Employee contracts often allow for managerial discretion, such that the manager decides after observing an employee's performance how that employee will be rewarded or penalized. Importantly, the effects of such evaluation outcomes can extend beyond the employee(s) directly affected, because such outcomes can be observed by other employees within the firm. The net effect of such vicarious learning as an indirect control depends on the inferences employees make after observing a peer's evaluation outcome. In this study, we use an experiment to investigate whether the inferences observer-employees make about how managers evaluate and reward employee behavior depend on whether the valence of the observed outcome is positive or negative. Using the setting of a strategic performance measurement system, we test and find support for a causal model, in which the valence of the observed outcome influences observer-employees' inferences and subsequent behavioral focus via their psychological distance from, and their construal of, the observed outcome. Our results suggest that how observer-employees respond after observing a peer employee's evaluation outcome is asymmetric. Specifically, when contemplating their own behavior, employees who observe positive outcomes focus on the performance measures within the strategic performance measurement system, whereas those who observe negative outcomes focus on the underlying strategic construct.

This study investigates whether the timely revelation of bad earnings news is associated with a lower incidence of litigation. The timeliness of earnings news is captured by a new measure based on the evolution of the consensus analyst earnings forecast. Holding total bad earnings news and other determinants of litigation constant, we find that earlier revelation of bad earnings news lowers the likelihood of litigation. This result holds for both settled and dismissed lawsuits. Further, we reconcile our findings with prior work that measures timeliness using managerial warnings via press releases. These tests suggest our findings are attributable to the ability of our timeliness measure to capture bad earning news revealed through disclosure channels beyond press releases. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources identified in the paper.

We study the sources of high end-of-life spending for cancer patients. Even among patients with similar initial prognoses, spending in the year postdiagnosis is over twice as high for those who die within the year than those who survive. Elevated spending on decedents is predominantly driven by higher inpatient spending, particularly low-intensity admissions. However, most such admissions do not result in death, making it difficult to target spending reductions. Furthermore, end-of-life spending is substantially more elevated for younger patients, compared to older patients with similar prognoses. Results highlight sources of high end-of-life spending without revealing any natural “remedies.”

This paper provides a unique snapshot of the asset exposures of EU banks to shadow banking entities within the global financial system. Drawing on a rich and novel dataset, we show that 60% of the EU banks’ exposures are towards non-EU entities, particularly US-domiciled shadow banking entities. We assess the degree of concentration across different types of shadow banking counterparties. We show that while banks’ exposures are diversified at the individual level, this diversification leads to high overlap across different types of shadow banking entities, with consequent systemic risk. We also examine how bank- and country-level characteristics relate to the exposures of EU banks to shadow banking entities. Our results emphasise the importance of monitoring these cross-border and cross-sector exposures and closing remaining data gaps.

This paper discusses the role of process evidence in accounting research. We define process evidence broadly as data providing insight into how and why cause-effect relationships occur, and we provide a framework to guide the provision and evaluation of process evidence in accounting studies. Our definition allows for an expanded understanding of techniques for gathering process evidence. The framework highlights the importance of the study's goals and theory in choosing how to provide process evidence, as well as how much process evidence to provide. The paper also outlines the strengths and limitations of three approaches to providing process evidence: mediation, moderation, and multiple-study-based designs. We provide recommendations for best practices for each approach to minimize threats to validity and maximize the value of process evidence.