The paper by Bertomeu and Magee (this issue) endogenizes accounting regulation by a majority-seeking regulator and examines how the economic cycle affects mandatory reporting quality. This discussion puts the paper in the broader context of a theory of accounting regulation. Then, it focuses on crucial assumptions, including the exogenous evolution of the economy, the role of market frictions, the modeling of reporting quality, and the regulatory process and regulatory cycles, and provides suggestions for future research.

This paper analyzes voluntary disclosure strategies of a privately informed firm when the information is relevant for the market price of the firm and also for an opponent. Favorable information increases the market price but might induce the opponent to take a discrete action that imposes proprietary costs on the firm. It is shown that there is always a full-disclosure equilibrium. There can exist partial-disclosure equilibria with two nondisclosure intervals. Comparative statics show some counter-intuitive results, e.g., higher proprietary costs or higher risk of an adverse action can make disclosure of favorable information more or less likely.

We study the optimal accounting policy of a financially constrained firm that pledges assets to raise debt capital for financing a risky project. The accounting system provides information about the value of the collateral. Absent accounting regulation, the optimal accounting system is conditionally conservative: it recognizes an impairment loss if the asset value is below a certain threshold, but never reports unrealized gains. We describe the optimal impairment rule and the optimal precision of the accounting information, and we provide comparative static results that lead to testable predictions on the determinants of impairment rules.

A widely held assumption in policy making and empirical research is that increasing the strength of public enforcement improves financial reporting quality and audit quality. This paper provides a more nuanced view. In a model with a manager who can manage earnings, a strategic auditor, and an enforcement institution, we show that enforcement and auditing are complements in a weak enforcement regime but can be substitutes in a strong regime. Although stronger enforcement always mitigates earnings management, the effects of different instruments of strengthening enforcement are ambiguous. We show that they can improve or impair financial reporting quality and audit quality, depending on production risk, accounting system characteristics, and the scope of auditing relative to enforcement.

This paper studies strategic interactions between public and private enforcement of accounting regulation and their consequences for the deterrence of financial misreporting. We develop an economic model with a manager, a public enforcement agency, and an investor and derive equilibrium strategies for manipulative effort, routine investigative effort, and costly private litigation. Our main results are as follows. (i) Strengthening private enforcement unambiguously enhances deterrence, whereas strengthening public enforcement can exacerbate misreporting, due to a crowding out of private enforcement. We provide conditions under which (ii) the enforcer's investigation incentives first increase and then decrease in the strength of private enforcement, (iii) public and private enforcement are strategic substitutes, (iv) the number of enforcement actions is misleading about public enforcement effectiveness, and (v) strengthening private enforcement decreases litigation risk. We also discuss implications of our results for empirical research.

This paper examines the usual claim that tighter accounting standards reduce earnings management and provide more relevant information to the capital market. We distinguish between accounting and real earnings management and assume that a standard setter can only influence accounting earnings management by the tightness of standards. In a rational expectations equilibrium model, we find that earnings quality increases with tighter standards, but we identify several consequences that may outweigh this benefit. First, managers increase costly real earnings management because the higher earnings quality increases the marginal benefit of real earnings management. Second, tighter standards can increase rather than decrease expected accounting and total earnings management. Third, the expected total costs of earnings management can also increase. We provide conditions for the occurrence of each of these effects.

We examine whether the design of a firm’s internal management accounting system is associated with GAAP earnings management. We exploit the fact that ASC 280 mandates a “management approach” requiring multisegment firms to disclose their segment earnings as defined internally by their management accounting system. We posit that the less these segment earnings are decoupled from GAAP earnings, the higher are the costs of earnings management because earnings management spills over to segment earnings and distorts information used for internal decision-making. Thus, we predict that firms with more decoupled segment earnings engage in more earnings management. Using a large sample of U.S. firms from 1998 to 2020, we find support for this prediction. We also find that the decision usefulness of segment earnings for segment investment purposes decreases as earnings management increases, with this association being more pronounced for firms with less decoupled segment earnings measures. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.