Knowledge that Transforms

We propose a method for constructing confidence intervals that account for many forms of spatial correlation. The interval has the familiar “estimator plus and minus a standard error times a critical value” form, but we propose new methods for constructing the standard error and the critical value. The standard error is constructed using population principal components from a given “worst‐case” spatial correlation model. The critical value is chosen to ensure coverage in a benchmark parametric model for the spatial correlations. The method is shown to control coverage in finite sample Gaussian settings in a restricted but nonparametric class of models and in large samples whenever the spatial correlation is weak, that is, with average pairwise correlations that vanish as the sample size gets large. We also provide results on the efficiency of the method.

The analysis of dynamic games hinges on assumptions about players' actions and beliefs at information sets that are not expected to be reached during game play. Under the standard notion of sequential rationality, these assumptions cannot be tested on the basis of observed, on‐path behavior. This paper introduces a novel optimality criterion, structural rationality , which addresses this concern. In any dynamic game, structural rationality implies weak sequential rationality (Reny (1992)). If players are structurally rational, assumptions about on‐path and off‐path beliefs concerning off‐path actions can be tested via suitable “side bets.” Structural rationality also provides a theoretical rationale for the use of a novel version of the strategy method (Selten (1967)) in experiments.

This essay describes the evolution and recent convergence of two methodological approaches to causal inference. The first one, in statistics, started with the analysis and design of randomized experiments. The second, in econometrics, focused on settings with economic agents making optimal choices. I argue that the local average treatment effects framework facilitated the recent convergence by making key assumptions transparent and intelligible to scholars in many fields. Looking ahead, I discuss recent developments in causal inference that combine the same transparency and relevance.

More than two decades ago, a well‐known study on heart attack treatments provided evidence suggesting that, when appropriately adjusted for quality, medical care prices were actually declining (Cutler, McClellan, Newhouse, and Remler (1998)). Our paper revisits this subject by leveraging estimates from more than 8000 cost‐effectiveness studies across a broad range of conditions and treatments. We find large quality‐adjusted price declines associated with treatment innovations. To incorporate these quality‐adjusted indexes into an aggregate measure of inflation, we combine an unadjusted medical‐care price index, quality‐adjusted price indexes from treatment innovations, and proxies for the diffusion rate of new technologies. In contrast to official statistics that suggest medical care prices increased by 0.53 percent per year relative to economy‐wide inflation from 2000 to 2017, we find that quality‐adjusted medical care prices declined by 1.33 percent per year over the same period.

We study a class of models of moral hazard in which a principal contracts with a counterparty, which may have its own internal organizational structure. The principal has non‐Bayesian uncertainty as to what actions might be taken in response to the contract, and wishes to maximize her worst‐case payoff. We identify conditions on the counterparty's possible responses to any given contract that imply that a linear contract solves this maxmin problem. In conjunction with a Richness property motivated by much previous literature, we identify a Responsiveness property that is sufficient—and, in an appropriate sense, also necessary—to ensure that linear contracts are optimal. We illustrate by contrasting several possible models of contracting in hierarchies. The analysis demonstrates how one can distill key features of contracting models that allow their findings to be carried beyond the bilateral setting.

We examine whether restricting managers' discretion through GAAP impacts the usefulness of accounting information in debt contracting. Our study informs standard setters and regulators regarding the debt contracting implications of limiting managers' discretion via accounting standards. We predict and find that under more restrictive standards, lenders make more non‐GAAP modifications to GAAP‐based performance measures, suggesting that restrictions of managers' discretion reduce the usefulness of accounting information. We perform two additional analyses to enhance identification. First, in line‐item‐level analysis, we document a positive relation between the exclusion of specific nonrecurring items from contractual definitions of earnings and the number of restrictions in the GAAP standards that apply to each specific item each year. Second, using difference‐in‐differences tests around standard changes, we find that the propensity to exclude items varies positively with changes in the restrictiveness of related standards. Moreover, we predict and find that restrictive standards are also positively associated with loan spreads but significantly less so when lenders adjust GAAP numbers in loan contracts. Overall, this study improves our understanding of how attributes of accounting standards impact the usefulness of accounting information.

In this study, we examine auditors' claims of professional disempowerment and strategic responses to Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) inspections. Our research is based primarily on 27 semistructured interviews with audit partners (23) and managers (4) of large accounting firms. Drawing on key insights from institutional theory, we show that the tensions between inspectors and auditors reflect an intraprofessional tug‐of‐war between two competing but legitimate logics of professionalism. More specifically, our findings indicate that CPAB inspections have given rise to a mechanical logic of audit professionalism that is driven by the efforts of inspectors to promote a generalizable theoretical ideal of auditing that revolves around best practices and attention to technical minutiae. This mechanical logic competes with a clinical logic of audit professionalism that is driven by the efforts of audit partners and managers to promote a more relativistic, applied form of expert knowledge. To manage this dynamic of intra‐institutional complexity, quality experts (QEs) have emerged in firms' organizational structures as ambidextrous third parties—that is, professionals who master both logics and are capable of bridging the institutional divide by influencing the relationships between inspectors and auditors through a variety of brokering strategies. By considering inspectors as insiders rather than outsiders to the profession, we argue that auditors' claims of professional disempowerment should be interpreted carefully and critically. We also suggest that the professional autonomy and judgment of engagement partners and managers has been displaced significantly within firm boundaries into the hands of QEs. Our analysis offers a richer conceptualization of institutional ambidexterity by examining it as a relational process of social influence rather than as a set of individual characteristics.

We investigate whether hedge funds (HFs) undertake activism in the corporate bond market. Although there is a growing empirical literature investigating HF activism in the equity market, we know little about the role of HF activists in the corporate bond market. The empirical setting is the active enforcement of bondholders' rights during 2003–2007, triggered by issuers' violation of a standard bond covenant requiring timely financial reporting. Using HF holding data of convertible bonds in Form 13F filings, we identify HF interventions. The patterns of HF ownership suggest that HFs actively purchased convertible bonds to increase their ownership before the issuance of default notices. Relative to other interventions, HF interventions are more likely to target companies with higher levels of cash holdings but less likely to target companies with a greater amount of private debt outstanding. Furthermore, we find that HF interventions are associated with elevated bond trading frequency before late filing notifications and issuances of default notices, as well as a wealth transfer from stockholders and non‐intervening bondholders to intervening bondholders. Taken together, the empirical evidence demonstrates that HFs take actions to force the issuance of default notices in response to delay in financial reporting, suggesting that the primary objective of HF activism in this setting is to extract short‐term profit from bond issuers.

This study examines the usefulness of analysts' book value forecasts and the economic factors driving analysts' issuance of these forecasts. Guided by the real‐options‐based valuation model (ROM) of Zhang (2000), we explicitly link book value forecasts to the need for such information in valuation. We first establish that analysts' book value forecasts are superior to forecasts that are mechanically imputed from analysts' own earnings forecasts and those from random walk models and are incrementally informative beyond analysts' earnings, cash flow, and dividend forecasts. We then employ the ROM to explore the distinct information embedded in book value forecasts and analysts' decisions to issue these forecasts. Consistent with our expectations, we find that (i) book value forecasts convey growth information that is significantly correlated with ex ante indicators of real options, while analysts' earnings forecasts do not display this property; and (ii) analysts issue more book value forecasts when either growth options or, to a lesser extent, abandonment options are an important part of firm value. Our study sheds light on how analysts' book value forecasts are useful and under what circumstances analysts provide such information to meet investors' needs.

Collusion between managers who share private information represents a significant control concern for firms. Prior research suggests that mutual monitoring contracts that incentivize honest reporting do not prevent all collusion, making it important to understand how elements of the control environment may facilitate collusion, as well as how control choices—and collusion itself—affect subsequent behavior within the firm. Results of two experiments show that the frequency of collusion between managers in a repeated‐interaction setting is greatest when one can view the other's reports before making their own (“open internal reporting”) and slack obtained from misreporting is shared with a non‐reporting employee (“shared interest”). Moreover, although open (versus closed) internal reporting increases collusion in a single‐shot setting with or without a residual claimant to managers' budget reports being present, neither openness alone nor shared interest alone increases collusion in a repeated‐interaction setting. Results further suggest that collusion improves managers' perceptions of autonomy and group identification, resulting in greater cooperation on a subsequent task and potentially reducing the costs of some collusion to the extent such cooperation benefits the firm. Finally, open internal reporting worsens managers' perceptions of autonomy and group identification which, for managers who did not previously engage in collusion, leads to less cooperation on a subsequent task. In total, these results highlight to firms that the costs of collusion in repeated‐interaction settings frequently found in practice may be greatest when the common control choices of open internal reporting and shared interest are made in tandem, and that open internal reporting may carry another unintended cost in the form of lower cooperation on other tasks.