less visible lawsuits or firms, and when connections between judges and executives are likely more direct. Our evidence indicates that social connections influence judge impartiality and meaningfully alter SCAL outcomes.

This study examines whether the efficiency of federal district courts affects the likelihood of SEC enforcement. The results indicate that the SEC is less likely to initiate enforcement actions against firms in less efficient federal district courts. In addition, the study examines the implications of court efficiency for firms’ financial reporting quality (FRQ). The evidence suggests that firms residing in more efficient federal districts have higher FRQ and the effect is stronger in subsamples with weak private enforcement regimes. Additional analysis of the choice of venue suggests that the SEC's decision to file in the District Court for D.C. is not affected by local court efficiency. Collectively, this study highlights the importance of an efficient federal judicial system for public enforcement.

Auditors frequently outsource audit work to offshore Shared Service Centers (SSCs) to reduce costs and ease the workload burdens of audit team members. However, concerns persist about whether these benefits come at the expense of audit quality. Using proprietary audit engagement‐level data, I evaluate whether greater SSC usage by Big 4 audit teams has an association with either, or both, audit quality and audit costs. I find that SSC usage is nearly universal in Big 4 audits, with the percentage of audit hours SSCs perform increasing in recent years. Consistent with the audit firm's objectives, evidence suggests that SSC usage is associated with fewer audit hours and lower audit fees. Importantly, I find no evidence that SSC usage is associated with lower audit quality. Overall, results suggest that SSCs have the intended effect of reducing audit costs without sacrificing audit quality.

This paper investigates how U.S. private firms communicate with investors around private securities offerings. Using multiple research methods including survey, interview, and archival analysis, I provide systematic evidence on private firms' public and private disclosure practices. I find that despite engaging in a low level of public disclosures, private firms actively communicate with investors through private communication channels, with notable variation across firms in terms of content and frequency. Consistent with managers providing relevant information, financial information is disclosed when it is particularly useful for investors' decision‐making. Furthermore, I explore the relation between private communication and public disclosure preferences and find a substitutive effect, suggesting that private firms may strategically manage communication channels to effectively engage with investors. This study contributes to the literature by describing the existing disclosure landscape of private firms.

We introduce the idea of cross‐regulatory disclosure avoidance, whereby firms attempt to counteract expansions of disclosure under one regulation through actions that reduce disclosure under a different one. We study whether firms redact information from material contracts when they face new rules to disclose segment information. Using SFAS No. 131 as a plausibly exogenous shock to segment disclosure, we find that firms increasing the number of reported segments after the rule change exhibit a greater increase in redaction than firms maintaining the same number of segments. Consistent with proprietary cost motives, the increases are concentrated among firms with greater divergence in profitability across segments, higher abnormal segment profitability, and more negative abnormal stock returns in response to the finalization of the rule. Also, treated firms that redact after the rule change have abnormally profitable segments that they previously did not disclose. Firms that observables predict would increase redaction but did not experience declines in sales growth and profit margin. We find no evidence that agency cost motives drive the increases in redaction or, more generally, nondisclosure of segment performance before SFAS No. 131.