This paper presents additional evidence on the relation between the investment opportunity set and financing, dividend, and compensation policies. Our results are based on a sample of 237 growth firms and 237 nongrowth firms. We find that growth firms have significantly lower debt/equity ratios and exhibit significantly lower dividend yields than nongrowth firms. We also find that growth firms pay significantly higher levels of cash compensation to their executives and have a significantly higher incidence of stock option plans than nongrowth firms. However, controlling for firm size, the incidence of bonus plans, performance plans, and restricted stock plans does not differ between growth and nongrowth samples.

This study investigates the rote of alternative earnings components in the CEO cash compensation function. We find that cash compensation is significantly positively related to above the line earnings, as long as results are positive. Compensation is shielded from the effects of above the line losses. Similarly, nonrecurring transactions that increase income flow through to compensation, but nonrecurring losses do not. This effect is noted for gains and losses that arise both from extraordinary transactions, discontinued operations and nonrecurring items that do not qualify for below the line presentation. Thus, the data tell a remarkably consistent story: gains flow through to compensation, but losses do not. The classification of the gain or loss on the income statement is of relatively little importance.

Examines the stock market reaction to the adoption of long-term compensation agreements for top management that are based on accounting goals. Method of study; Reaction observed for the adopting firms due to the impending shareholders' meeting rather than to the performance plan adoption per se; Caution in the interpretation of announcements made around the time of the annual shareholders' meeting.

We extend Healy (1985) by examining the relation between discretionary accruals and bonus plan bounds for a sample of 102 firms for the 1980–1990 period. Contrary to Healy, we find that when earnings before discretionary accruals fall below the lower bound, managers select income-increasing discretionary accruals (and vice versa). We believe that our results are more consistent with the income smoothing hypothesis than with Healy's bonus hypothesis. However, mechanical selection bias in portfolio formation cannot be entirely ruled out as an alternative explanation for our results.

We analyze the loss-reserving practices of 562 insurance companies in 1993 to assess the relation between client influence and auditor oversight. Consistent with Petroni [1992. Management's response to the differential costs and benefits of optimistic reporting in the property-casualty insurance industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics 15, 485–508.], we find that financially struggling insurers tend to under-reserve. However, this behavior is attenuated when the weak insurer is important to the local practice office of the auditor. This result holds across various measures of client influence and supports the contention of Reynolds and Francis [2001. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting divisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 30, 375–400.] that auditors allow less accounting discretion to their larger clients.

We report that insurance firms manage loss reserves to avoid violating certain test ratio bounds (known as IRIS ratios) that are used by regulators for solvency assessment. In our sample, almost two-thirds of the firms that would violate four or more IRIS ratios successfully adjust reserves to reduce the reported number of violations to less than four. This finding is significant because four violations usually trigger regulatory intervention. Our results indicate that non-earnings goals are an important influence on discretionary accounting choice. They also suggest that reserve manipulation can postpone needed regulatory intervention, sometimes for an extended period.

This study investigates the extent to which property‐casualty insurers select levels of loss reserves, net capital gains, and net stock transactions to meet solvency and tax reporting goals. Insurer solvency is reflected in financial measures known as IRIS (Insurance Regulatory Information System) ratios. IRIS ratios are generally enhanced by underestimating loss reserves, accelerating the realization of capital gains, postponing the realization of capital losses, issuing stock, and cutting dividends. Taxable income is reduced by reporting higher reserves and lower net capital gains on investments. We use simultaneous equations to model the three discretionary choices individually, while controlling for potential tradeoffs among the decisions. During the sample period of the study (1990‐95), there is a shift in the regulatory environment that we argue tends to reduce incentives to meet IRIS goals. Specifically, risk‐based capital (RBC) requirements were adopted in 1994. Although IRIS ratios continued to be used for solvency screening, their effect is expected to be diluted in the post‐RBC period. Our results provide qualified support for this claim. Evidence of the phenomenon is stronger when the choice variables are net capital gains and stock transactions, and weaker when loss reserves are considered. Two of the three discretionary choices affect taxable income: loss reserves and capital gains. We find that tax incentives are significantly associated with the loss reserve estimate throughout the sample period. In contrast, our results are only weakly consistent with the view that capital gains are timed to achieve tax relief.

This paper examines the association between external monitoring and earnings management by property‐casualty insurers. We extend previous work by Petroni and Beasley (1996) by expanding the set of external monitors to include both auditors and actuaries. We investigate whether certain auditor‐actuary pairs are associated with less understatement of the loss reserve account by financially struggling insurers. Our data consist of loss adjustments reported by 465 property‐casualty insurers for reserves established in 1993. The results indicate that under‐reserving by weak insurers is essentially eliminated when the firm uses auditors and actuaries that are both from Big Six accounting firms. In contrast, non‐Big Six actuaries have less impact on under‐reserving by weak insurers. Our results suggest that the quality usually associated with Big Six auditors falls when the audit firm relies on third party actuaries to evaluate the loss reserve estimates of struggling insurance clients. We conjecture that Big Six actuaries insist on more conservative loss reserve levels because, compared to actuarial consulting firms, they are more attuned to the liability exposure of the auditor.

We argue that the association between auditor industry specialization and audit quality depends on how long the auditor has been a specialist. We measure audit quality using absolute discretionary accruals, income-increasing discretionary accruals, and book-tax differences. Our results, based on a sample of Big 4 audit clients from 2003–2015, indicate that auditors who have only recently gained the specialist designation produce a level of audit quality that does not surpass that produced by non-specialist auditors, and is generally lower than the audit quality produced by seasoned specialists. We estimate that the seasoning process takes two to three years. In contrast to prior research that finds no effect of specialization after propensity score matching, we find that seasoned specialists generally produce higher-quality audits than other auditors even after matching. This suggests that the audit quality effect associated with seasoned industry specialist auditors is not due to differences in client characteristics. JEL Classifications: M42. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources identified in the text.