Knowledge that Transforms

While prior accounting research documents normalizing strategies within the accounting profession and in instances of accounting adoption, the potential of accounting itself as a strategic tool toward normalizing that which is considered socially abnormal (i.e., dirty) remains an important and unexamined area of inquiry. In this study, we conduct in‐depth interviews to examine the role accounting plays in the development of the US cannabis industry (CI) as it transitions from the illicit market in which formal accounting was systematically avoided to a state‐legal market in which participants are subject to conventional business processes. Facing impediments to traditional operating practices and pressures to increase normative conformity for industry survival, cannabis operators (COs) incorporated the use of accounting in three normalizing strategies (creative concession, collaborative facilitation, and experimentation), seemingly influenced by the incongruencies between prior illicit‐market culture and experiences and the state‐legal operating environment. In response to what operators perceived to be coercive regulation, they employed creative concession strategies, including influencing, bargaining, challenging, escaping, and cessation tactics. However, in response to pressures to adopt more commonly accepted forms of accounting, COs instead deployed two different strategies, one focused on acquiescence to normalizing pressures when doing so facilitated essential relationship building (i.e., collaborative facilitation strategies), and one deployed as strategic experimentation, working to normalize industry activities in areas of perceived threats to industry acceptance and continuity. Given CO accounting naiveté, its usefulness was often introduced by peripheral industry parties attempting to normalize their own participation with the CI. Notably, we also find that normalizing pressures occasionally resulted in unintended consequences, including reversion to the illicit market and forgoing normalizing strategies in favor of retaining some level of dirtiness to fend off pending competition, both of which threaten to reemphasize the industry's dirtiness. Our study, therefore, points to accounting itself as a central mechanism in the complex, multidirectional strategy to normalize transitional dirtiness.

Prior earnings management research often focuses on specific accounts or on estimations of discretionary accruals but provides only limited insight into the methods firms actually use to manage earnings. In order to begin exploration of some of the operational details regarding how earnings are managed, we investigate whether firms time their decisions to make changes in accounting estimates (CAEs) in consideration of their earnings benchmarks. Using CAE data across all accounts from 2006 to 2018, we find that 28.1% of income‐increasing CAEs are implemented in quarters where pre‐CAE earnings are below a forecasted earnings benchmark but inclusion of the CAE effectively allows the firm to meet the benchmark. We find that income‐increasing CAEs are more likely implemented when a firm's pre‐CAE earnings are further below the benchmark. We also find that firms are more likely to implement income‐decreasing CAEs under two scenarios: (i) when pre‐CAE earnings are relatively high, as a way either to smooth earnings or to “bury bad news,” and (ii) when pre‐CAE earnings are already low, as a way to take a financial “big bath” and position the firm for positive future earnings. In addition, we present evidence that firms using CAEs to achieve an earnings benchmark face financial consequences in terms of poorer immediate stock price performance and subsequent return on assets. Our conclusions hold after performing several additional analyses, including consideration of other discretionary options, addressing endogeneity concerns, and conducting falsification tests. In sum, we contribute to the earnings management literature by presenting consistent evidence that firms appear to time CAEs to meet earnings benchmarks or achieve other reporting objectives.

This study examines how organized labor affects selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) cost behavior. Human capital is emerging as firms' most valuable asset, and we further the understanding of the interaction between employees and SG&A cost behavior. We predict and find that labor cost stickiness is higher for firms facing stronger unions, but the stickiness of SG&A costs is lower. This is consistent with our arguments that in firms with stronger unions, managers' discretionary decision to retain SG&A resources is negatively affected by higher labor adjustment costs that result in the retention of slack labor resources during periods of decreased demand. To assess the robustness of our main findings, we conduct an event analysis of labor union elections and find that SG&A cost stickiness decreases after firms experience new union certification. Cross‐sectional tests also show that the effect of labor union strength on SG&A cost stickiness is more pronounced for firms that are in better financial condition, have higher analyst coverage, and have higher net operating assets. We find a similar effect of union strength on discretionary spending when examining R&D costs. Overall, we contribute to the literature by showing that organized labor has a significant effect on cost behavior, which has implications for financial statement users and financial forecasting.

We examine the effects of corporate networks involving common directors and auditors (i.e., connections creating single or double ties between companies) on two important monitoring roles: financial reporting quality and auditor dismissal decisions. We also investigate how shocks to the networks, in the form of the audit failing to detect misstatements, affect these networks' structure. The investigations are important because these networks can have significant effects on firm governance and may have different effects when they overlap. We have three primary findings about double‐tie networks: (i) there is no evidence that they improve overall financial reporting quality beyond the effect of single‐tie networks; (ii) they lower directors' willingness to dismiss the auditor, even when there is a signal of an audit failure within the network; and (iii) they allow audit‐quality problems to spread between companies. Our results demonstrate the importance of investigating multiple types of networks and how shocks travel through them. Our findings also lend credence to concerns that “cozy” relationships between directors and auditors diminish the link between poor audit quality and market‐imposed reputation penalties—specifically, auditor dismissals.

We investigate variation in information production by sell‐side analysts and its potential role in hedge fund activist intervention, an important external corporate governance mechanism that creates shareholder value. Using textual analysis to derive an activism dictionary from intervention objectives and tactics, we find substantially more activism content in pre‐intervention analyst reports of target firms than propensity score matched control firms. Activism content is associated with more detailed reports containing more quantitative information. Target firm intervention‐date stock returns are significantly higher when activist intention (13D) filings are supported by reports with more general and objective‐specific activism content. Of activists' public letters to stakeholders, 31.9% directly mention sell‐side analysis, amplifying the association between target returns and analyst report information. The relationship between analyst information and activism returns is robust to using brokerage closures as an exogenous shock and is consistent with analyst incentives. Activist funds with no prior disclosed position in target firms and more experienced funds capture higher returns from sell‐side information. Overall, our results suggest sell‐side analysts play a significant informational role in supporting hedge fund activism.

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) are government‐owned institutional investors pursuing political and financial investment objectives. With $8 trillion in assets, SWFs are geopolitical powerbrokers actively participating in global capital markets, yet we know little about the financial reporting consequences of SWF investment. I document evidence supporting the hypothesis that the simultaneous pursuit of political and financial investment objectives renders SWFs weak monitors. Using a staggered difference‐in‐differences research design, I document economically significant increases in discretionary accruals for SWF target firms after SWF investment, relative to an entropy‐balanced control group of non‐SWF target firms. Corroborating tests document that the effect of SWF investment on discretionary accruals strengthens with SWFs' equity stake and SWF target firms' earnings management incentives and weakens when regulators curb SWFs' pursuit of political objectives. I highlight SWFs' distinct monitoring effect by replicating my analyses after replacing SWF investment with conventional institutional investment, and document that conventional institutional investment instead reduces discretionary accruals. I further corroborate SWFs' distinct monitoring role among conventional institutional investors using a wide variety of robustness tests employing alternate specifications, samples, and financial reporting proxies. Overall, this study introduces an economically important and fundamentally distinct but little‐studied institutional investor to the accounting literature.

The ability to develop bots to automate tasks and processes using robotic process automation (RPA) is receiving significant attention in accounting. Auditors often struggle to know what tasks to automate and how to prioritize bot development. Drawing upon socio‐technical systems (STS) theory and using a design science methodology, we develop and validate a three‐step evaluation framework to assist auditors as they decide what activities to automate. We validate this framework using interviews, surveys of experienced internal and external auditors, and two case studies. By developing and validating our framework through the lens of STS theory, we also provide several insights that help explain the mixed findings in prior research regarding the effectiveness and adoption of emerging technologies in audit. The implications of our study yield many opportunities for future research in the areas of RPA and emerging technologies in audit.

This study examines whether credit default swap (CDS) trading initiation can serve as a disciplining mechanism for leading credit rating agencies. Specifically, we investigate whether rating agencies improve their rating quality when an alternative source of credit risk information from CDS threatens to expose inaccuracies in their ratings. Understanding potential drivers of credit rating quality is important given the prominence of credit rating agencies as debt market gatekeepers and perceptions that the agencies have underperformed in providing high‐quality credit risk assessments in recent decades. We hypothesize and find that the initiation of CDS trading improves the accuracy of issuer‐paid credit ratings. This evidence is robust to a number of sensitivity tests including alternative ways of measuring rating accuracy and correction for selection bias. We also find that the timeliness of credit ratings, watch list, and outlook placements improves post‐initiation—particularly for negative shocks to credit risk. This study contributes to the credit rating literature by documenting that CDS trading can help discipline rating agencies. It also contributes to the literature studying the implications of the CDS market.

This study examines the effect of regulatory approval on a firm's voluntary product‐level disclosures. We focus on the US biotechnology industry, a setting that allows direct observation of whether firms disclose more information as products proceed through well‐defined—though successively more complex and costly—regulatory hurdles. Consistent with predictions motivated by biotech firms' need to repeatedly raise capital, we find that firms disclose more as their products move to later stages in the development process, both when the products receive regulatory approvals as well as when they receive regulatory denials. In addition, these findings are consistent across phases of development as well as product disclosure categories and are accentuated for firms without internal sources of capital (i.e., lacking product revenue). Collectively, these findings reveal that biotechnology firms respond to the considerable incentives to provide enhanced product disclosure and thus facilitate their ongoing need for capital to proceed through subsequent stages of product development.

After restating their financial statements, companies may voluntarily restate their previously issued internal control (IC) reports for the financial statement (FS) misstatement periods, changing them from “effective” to “ineffective.” This paper examines the determinants and consequences of IC restatements, which have been of concern to financial statement users. When announcing these IC restatements, companies often provide a detailed explanation of the IC problems and a discussion of their plans to remediate these problems. We find that companies with less severe IC problems that can be remediated more quickly are more likely to restate their IC reports. Moreover, these results are driven by companies with a higher need for external financing, suggesting that IC restaters voluntarily restate their IC reports in order to inform investors about their less severe IC material weaknesses and their plans to improve IC quality. Finally, we find that, relative to other FS restatement companies, IC restaters have a lower likelihood of CFO turnover and auditor resignation following the FS restatement. Taken together, our results suggest that voluntary IC restatements are used by IC restaters as a means to separate themselves from other FS restatement companies with more severe control problems and slower remediation plans. Our findings also indicate that studies investigating IC quality and related disclosures need to distinguish between IC restaters and other FS restatement companies because of the different characteristics and consequences between the two groups.