We examine the association between chief executive officer (CEO) reputation (proxied by the extent of press coverage) and the quality of the firm's earnings (proxied by two accruals-based measures). We test three explanations for an association between these constructs: the efficient contracting hypothesis suggests that reputed CEOs are associated with good earnings quality, while the rent extraction and matching explanations argue that reputed CEOs are associated with poor earnings quality. Using a simultaneous equations system to capture the endogeneity of the constructs, we find (consistent with the rent extraction and matching arguments) that more reputed CEOs are associated with poorer earnings quality than are less reputed CEOs. Further tests find little support for the rent extraction hypothesis. We conclude that the reason more reputed CEOs are associated with poor earnings quality firms is that such firms require more talented managers and, therefore, employ more reputed CEOs. © CAAA.

This study examines whether and when credit ratings are useful for accounting fraud prediction. We find that negative rating actions by Standard & Poor’s (S&P), an issuer-paid credit rating agency (CRA), have predictive ability for fraud incremental to fraud prediction models (e.g., F-score) and other market participants. In contrast, rating actions by Egan-Jones Rating Company (EJR), an investor-paid CRA relying on public information, have less predictive ability, which is subsumed by S&P and other market participants. Our results are robust to including firms not covered by EJR, using only rating downgrades, controlling for firm characteristics, and using alternative benchmarks. We also find that the ability of negative S&P rating actions to predict fraud becomes stronger after the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Last, compared with EJR, S&P is quicker to take negative rating actions against fraud firms. In sum, our results suggest that issuer-paid CRAs’ information advantage helps predict accounting fraud. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

We investigate whether judges’ political ideology affects corporate tax behaviors. We find that firms engaging in less aggressive tax planning when Circuit Court judges are more liberal. Cross-sectionally, the deterrent effect of liberal judge ideology is more pronounced for firms that engage in judiciary-sensitive tax strategies, face higher enforcement risk from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or have larger reputational costs from tax disputes. Our findings further suggest that liberal judge ideology reduces firms’ R&D investments and market value by constraining tax planning. Overall, our evidence highlights the importance of judge ideology for firm behavior in the context of corporate tax planning.